do my ethics homework

The New York Times

The learning network | do the right thing: making ethical decisions in everyday life.

Do The Right Thing: Making Ethical Decisions in Everyday Life

Teaching ideas based on New York Times content.

• See all in Civics »
• See all lesson plans »

Overview | Something happens — a moment of injustice, a threat to the nation, a potentially criminal act. Why do some people speak out or take action, while others remain silent? And how can we encourage more people to recognize the moment when bravery is required?

In this lesson, we explore ethical dilemmas that face normal people around the world, in all walks of life. Some of their cases are familiar, while others are obscure. But they hold one thing in common: They feature individuals who followed the guidance of their own moral code, often risking personal injury or community censure to do so. We’ll ask students to examine the underlying characteristics of such episodes, and consider whether some acts are more deserving of support than others.

Warm-Up | You may wish to begin by tapping into students’ existing experiences and beliefs. Ask students to jot down some examples of people who spoke out against injustice, took a lone public stand, intervened during an emergency or controversy, or failed to do so. You can also ask if they themselves have ever stood up for what’s right, even in a difficult situation. Pick a few particularly compelling examples and ask students, as a class, to suggest what motivated each individual’s actions and speculate on the thoughts that went through that person’s mind at the crucial moment. Then, by a show of hands, ask students whether they approve or disapprove of the action that was taken in each case.

Related | In the story “The Whistle-Blower’s Quandary,” researchers at Northwestern University and Boston College studied people’s reactions to a variety of ethical dilemmas.

Imagine you’re thinking about blowing the whistle on your employer. As the impassioned responses to the actions of whistle-blowers like Edward J. Snowden have reminded us, you face a moral quandary: Is reporting misdeeds an act of heroism or betrayal?… In one study, we asked a group of 74 research participants to write a paragraph about an occasion when they witnessed unethical behavior and reported it (and why), and we asked another group, of 61 participants, to write about an occasion when they witnessed unethical behavior and kept their mouths shut. We found that the whistle-blowers used 10 times as many terms related to fairness and justice, whereas non-whistle-blowers used twice as many terms related to loyalty.

Read or summarize the entire article with your class. You may wish to introduce students to the following words or concepts before reading: whistle-blower, social psychology, moral quandary, unethical behavior, government contractor.

Questions | For reading comprehension and discussion:

• Why might people disagree over whether whistle-blowing is a positive thing to do?
• Why would a social psychologist find it useful to survey people on their reactions to unethical behavior, and then study their responses?
• How might the values of fairness and loyalty come into conflict over a decision involving a workplace promotion, or a decision about whether to disclose sensitive documents to the public?
• Can people’s preference for fairness or loyalty, by themselves, predict whistle-blowing? Why or why not?
• How do the researchers suggest that people who value loyalty might be persuaded to support whistle-blowing activity?

Ethical Contexts | Ways to Use This Content

For the stories below, teachers may wish to assign students or groups to a particular issue and ask them to report back to the class on how the issues of whistle-blowing, speaking out or taking action play out in that particular place or situation. How do we evaluate someone who speaks out against a perceived injustice, or takes action while others stand by and watch? What factors determine whether we view the lone individual who takes action as a hero or a renegade?

Students may also choose their own issue, or search through a range of topics to find similarities and differences. What makes each situation different, and does the context influence our opinion of the person who takes a stand? For additional teaching ideas for how to use the resources included below, go to the bottom of this post.

1. In Your Neighborhood

Sometimes the toughest situations occur close to home. A man falls on the subway tracks . A woman is groped by a stranger on the way to work. Employees say they’re being mistreated in the local bakery . A man wonders whether he should help an overburdened fellow subway passenger (in a video from Facing History and Ourselves).

Consider this Room for Debate feature on bystanders . Then decide what makes each of the situations above unique; whether some individuals are more likely than others to receive help from a stranger; and what factors might make a person more likely to step forward and get involved.

2. At School

All students will encounter bullying or other forms of antisocial behavior at some point in their education. But what should be done about it? Peer pressure can be fierce, and research shows many people can be coerced into doing the wrong thing or keeping quiet. Researchers from Williams College say that schools must teach students to speak up . And sometimes, as in this article from the Guardian about a brave teacher from Iran, the adults can lead the way . What are the lessons for your school?

A Long Ride Toward a New China

Every summer, the blogger “Tiger Temple” bikes around China to report on rural news stories censored by state-run media.

3. In a Foreign Country

In China, the blogger “Tiger Temple” films and writes about government corruption and incompetence , even though he’s been arrested for doing so in the past. The police have harassed him and blocked many of his blogs, but he keeps going, and many of his sources risk arrest by speaking to him. In Myanmar, villagers have faced similar risks to protest government-backed construction or mining projects that endanger their farmland . In Moscow, a writer decides it’s too dangerous to join further antigovernment protests with her children.

Compare and contrast these examples of dissent. Would you describe these people as heroic, foolish, wise or traitorous for their activities?

4. In Your Own Country

Dissent happens in America, too. Do we view it as less heroic when it’s our own government being challenged?

Take Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency employee who leaked classified government documents. Some observers, like the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, say he doesn’t deserve the title of whistle-blower because his actions endangered reasonable government efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Readers seem divided on the question, while some observers say it’s government lawbreaking that should be challenged.

Take notes on the arguments for and against Mr. Snowden’s actions, paying close attention to the language being used in each case. What are the values — like loyalty or fairness — that each side emphasizes?

5. On the Sports Field

In 1968, two members of the United States Olympic Team were suspended for raising their arms in a black-power salute in support of civil rights during their medal ceremony in Mexico. In 2014, the French soccer player Nicolas Anelka was barred from five matches after making a quenelle gesture, which many consider anti-Semitic and inspired by hate speech , prompting an uproar among French athletes in both Europe and America.

Analyze the two situations, both of which involve athletes making gestures with broader social meaning. What are the factors that have prompted many people to regard the 1968 athletes as heroes , while Anelka is widely condemned for his actions in 2014?

Pretend you work for a professional sports league, and the commissioner has just assigned you to develop guidelines for permissible gestures by the league’s athletes. How can you balance athletes’ freedom of speech — their right to speak out on issues they view as important — with the need to prevent actions that might be interpreted as derogatory or hateful? Should privately-owned sports teams or leagues get involved in such issues?

6. In the Workplace

What prompts some employees to speak out when they see wrongdoing at their company or workplace, while others remain silent? Read this story about corporate whistle-blowers , paying attention to the types of problems that get reported most frequently. Then read this commentary , which includes a discussion on the “fundamental rules of corporate life”:

• You never go around your boss.
• You tell your boss what he wants to hear, even when your boss claims that he wants dissenting views.
• If your boss wants something dropped, you drop it.
• You are sensitive to your boss’s wishes so that you anticipate what he wants; you don’t force him, in other words, to act as a boss.
• Your job is not to report something that your boss does not want reported, but rather to cover it up. You do your job and you keep your mouth shut.

Ask your parents or other adults about the culture in their workplace. Is dissent or speaking out about problems encouraged or discouraged? And what can be done to encourage people to speak up for the right reasons, i.e., to help the organization to improve and better fulfill its mission?

7. In Politics

Ilya V. Ponomarev and Representative Dana Rohrabacher have something in common.

The two lawmakers — one from Russia’s lower house of Parliament, the other from the United States House of Representatives — both defend the unpopular view on Russia’s invasion of Crimea. Mr. Ponomarev is against it , while Mr. Rohrabacher is all for it , putting each one in opposition to the vast majority of his colleagues in each house. Neither one has been at all shy about speaking out, even though he is speaking in nearly complete isolation from fellow lawmakers.

Read their statements in the two articles. Then construct an imaginary dialogue between the two legislators, in which they discuss the invasion and other issues. Do you think they would find any common ground as fellow “lone wolves” — brave, independent voices of dissent — even though their positions on the invasion of Crimea are at odds?

8. On the College Campus

College administrators have gone to great lengths to find ways to decrease dangerous behavior on their campuses, like sexual assaults, that are often influenced by binge drinking. But sometimes, as in this Guardian article about Oxford University, students take the lead in combating problems like racial prejudice. What do you think? Are students part of the problem or part of the solution when it comes to fighting dangerous or undesirable activities on college campuses?

9. In the Laboratory

People don’t necessarily think of scientists as being particularly brave. But their work sometimes leads to tough dilemmas, and some do better than others at making the right calls. One climate researcher says scientists in his field can no longer remain on the sidelines as dispassionate bystanders . And you might be surprised how many other scientists have found it within themselves to speak out. Ask students to find a scientist or researcher who blew the whistle and make a short presentation to the class on the situation that prompted that person to act.

Going Further

Should whistle-blowers be supported? Research other whistle-blowing cases in The New York Times or the National Whistleblowers Center in which employees or government officials spoke out based upon their personal beliefs. Then decide: Should the government make it easier or harder for employees to speak up?

Does the system need fixing? Read this essay by Peter Ludlow, a philosopher at Northwestern University, that considers whether people must occasionally take action to address “systemic evil” in organizations or whole societies. Do you agree with his assertion that young people are particularly well attuned to such issues?

Can dissenters protest in constructive ways, without harming their societies? Read this Room for Debate feature in which experienced activists talk about what makes protest effective . Do their motives seem positive or threatening to the systems that they are challenging? Pick one or several activists whose messages seem particularly useful, and consider how their opponents might respond to their statements. Then use their ideas to design a strategy for confronting a completely different social problem.

This resource may be used to address the academic standards listed below.

Common Core E.L.A. Anchor Standards

1   Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

8   Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice

9   Understands the importance of Americans sharing and supporting certain values, beliefs, and principles of American constitutional democracy.

10   Understands the roles of voluntarism and organized groups in American social and political life.

11   Understands the role of diversity in American life and the importance of shared values, political beliefs, and civic beliefs in an increasingly diverse American society.

13   Understands the character of American political and social conflict and factors that tend to prevent or lower its intensity.

14   Understands issues concerning the disparities between ideals and reality in American political and social life.

27   Understands how certain character traits enhance citizens' ability to fulfill personal and civic responsibilities.

28   Understands how participation in civic and political life can help citizens attain individual and public goals.

29   Understands the importance of political leadership, public service, and a knowledgeable citizenry in American constitutional democracy.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Interesting to cite Peter Ludlow. //www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/northwestern-investigation-corrective-actions-professor-peter-ludlow/Content?oid=12796485

Much appreciated. Looking forward to working with the material next week. Good mix of topics to work with.

The article should be updated to include references to all five of Jonathan Haidt’s categories of moral psychology.

I have a hard time understanding why someone would not intervene to help someone else in their time of need. I could never just stand around and watch another person be hurt and treated unfairly when I could stop it. If it were you that was being mistreated, you would hope someone else would step in for you. I expect more people to start standing up for others whether they know them or not.

There are people who are very brave to take action or speak out on a certain event they feel they need to speak out for. Then there are others that do remain silent for probably many reasons, or others can remain silent and speak their minds out at moments they may choose to. Everyone is different when it comes to speaking out on your decisions or others in life and it is a very risky thing to do. It is a very brave thing to do, to be able to do the right thing in life or decisions but at the same time it is a dangerous situation to do. When someone does try to make a difference in this world, there will always be someone who will not like the message you are trying to announce towards the event. It may be hate by the actions or just too simply disagree. There are problems when the issue will become violent and it does not need to be the easiest way is to make the choice the right way not the wrong way. For example, a student can do the right thing by speaking there mind out for bullying or a someone wanting to help those in need. Some people get punished for even doing the right thing but others who disagree with that certain person will think of it as a wrong thing and will want it stopped. The reason for them getting in trouble is because they will not want a scene of disapproval towards the event. People who do the right thing are not all bad people but want to speak their minds out of anything they may have a problem with and think it is wrong. The people who stay silent are also not bad people they just choose not to respond to it and it is there decision to not be involved. The main thing is doing the right thing is good and bad at the same time but it is also a very brave thing to do with or without the danger in it.

Corruption and injustice will always roam the world we live on today and forever on. The cause that started this plaque from the start of time was us humans. The reason injustice is committed because the person who performs it will be benefitting from others who are affected by the persons injustice. Corruption is the source that is seen or heard all over the world, people say a school is a safe place but there are times when a teacher takes advantage of his or her authority to punish or even abuse sexually a child at will and that injustice will not be reported. A hero is needed in much situations of injustice; and when the term hero is said most people think of super man or wonder woman, heroes are people who serve their community and protect it from corrupted people, a hero in our society would be a judge or police officer, even a priest. Besides the people of authority the brave heroes without a badge or gown can be any common citizen who speaks out of action to any injustice the person sees, that persons opinion might be the catalyst to a revolutionary change to eliminate all corrupted scum within our organizations, school systems, or even the church itself. That one person can prevent a raping to start or the theft of tax dollars going to politicians pockets and so on. I believe if we are all equal no corrupted acts will be made, if we receive the same health care and drive the same car, no one will find the need to steal or blackmail others. Every one will be working together creating a perfect environment.

What's Next

2.95J, TPP09J Homework

Unit 1: orientation: professional responsibility and common problems.

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

What Students Gain From Learning Ethics in School

Please try again

When Sophie Huttner was 16 years old, she labored over an ethical dilemma. Her small class at Kent Place School in New Jersey was discussing a case study that concerned a woman who was thinking of leaving her disabled husband; caring for his injuries was devouring the woman’s every moment, and the couple’s affection for each other had fizzled. Was it ethically wrong for her to leave him?

“The case made me realize that the value I placed on individual autonomy would often conflict with other values that I also thought important, like loyalty and integrity,” Huttner said. At the time, she was involved in her first serious relationship, and the case and ensuing discussion touched on the very questions she was mulling in her personal life.

“When you give kids and teenagers the space to explore ethical dilemmas, this can be very powerful for students,” said Jana M. Lone, director of the Center for Philosophy for Children at the University of Washington, which brings introductory philosophy to schoolkids in the Seattle area. Central to ethics education is teaching kids the skills to make sound decisions: to search for and evaluate their assumptions, to excavate the reasons behind those assumptions, to examine without prejudice another’s opinion and to make a thoughtful decision with confidence.

“There’s more hunger for this kind of training now,” Lone said. “The most recent political polarization, the shifting news cycle—which makes us less engaged with people who think differently—has made it more imperative,” she added. Kids, too, sense the ugly divisions in society. “Teenagers and kids recognize that they live in a fractured world, and it’s troubling to them,” Lone said.

Though sought after, ethics classes are largely absent from schools. Also, teachers’ freedom to migrate into wide-ranging conversations that might veer into ethics have been curbed by standardized testing and curriculum requirements. This is despite research that shows teenagers’ ability to make ethical decisions—to see problems from multiple view points, and to consider the potential harm to others that a decision can cause—is underdeveloped. In the most recent survey of teenage ethics done by the Josephson Institute, for example, just 49% percent of the 23,000 teenagers surveyed reported never cheating on a test in school. A 2014 analysis by the Making Caring Common Project at Harvard University found that a majority of teenagers value happiness and personal success more than concern for others.

Teaching ethics to children and teenagers

The Ethics Institute* at Kent Place School is devoted solely to teaching ethics to primary and secondary school students, said Karen Rezach, the institute’s director. “There are so many ethics institutes at the university level, but none at our level,” she said. Like Lone, Rezach thinks kids and teenagers long for ethical guidance. “We’re trying to teach them how to exist in this world,” she said.

Children at Kent Place are introduced to ethics in fifth grade, during what would otherwise be a health and wellness class. Rezach engages the students in simple case studies and invites them to consider the various points of view. She also acquaints them with the concept of right vs. right—the idea that ethical dilemmas often involve a contest between valid but conflicting values. “It’s really, really, really elementary,” she said.

In middle and upper school, the training is more structured and challenging. At the core of this education is a simple framework for ethical decision-making that Rezach underscores with all her classes, and which is captured on a poster board inside school. Paired with this framework is a collection of values that students are encouraged to study and explore. The values and framework for decision-making are the foundation of their ethics training.

Once a month, all middle school students grapple with an ethics case study during advisory that’s been written for their grade. Sixth-graders, for example, wrestled with a case about “Emma”, who wasn’t invited to Jane’s party but who saw pictures of the festivities on Instagram. The students then discussed various questions: How might Emma feel when she sees the Instagram photo? What is Jane’s responsibility in this case? What values influence the way you think about this scenario? Though the case studies reflect real-life problems the kids have encountered, the stories are told in the third person, which frees them to talk openly, Rezach said.

Two elective courses on ethics for seventh- and eighth-graders explore deeper quandaries while pressing students to understand the values reflected in those views. In one case study they discussed, “Allison” enters a coffee shop wearing a T-shirt with a swastika, which clearly offends other customers. What should the manager do? How does one balance the right to freedom of expression with the rights of the community? “In this situation, as in all ethical dilemmas, the students have to weigh the benefit and the harm,” Rezach said. She draws connections to books they’re reading in English class, brings up related news stories, and asks students to think of and share ethical quandaries they’ve encountered.

For homework, students study critical historical documents, like the Constitution and Bible, and identify the values that suffuse the work. In another assignment, they prepare a two-minute oral presentation on a principle that matters deeply to them. Some will read a poem, or sing a song, or produce a video that reflects that value. Once the presentations end, Rezach pairs up students with conflicting ideals—compassion versus justice, for example—and asks them to write a case study together.

High school students interested in ethics have other ways to learn. Fourteen kids meet weekly after school on an ethics bowl team, which competes nationally against other schools. In bioethics class, an elective, students explore a particular ethical problem related to a single theme—such as “Environment and Health,” this year’s subject—then present and defend their position at a spring symposium. The ethics club is launching an Instagram account, @ethicseverywhere , which will pose an idea or dilemma for all student followers to reflect on. And during the summer, students can apply for shorter programs, one on the ethical issues surrounding science and technology and the other on ethics in business.

Impact on students

Research suggests that ethics training improves academic performance. Children in Scotland who had been taught to think about ethical decision-making and the responsibilities of citizenship showed improved reasoning abilities. A study in Australia showed that young students who took part in a class on “dialogue-based ethical inquiry” were better able to evaluate and construct reasoned, ethical arguments. Standardized test scores for children who studied “collaborative philosophical enquiry”—a variant of ethics training— went up in verbal, nonverbal, and quantitative reasoning. And a small study conducted by researchers at Penn State revealed that even preschoolers can engage with and learn from simple ethical instruction.

Academic benefits aside, students at Kent Place involved in ethics training relish the open-ended conversations with peers along with the chance to reflect on what matters to them. “I love discussing these things with other people, and hearing other points of view, especially on controversial topics,” said Alexandra Grushkin, an eighth-grader. The value she selected that’s most dear to her is integrity. “I believe you’re a good person if you have integrity,” she explained. In her class presentation, she shared a quote by author Lynne Namka that reflected this value. Alexandra was matched with a student who chose loyalty, and the two crafted a case study that captured the tension between these principles: What does a student do when she spots her close friend cheating in a school competition?

Encouraged at home to listen to others’ opinions, Alexandra said that she’s better able now to understand the ideals that undergird beliefs and to articulate her own positions. “It has changed the way I approach conflict—and most things, actually,” she said. “With ethics, I’ve learned that there are a lot of different sides to everything.” What Alexandra’s mother, Trisha, welcomes in this training is the open-mindedness it provokes, as well as the instruction it provides in how to converse calmly. “There’s a humility that comes with this ethical framework that will serve them well for the rest of their lives,” she said.

Rezach believes that students benefit from an ethics education in many ways. “For the first time in their lives, they’re allowed to think for themselves—without someone telling them what to think,” she said, adding “It’s like you’ve taken the lid off the top of their minds.” For teenagers who often struggle with confidence and identity, these debates on ethics free them to test their values in an abstract, unthreatening way. Exploring conflicts from different points of view—and striving to understand the value behind an opinion—also makes them more empathetic to others. “I see them grow in their ability to see somebody else’s perspective,” Rezach said. Having to identify and defend their decision is also critical, she added. Ordinarily, students she encounters avoid making decisions because they fear they’ll get it wrong. “Being able to make a decision and articulate why—that’s huge!” she said. “And being respectful to a person who doesn’t agree—that’s huge.”

Rezach writes the case studies, teaches the classes and overseas all the extracurricular ethics programs. She has also consulted with about 100 other middle- and high schools that want to bring this discipline back to their communities. “It can’t be a one and done,” Rezach said about how to build an ethical student body. “You have to infuse it into current programs—in classes and after school,” she added.

Now a college freshman, Sophie Huttner said she continues to apply the analytical frameworks she absorbed in her ethics training to her studies at Yale. “My ethics education, above all, has functioned as a mirror, allowing me to reflect on my own values and those held by my community,” she said. “Because I have had the chance to consider at length the ethical concepts most important to me, I have become a better judge of my own actions.”

*Linda Flanagan serves on the  advisory board of the Ethics Institute, for which she receives no financial compensation.  

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.1: Chapter 4: Ethical Issues in Academic Resource Sharing

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 85539

• Barbara Brown, Verena Roberts, Michele Jacobsen, Christie Hurrell, Kourtney Kerr, Heather van Streun, Nicole Neutzling, Jeff Lowry, Simo Zarkovic, Jennifer Ansorger, Terri Marles, Emma Lockyer, and Dean Parthenis
• University of Calgary via Open Education Alberta

Over the past decade, a new type of online educational marketplace of ideas has developed. Rather than creating small study groups to discuss class notes and tackle difficult assignments, post-secondary students can now use online platforms to connect with thousands of other students across the world studying similar topics. Academic resource sharing (ARS) sites such as Quizlet ( http://quizlet.com [New Tab] ), Chegg ( http://www.chegg.com [New Tab] ), and Course Hero ( http://www.coursehero.com [New Tab] ) have emerged as popular platforms. Quizlet was visited by one-third of American college students in 2018 (Wan, 2018), while Chegg boasted 30 million users worldwide as of 2019 (McKenzie, 2019). Course Hero has 1 million paid subscribers and 400 million visits per year (Lederman, 2020). It is not difficult to see why ARS sites are so popular. Quizlet contains over 200 million user-created study sets, along with an AI-powered option that builds unique study plans for individual users (Wan, 2018). Chegg began as a textbook rental company but has expanded to offer detailed homework responses, answers to problem sets, and access to experts who can assist with solutions (McKenzie, 2019). In a similar manner, Course Hero has developed into a broad platform that allows students access to course syllabi, essays, exams, and instructors’ presentation materials (Lederman, 2020). Simply by accessing one portal, students have access to an array of information such as class notes, study guides, sample essays, and assessment materials — access that would have been considered unthinkable by their counterparts a generation ago.

Although ARS sites offer undeniable benefits in terms of allowing students to access materials and receive assistance, these platforms have come under criticism from educators and administrators. As will be discussed, there have been a number of high-profile cases of students improperly using material from ARS sites. Quizlet, Chegg, and Course Hero all have policies aimed to prevent uploading of unauthorized materials, but given the size of their databases and the amount of material added on a daily basis, enforcement has been inconsistent (Gillis, 2019). Consequently, this chapter will examine the ethical issues that have arisen due to the proliferation of academic resource sharing sites, with the aim of identifying best practices that students, instructors, and administrators can follow to reduce the likelihood of academic dishonesty.

Section 1: Description of Ethical Issues in Digital Teaching and Learning (Full Disclosure)

The proliferation of academic resource sharing sites has had a significant impact on both traditional and digital learning. On the positive side, ARS sites allow students to apply their digital literacy skills as active participants in the Web 2.0 era. In fact, ARS sites fulfill the four main digital literacy skills sets outlined by Hockly (2012): language-based literacies (being able to navigate and interpret multimedia-based sites), information-based literacies (understanding how to search for, manage, and critically evaluate online materials), connection-based literacies (knowing how to generate digital content as part of a network), and re-design based literacies (being able to take existing materials and build upon or repurpose them for other uses, including copyright and plagiarism knowledge). As noted by Gillis (2019), active participation in ARS sites leads to “empowering students and giving them more ownership over their learning processes” (p. 225). By consulting experts on sites such as Chegg, students can learn to negotiate the meaning of course material, and to gain a deeper understanding of it. ARS sites also allow users to connect with peers across the world; as stated by the director of academic technology at Marist College, “imagine business students at Stanford, Marist, University of Beijing, and the University of Paris connecting up outside their courses to study together and maybe even work on team projects . . . This may become the ‘study group’ of the 21st century” (Kolowich, 2009, para. 17).

Increasingly, however, ARS sites represent a challenge to traditional university academic honesty policies. Universities have academic misconduct policies often outlining prohibited behaviours. At the University of Calgary, for instance, these include cheating, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and unauthorized assistance (University of Calgary, 2019a). Within the category of cheating, two examples may pertain to ARS sites: “having, using, or attempting to use unauthorized materials or devices for assistance in completing academic activities” and “obtaining assistance from another person in completing coursework, such that there is a real question whose work is being assessed” (University of Calgary, 2019b, p. 4). The two other largest universities in Alberta, the University of Alberta and the University of Lethbridge, have similar definitions of cheating. Recent years have seen instances of students finding exam answer keys on ARS sites. At Texas Christian University in 2018, 12 students were suspended after they used answers found on Quizlet to complete a final exam. They claimed that they did not realize the practice exam would be the same as their final exam, but the university argued that it was the students’ responsibility to report that they had already seen the questions (McKenzie, 2018). Additionally, in 2019, administrators at Brandon University discovered that a number of nursing students had obtained the answers to their final exam from a private test bank uploaded to an unnamed website. In this case, however, the students were allowed to take an alternate version of the exam, though with a penalty applied (Man, 2020).

Given the potential for cheating and violating academic integrity, ARS sites have developed strict policies about proper use. Many of these policies stem from a deontological approach, which stresses the importance of following clearly defined rules on right and wrong behaviour (Farrow, 2016). Chegg, Course Hero, and Quizlet all have their own versions of honour codes which emphasize that users must not violate their institutions’ academic honesty policies. Quizlet, for instance, states, “It’s simple: don’t cheat. Quizlet is meant for learning, not cheating. Test banks, exam questions, or other confidential course content should not be shared publicly on Quizlet” (Quizlet, 2020, bullet point 5).

For ARS sites, there are also consequentialist considerations (Farrow, 2016) in wanting to prevent students from cheating. High-profile cases such as TCU or Brandon University could lead universities to take an adversarial perspective. In 2019, professors at Purdue University spoke out against the integration of Purdue’s Online Writing Lab (OWL) with Chegg’s writing tools. As one professor argued, “I don’t know why we are lending our hard-earned reputation to a company that is essentially making it easy for students to cheat” (McKenzie, 2019, para. 2). Chegg stressed that it was working hard to prevent cheating, and the integration went ahead as planned. Failing to address cheating could also have negative financial consequences for ARS sites. In defending the partnership, the director of OWL noted that Chegg has a “fiduciary and shareholder responsibility to be ethical and responsible” (McKenzie, 2019, para. 11).

Section 2: Connection of Ethical Issue to Privacy, Data Security and Informed Consent

So far, this chapter has focused on ARS sites mostly from the perspective of students and institutions, but there is one more group that is intricately involved — post-secondary instructors. In many cases, instructors have had their presentation notes, study materials, quizzes, and syllabi uploaded without their knowledge or consent. One professor from Auburn University, for instance, discovered that several notes, articles, and study aids had been copied from his website to Course Hero (Halford, 2010), while a biology professor at Georgia State University came across a set of her final exams while searching Quizlet (Spence, 2018). A faculty member at UCLA whose study guides appeared on an ARS site reflected that “(w)e were already in the digital age, but it still felt like cheating to me . . . I still viewed it pretty antagonistically” (Lederman, 2020, para. 2). Although more instructors are learning about the challenges posed by ARS sites, this awareness is far from universal. A 2019 poll by Course Hero, for example, found that only 43% of educators had heard of their site (Lederman, 2020). In recent years, ARS sites have tried to reach out to educators and include them as partners in disseminating knowledge. Course Hero and Quizlet include sections for instructors to sign up and share materials; as of 2019, 30,000 instructors had created profiles on Course Hero, though it is not clear how many of the profiles were in active use (Lederman, 2020). Ultimately, given the number of ARS sites in existence, it is not surprising that instructors are having difficulty keeping up with potential misuse of their material.

A personal analysis of Course Hero postings relating to the English departments at the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta found a patchwork of adherence to copyright and intellectual property rules. From the University of Calgary English department, for example, 295 documents have been posted as of April 2020; they comprise a mix of lecture notes, study review notes, course outlines, essays, and assessments. While most of the uploads are either summaries or student-generated study materials, three documents appeared to violate Course Hero’s rules: a PDF copy of Shirley Jackson’s book The Haunting of Hill House , along with two scanned tests that included answers. Other documents fell into a grey area, such as course notes including slides that appeared to be from a professor’s lecture, with no indication that the professor had given permission for them to be uploaded. The University of Alberta English department section, with 465 documents, yielded similar results. Some assessments were clearly labelled as sample exams for study purposes, though again with no clear permission given to share. However, an entire set of quizzes was uploaded from one introductory level course in 2014. There were also a number of course outlines and rubrics present, which are covered under intellectual property regulations. In addition, both university sites contained many examples of uploaded student essays, which will be covered in more detail in Section 3, as they raise the potential for plagiarism.

The final consideration in terms of privacy, data security and informed consent pertains to the personal information that users agree to share when signing up for ARS sites. Course Hero, Quizlet, and Chegg all have detailed privacy policies outlining what information they gather from users and how that information can be utilized or shared. All three sites store standard personal information given upon signing up (i.e. name, email address, school, gender, and birthdate), but promise not to share personal information with third-party sites. They also make use of cookies and other tracking technologies, which may lead to targeted advertisements based on usage. If users choose to upgrade to a paid version, their credit card information is not stored on the ARS site. Overall, it would appear that ARS privacy policies are similar to other websites that require personal accounts, and, to date, there have been no reported data breaches. However, as with any other website, users must familiarize themselves with how their personal information is stored and used. In fact, a recent survey revealed that 91% of users agreed to the terms and conditions of a hypothetical social media site without actually having read them (Cakebread, 2017). Users do have control over what additional information they choose to include. On Chegg, for instance, users can create an optional personal profile with a photograph and information about personal and academic interests. In this case, users could rely on their digital literacy skills to decide how much or how little they want to add.

As with using tests for cheating purposes, a deontological perspective (Farrow, 2016) can be applied to the issue of informed consent. Simply put, posting an instructor’s copyrighted material without consent is in clear violation of institutional and website policies on acceptable use. However, the issue can also be approached from a consequentialist perspective (Farrow, 2016). By using notes or study materials posted without analyzing their usefulness, students may actually end up harming their learning. The Purdue professor who opposed working with Chegg further stated that “(i)f this were a site that genuinely helped students to master the materials, it wouldn’t be a problem. But it’s not set up like that — it dangles the solution in front of students” (McKenzie, 2019, para. 2). Additionally, as noted in Young (2010), students who take shortcuts in learning class material tend to perform poorly on assessments. On a positive note, instructors can stress that developing one’s own notes and materials can lead to more positive outcomes. As they progress, students can also be encouraged to learn about the ownership they possess over their own work, thus considering informed consent from a virtue ethics standpoint (Farrow, 2016). Chegg has also attempted to address academic honesty from this perspective, explaining to students why it is important to adhere to academic honesty policies. Their Chegg Intellectual Property Rights Owner (CHIPRO) program includes an FAQ section about why posted notes need to be paraphrased and how individual professors may have differing perspectives on posting material from their classes (Chegg, 2020). It must be noted that the CHIPRO program link is located along with dozens of others in their terms of use, which students are unlikely to seek out. However, it is a good alternative to simply state not to do this.

Section 3: Connection of Ethical Issue to Educational Integrity by Avoiding Harm and Minimizing Risk

In addition to cheating on tests and violating copyright infringement rules, ARS sites raise the risk of students engaging in plagiarism. Plagiarism represents a significant and continuing challenge to post-secondary institutions. A 2014 survey of Canadian universities discovered that plagiarism made up over 50% of reported cases of academic misconduct, more than double the next most common category of unauthorized assistance (Moore, 2014). For students looking for an easy source from which to plagiarize, Course Hero in particular represents an open marketplace. The University of Alberta and the University of Calgary English department sections on Course Hero each contain over 100 essays, projects, or writing assignments. It must be noted that users are not in violation of Course Hero’s terms of use by sharing their own written materials; however, copying others’ materials is a clear infraction. In addition to simple copy-and-paste plagiarism, there is also the potential for getting assistance with finding solutions on ARS sites. Chegg Study, which is available for $15 a month, contains a section called “Ask an Expert Anytime” in which students can post a picture of their homework problem and receive a solution in 30-45 minutes (Chegg, 2020). The site also contains a database of more than 20 million homework solutions (Chegg, 2020). Unless it is forbidden by the professor, getting outside help with difficult problems is a valid approach that could be compared to asking a friend for help. However, the existence of so many prepared answers surely raises the odds of students submitting copied answers.

The development of the Web 2.0 era may be impacting how university students view plagiarism. Collaboration through platforms such as Wikis has become commonplace, and the rise of blogging and social media has led to what Haitch (2016) refers to as “patch writing: a new kind of writing style . . . (in which) younger people, especially, create blogs and posts by piecing together large chunks from various sources” (p. 267). With ideas being shared and remixed so easily, traditional forms of academic-style attribution are not feasible, as it can be difficult to ascertain exactly who has contributed what (Haitch, 2016). The use and sharing of images is another area in which the Internet has challenged longstanding views of plagiarism. Haitch (2016) compared images found online to “toys left indefinitely in the sandbox of a public park” (p. 272), making proper attribution nearly impossible. Interestingly, some research has shown that students view plagiarism from internet sources as less serious. Heckler and Forde (2014) found that 35% of students believed using ideas from the internet was a justified form of plagiarism since the internet was developed as an open way to share information. Some students also believed that copyright laws did not apply to work published on the internet (Heckler & Forde, 2014).

The preceding paragraph should not be taken as an argument that instructors should accept assignments that contain plagiarized work. Rather, it suggests that a strict deontological approach (Farrow, 2016), expecting students not to plagiarize simply because there are rules forbidding it, is not sufficient on its own. From a consequentialist perspective (Farrow, 2016), instructors can stress the importance of adhering to plagiarism regulations in order to avoid punishment; the existence of plagiarism checkers like Turnitin.com makes it easier for instructors to spot transgressions. A more positive consequentialist approach could focus on the importance of proper referencing style in achieving a higher grade, as most university rubrics contain a category assessing citations and referencing. Another approach, which takes virtue ethics (Farrow, 2016) into account, is to encourage students to reflect on their understanding of plagiarism. For instance, students could consider the differences between remixing existing material online and copying sentences from various sources as part of an essay. As creators of digital work, students could also gain an understanding of why giving proper credit is important. This would help to develop critical thinking skills in a digital context, which Gillis (2019) claimed is “a valued skill as part of an increasingly digitally enabled society and labour market in which information is a core resource” (p. 215).

Section 4: Connection of Ethical Issues with Respect to Participant Autonomy and Independence

ARS sites have become a fact of life for post-secondary institutions over the past decade; banning students from using them would be impossible. Therefore, all stakeholders should focus on best practices to ensure that students can learn from ARS sites in an autonomous manner, while ensuring that academic honesty codes and intellectual property rights are followed. One major push needs to come from the institutional level. Post-secondary institutions must develop specific policies related to ARS sites that students learn as part of their onboarding. The good news is that some Canadian universities have already done so. The University of Toronto, Queen’s University, and McGill University all have specific wording in their academic integrity policies specifying proper use of ARS sites. The University of Toronto presents students with potential scenarios and outcomes related to posting notes online — a consequentialist approach — as well as strategies that students can use to become more effective learners — a virtue ethics approach (Academic Integrity at U of T, n.d.). However, other university policies could be more explicit. The University of Calgary makes reference to file-sharing websites when giving examples of unauthorized assistance, but does not specifically mention ARS sites as part of their overall policy. Creating a separate subsection relating to ARS sites appears a possible starting point for providing clarity to students.

Naturally, it is essential to find ways to properly communicate that information, which is where instructors can contribute. Including an overview of academic integrity policies as part of class orientation would prove beneficial. In addition, instructors could have students discuss scenarios related to academic integrity. This would help students to understand their positions as creators and contributors of content, which is an important part of developing expertise in information literacy (Gillis, 2019). Addressing academic integrity in a proactive manner would also be more productive than assigning punishment after students violate rules (Gillis, 2019). Instructors could also place notices on their materials reiterating that they are not to be shared. On the other hand, instructors could also decide that they will allow students to share certain materials online. Giving permission in the form of a Creative Commons license would clearly delineate how others could use uploaded material while helping to build students’ knowledge of proper methods of online resource sharing (Gillis, 2019). Finally, instructors could expand their range of assessments in order to avoid the possibility of tests or answer keys being leaked. Students could complete an in-class problem-solving activity, for example, rather than doing a multiple-choice quiz from a standardized test bank. Although modifying and updating assessments involves extra work, it is a recommended practice for educators and is likely more effective than searching multiple sites for copies of assessments (Lienick & Esparza, 2018).

Finally, students can take a more nuanced approach to ARS sites. The ad hoc rules that exist on other digital platforms are different from the stricter rules that apply when university policies on academic honesty are involved. As previously mentioned, one crucial part of information-based literacy is critically appraising online materials. Students should keep in mind that ARS sites are businesses first and foremost. They all provide limited free access but charge monthly fees for full access to materials and experts. This may prove a barrier for students of limited financial means, so they need to weigh the benefits of signing up for a paid membership. Students also need to be vigilant in assessing the source and validity of uploaded materials. In one healthcare finance class, for instance, over half the class gave similar but incorrect answers to an exam question; the instructor later discovered that the students had been using an ARS study guide that contained numerous errors (Lienick & Esparza, 2018). Instructors could assist by providing students with examples of learning being harmed by improper use of ARS sites. Ultimately though, students will have to apply their knowledge about academic honesty. ARS sites do not actively police themselves, and requests to remove material can only come from the rights holders. It is inevitable that students will encounter copyrighted material, assessments, or essays, but if they can apply their digital literacy skills and analyze the use of material from a proper ethical standpoint, they will be more successful in using ARS sites in a positive manner.

The challenge of ensuring that students follow rules of academic integrity is not new, but it has become more difficult in the age of ARS sites. If students are unfamiliar with the pitfalls of using these sites, they are likely to run afoul of institutional policies, whether intentionally or unintentionally. They also run the risk of becoming overly reliant on information uploaded by others, which could have a detrimental effect on the development of critical thinking skills. This became all the more likely in the age of emergency distance learning that North American institutions dealt with beginning in the spring of 2020. Instructors rapidly converted to modes of online instruction, uploading documents, and recording lessons for student use. Adherence to academic honesty rules become more important than ever as students work from home and become increasingly reliant on online resources. However, if used properly, ARS sites have the potential to deliver benefits to students who are isolated and do not have access to university libraries or in-person study groups. Instructors could also use this opportunity to explore the range of services offered by ARS sites and to figure out ways to incorporate them into their instruction. It is not yet clear what the results of emergency distance learning will be, but there is an excellent opportunity for students, instructors, and institutions to learn from one another and gain a greater understanding of how to use ARS sites in a constructive and ethical manner.

Note: A summary of the principles of ethics as described by Farrow (2016) and how they apply to ARS sites can be found in Appendix A.

Cakebread, C. (2017, November 15). You’re not alone, no one reads terms and service agreements. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/deloitte-study-91-percent-agree-terms-of-service-without-reading-2017-11

Farrow, R. (2016). A framework for the ethics of open education. Open Praxis, 8 (2), 93-109.  https://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/article/view/291  

Gillis, R. (2019). “Caring about sharing”: Copyright and student academic integrity in the university learning management system. In S. Benson (Ed.),  Copyright conversations: Rights literacy: Rights literacy in a digital world (pp. 211-232). Association of College and Research Libraries. http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/dk2w-9v87

Haitch, R. (2016). Stealing or sharing? Cross-cultural issues of plagiarism in an open-source era. Teaching Theology & Religion, 19 (3), 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12337

Halford, B. (2010, February 22). Professors cry foul over website. Chemical & Engineering News.  https://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i8/Professors-Cry-Foul-Over-Website.html

Heckler, N., & Forde, D. (2014). The role of cultural values in plagiarism in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 13 (1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-014-9221-3

Hockly, H. (2012). Digital literacies. ELT Journal, 66 (1), 108-112. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1093/elt/ccr077

Kolowich, S. (2009, October 6). Course hero or course villain? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/06/course-hero-or-course-villain

Lederman, D. (2020, February 19). Course Hero woos professors. Inside Higher Ed . http://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/02/19/course-hero-once-vilified-faculty-courts-professors-its

Lienick, C., & Esparza, S. (2018). Collaboration or collusion? The new era of commercial online resources for students in the digital age: an opinion piece . Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practices, 16 (3), 1-8. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/ijahsp/vol16/iss3/7/

Man, B. (2020, February 2). Brandon University says ‘pirated’ test bank led to compromised nursing exam. The Globe and Mail . https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-brandon-university-says-pirated-test-bank-led-to-compromised-nursing-2/

McKenzie, L. (2018, May 14). Learning tool or cheating aid? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/14/professors-warned-about-popular-learning-tool-used-students-cheat

McKenzie, L. (2019, March 12). The wrong partnership? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/03/12/purdue-professors-criticize-writing-partnership-chegg

Moore, H. (2014, February 25). Cheating students punished by the 1000s, but many more go undetected. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/cheating-students-punished-by-the-1000s-but-many-more-go-undetected-1.2549621

McGill University. (n.d.). Protecting your intellectual property as instructors. Student Rights and Responsibilities . https://www.mcgill.ca/students/srr/honest/staff/protecting-your-intellectual-property-instructors

Queen’s University. (n.d.). Intellectual property. https://www.queensu.ca/academicintegrity/general-information/intellectual-property

Quizlet. (n.d.). Community guidelines. https://quizlet.com/guidelines

Spence, N. (2018, September 4). GroupMe cheating: What professors have to say. The Signal . https://georgiastatesignal.com/groupme-cheating-what-professors-have-to-say/

University of Alberta. (n.d.). Student conduct and accountability. Office of the provost and vice president. https://www.ualberta.ca/provost/dean-of-students/student-conduct-and-accountability/index.html

University of Calgary. (2019a). Student academic misconduct policy . http://www.ucalgary.ca/policies/files/policies/student-academic-misconduct-policy.pdf

University of Calgary. (2019b). Student academic misconduct procedure . http://www.ucalgary.ca/policies/files/policies/student-academic-misconduct-procedure.pdf

University of Lethbridge. (2019). Institutional policies and procedures. https://www.uleth.ca/policy/resources/student-discipline-policy-academic-offences-undergraduate-students

University of Toronto (n.d.). Academic integrity. https://www.academicintegrity.utoronto.ca/

Wan, T. (2018, February 6). Quizlet raises $20 million to bring more artificial intelligence to its study tools. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-02-06-quizlet-raises-20-million-to-bring-more-artificial-intelligence-to-its-study-tools

University of Calgary Student Success Centre. (n.d.). What is academic integrity? https://www.ucalgary.ca/live-uc-ucalgary-site/sites/default/files/teams/1/academic-integrity.pdf

Young, J. (2010, March 28). High-tech cheating abounds, and professors bear some blame. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/High-Tech-Cheating-on-Homework/64857

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Juliette c. désiron.

Institute of Education, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

Dominik Petko

Associated data.

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

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

Introduction

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

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

Prevalence and factors of digital academic dishonesty in schools

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

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

Effects of homework engagement and digital dishonesty on school performance

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

Present study and hypotheses

The present study serves three combined purposes.

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

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

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

Participants

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

Digital dishonesty in homework scale

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

Frequencies of averaged digital dishonesty in homework (weighted data)

Homework engagement scale

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

Demographics

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

Study program

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

Technologies and schools

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

Test scores

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

Data analyses

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

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

Additional scales for Switzerland

Digital dishonesty in homework practices.

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

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

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

Homework effort

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

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

Frequencies of averaged homework engagement (weighted data)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multilevel regression analysis: Cheating and test scores (H2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

Limitations and directions

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

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

List of abbreviations related to PISA datasets

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

Open access funding provided by University of Zurich

Data availability

Declarations.

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Homework Help & Tutoring

Our name 24HourAnswers means you can submit work 24 hours a day - it doesn't mean we can help you master what you need to know in 24 hours. If you make arrangements in advance, and if you are a very fast learner, then yes, we may be able to help you achieve your goals in 24 hours. Remember, high quality, customized help that's tailored around the needs of each individual student takes time to achieve. You deserve nothing less than the best, so give us the time we need to give you the best.

If you need assistance with old exams in order to prepare for an upcoming test, we can definitely help. We can't work with you on current exams, quizzes, or tests unless you tell us in writing that you have permission to do so. This is not usually the case, however.

We do not have monthly fees or minimum payments, and there are no hidden costs. Instead, the price is unique for every work order you submit. For tutoring and homework help, the price depends on many factors that include the length of the session, level of work difficulty, level of expertise of the tutor, and amount of time available before the deadline. You will be given a price up front and there is no obligation for you to pay. Homework library items have individual set prices.

We accept credit cards, debit cards, PayPal, Venmo, ApplePay, and GooglePay.

“What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope?” Immanuel Kant, 18th Century Philosopher That's a central part of philosophy, of ethics. What do I owe to strangers? What do I owe to my family? What is it to live a good life? Those are questions which we face as individuals. Peter Singer, 20th Century Philosopher Ethics is a branch of philosophy . According to the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms , “Ethics is the study of human conduct, focusing particularly on attitudes and actions that are considered to be ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’” The word “ethics” comes from the Greek word ethos which can be translated as “custom” or “way of life.” In other words, a study of ethics deals with moral development and how that particular development influences how we answer the questions that inundate us as human beings on a daily basis. These questions range from the profound to the practical, such as: “Which partner should I be with? What kind of job is good for me? Why am I here?” Why does our economic system benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor?” Philosophical ethics is an investigation into what makes a good life, but over the centuries many questions that we can call ethical questions have been asked by philosophers. Studying philosophical ethics is more than just learning about a moral code. At a job your boss may present you with the company’s ethical code. A doctor follows a moral code when treating his patients. Most of us probably learned moral values from our parents or perhaps from our religious upbringing. What grounds these moral values? How do I discover for myself the right way to act? Or we might ask, why should we be moral at all? Different answers have been given to these ethical questions. Aristotle thought a good life was one based on virtuous living. The Classical Utilitarians thought the best way to act was according to the happiness principle which states, "the greatest amount of good for the greatest number." Immanuel Kant thought ethical reasoning worked according to its own rationality that any reasonable person could discern. Friedrich Nietzsche thought morality was a tool for those in power to enslave those underneath them. Someone once said if I think I am a moral person and I never question the moral decisions I make, then how ethical am I really? The truly ethical person is the one who is unsure of whether they are acting in the right way. The unethical person acts blindly without consideration for why they ought to act a certain way. Sometimes we are drawn into ethical thinking when presented with a complex moral dilemma. Is it ever right to take someone’s life? Under what conditions is it right to take one’s own life? What is our moral obligation to others? Should I only act in a way that benefits myself or should I act in a way that benefits others? By the time a student is finished with a college course in ethics, the following should have been covered thoroughly; an overview of important facts, concepts, and theories pertaining to ethics, the different types of ethics that exist and how they guide our behavior and decision-making, effective ways to critically evaluate ethical issues and problems, and the ability to ask the right questions, even when the answers are not available to us. A college course in ethics will normally cover the following topics:

• Foundations of ethics and moral development
• Critical thinking in ethics
• Personal ethics
• Social ethics
• Sexual ethics
• Consequential ethics
• Situation/contextual ethics
• Norms for ethics
• Religious and biblical ethics

Some of the different types of undergraduate ethics courses that students will be able to take at most colleges and universities would be: ● Introduction to Ethics ● Applied Ethics ● Feminist Ethics ● Religion and Morality ● Environmental Ethics ● Business Ethics A good course in ethics should leave students with an ability to think critically and to recognize, accept, and appreciate the various ways in which people express their beliefs and opinions. In addition, it should give students an awareness of the role ethics plays in every area of human life, and the need to build healthy and fulfilling relationships. As you can see, the study of ethics in philosophy involves both learning what philosophers have had to say about ethical issues, and thinking about tough moral problems we face in our everyday lives. Ethics homework at the college level will ask a student to either write about an ethical theory or to address a particular ethical problem (or both). As with any philosophy class, reading and writing in ethics takes time, patience, and the use of critical thinking. Students interested in ethics should thoroughly explore the websites of The Society for Ethics , the American Philosophical Association , and the Association for Informal Logic & Critical Thinking . An additional place to visit would be the ethics section of the American Academy of Religion . College students will find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be a great free reputable source. And for understanding your college philosophy homework at all levels, don't forget to visit MIT's OpenCourseWare for the many online philosophy tutorials they offer such as the one called Ethics . Online Resources in Philosophical Ethics ● A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names ● Ethics Resource Center ● Ethics Update ● How to Write an Ethics Paper ● Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ● Online Ethics Center ● Aristotle and Virtue Ethics ● Virtue Ethics (Not Too) Simplified

To fulfill our tutoring mission of online education, our college homework help and online tutoring centers are standing by 24/7, ready to assist college students who need homework help with all aspects of ethics. Our philosophy tutors can help with all your projects, large or small, and we challenge you to find better online ethics tutoring anywhere.

College ethics homework help.

Since we have tutors in all Ethics related topics, we can provide a range of different services. Our online Ethics tutors will:

• Provide specific insight for homework assignments.
• Review broad conceptual ideas and chapters.
• Simplify complex topics into digestible pieces of information.
• Answer any Ethics related questions.
• Tailor instruction to fit your style of learning.

With these capabilities, our college Ethics tutors will give you the tools you need to gain a comprehensive knowledge of Ethics you can use in future courses.

24HourAnswers Online Ethics Tutors

Our tutors are just as dedicated to your success in class as you are, so they are available around the clock to assist you with questions, homework, exam preparation and any Ethics related assignments you need extra help completing.

In addition to gaining access to highly qualified tutors, you'll also strengthen your confidence level in the classroom when you work with us. This newfound confidence will allow you to apply your Ethics knowledge in future courses and keep your education progressing smoothly.

Because our college Ethics tutors are fully remote, seeking their help is easy. Rather than spend valuable time trying to find a local Ethics tutor you can trust, just call on our tutors whenever you need them without any conflicting schedules getting in the way.

Advertisement

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

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

5978 Accesses

4 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

The impact of smartphone use on learning effectiveness: A case study of primary school students

Jen Chun Wang, Chia-Yen Hsieh & Shih-Hao Kung

Adoption of online mathematics learning in Ugandan government universities during the COVID-19 pandemic: pre-service teachers’ behavioural intention and challenges

Geofrey Kansiime & Marjorie Sarah Kabuye Batiibwe

Effects of higher education institutes’ artificial intelligence capability on students' self-efficacy, creativity and learning performance

Shaofeng Wang, Zhuo Sun & Ying Chen

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

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

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

1.1 Prevalence and factors of digital academic dishonesty in schools

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

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

1.2 Effects of homework engagement and digital dishonesty on school performance

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

1.3 Present study and hypotheses

The present study serves three combined purposes.

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

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

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

2.1 Participants

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

2.2 Measures

2.2.1 digital dishonesty in homework scale.

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

2.2.2 Homework engagement scale

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

2.2.3 Demographics

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

2.2.4 Study program

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

2.2.5 Technologies and schools

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

2.2.6 Test scores

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

2.3 Data analyses

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

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

3.1 Additional scales for Switzerland

3.1.1 digital dishonesty in homework practices.

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

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

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

3.1.2 Homework effort

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Discussion

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

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

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

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

4.1 Conclusions and recommendations

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

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

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

4.2 Limitations and directions

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

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

Data availability

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Zurich

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Education, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

Juliette C. Désiron & Dominik Petko

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliette C. Désiron .

Ethics declarations

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

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

List of abbreviations related to PISA datasets

students’ perceived autonomy related to ICT use

students’ perceived ICT competence

frequency of computer use at home for entertainment purposes

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

parents’ highest occupational status

home possessions

frequency of computer use for school-related purposes at home

digital cheating for homework items for Switzerland

homework engagement items for Switzerland

positive attitude towards ICT as a learning tool

student’s ICT interest

parents’ highest level of education

students’ ICT as a topic in social interaction

frequency of computer use at school

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Received : 11 May 2022

Accepted : 05 July 2022

Published : 23 July 2022

Issue Date : February 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

• Advertise with Us
• Advertise With Us
• Capital Comedy Review
• Fashion & Beauty
• Food & Wine
• Misogyny Matters
• Correct Me If I’m Wrong
• Kazakhstan / Canada
• Election Outlook 2019
• Canada’s Energy Economy
• Best of Ottawa
• Ottawa Law Portal
• Patrolling Police Misconduct
• Top Stories
• capital comedy review
• demo ottawa
• patrolling police misconduct
• Fashion & Beauty
• Food & Wine

The value of homework and developing a good work ethic

• By: Ottawalife Contributor
• Posted: September 30, 2020
• Category: Health

Our son has just returned to physical school after many months of virtual learning. He will also be resuming extracurricular hockey which will leave him short on free time. Soon he will be getting homework as well. Some parents we know say they do not do homework at their house at all, while others say they do it for their children when time gets tight. What are your ideas about homework?

Just Wondering

Answer:  

Dear Just Wondering,

David Andrew Taylor was a Junior B hockey player with the Levack Huskies in the early 1970s. He went on to be an outstanding right-winger for the NHL playing for the LA Kings after stellar performance at university. He was known as a hard worker and often as a teenager, after others had left the rink to socialize, Dave went to the pubic school rink close to the arena and skated and shot pucks by himself for a couple of hours. This hard work ethic and “homework” in his hockey resulted in him becoming a star NHL player and winning an award for perseverance, sportsmanship and dedication to ice hockey.

Leona Boyd got her first guitar at age 13 and is a five-time Juno award winner for Instrumental Artist of the Year. Over-practice gave her local dystonia in one of her right-hand fingers. Leona was pushing herself with practice on her chosen instrument. The extra effort that led to mastery led to Leona’s worldwide fame and accomplishment.

Angela Hewitt was three years old and having a lesson every day on the piano. In high school she was practicing the piano three hours a day and at age 16 attended the University of Ottawa where she practiced the piano eight hours a day. Angela is the most accomplished classical musician Ottawa, Ontario ever produced. She achieved that status because of her dedication to practice her chosen instrument and comply with the guidance of her teachers.

Jim Miller is a history professor emeritus from the University of Saskatchewan. He is the author of 10 books and won the Gillam prize in the Humanities in 2014. Jim attended the University of Toronto in the early 60s. A fellow student recalls that Jim attended 15 hours a week of classes and studied over 30 hours per week on his own. Self-directed learning at its finest!

Larry Ross Jones, a retired Ottawa Board of Education teacher, recalls doing homework approximately four hours daily during grade 13. Dr. James Glenn Bradley recalls doing homework during grade 13 sometimes up to six hours a night. I recall myself and most of my friends doing homework approximately three hours nightly all through high school as well. The grades earned allowed the vast majority of such students to attend university and enter assorted professions.

The value of homework has been under debate for decades but for my money there is no question that a reasonable amount of homework completed outside of the classroom is invaluable to the learner at any grade level. The examples above of successful people are proof positive that putting in the extra effort and extra time at learning a new skill can do nothing but improve one’s performance in the school setting. Concepts are introduced to children in the classroom and then reviewed independently at home. When the mothers and fathers become involved the learning can be even greater because the adults can see clearly the strengths of their children and the holes in their learning. Parents come to know the curriculum better and can provide more directed and pertinent guidance to their children. The dads and moms can help their children develop a good work ethic by insisting upon completion of the school work before leisure activities. This kind of training is so very helpful to youngsters when they go to college or university or enter the workforce. There they are totally on their own to do what is required to make the grade academically or satisfy an employer.

Jennifer Atkinson in “ Why Homework is Important ,” speaks about the many advantages of homework. She states that educators are trying to empower kids with confidence and knowledge with homework. These characteristics will enable them to be successful in all aspects of their life. Homework is an opportunity for parents and students to connect as well as reinforce skills and concepts learned in class. Jennifer says homework prepares students for upcoming learning and teaches independence and self- discipline. She states that it encourages initiative and teaches children how to complete tasks. She concurs that parents involved in children’s learning allows them to evaluate their own progeny’s progress and be more in sync with what is going on in the classroom. Jennifer suggests that homework should be varied, meaningful and provide some rote practice additionally.

An interesting article entitled “ Is Homework Beneficial ” by ProCon.org states that “studies show that homework improves student achievement in terms of improved grades, test results and the likelihood to attend college.” A 2006 study by Cooper, Robinson and Patall found that students in classes that were assigned homework outperformed 69 per cent of those from classes that didn’t have homework on both standardized tests and grades. A 2017 study by Bas, Senturk and Cigerci found that “a majority of studies on homework’s impact — 64 per cent in one meta study and 72 per cent in another — showed that take home assignments were effective at improving academic achievement.”

A 2017 article, published in Psychology Today, entitled “ The Value of Homework ” refers to the 10-minute rule. This is an idea supported by the American National Education Association and the American National Parent-Teacher Association. It suggests 10 minutes of homework per grade level per night as a guideline. A child in first grade would do approximately 10 minutes of homework, a child in fifth grade would do approximately 50 minutes of homework and a child in grade 12 would do approximately two hours of homework. This seems to be a reasonable way of approaching the question of how long a child should do school work in the evening and allows balance between school, home, and leisure activities outside of those two environments.

I would be remiss if I did not comment on the reasons why some adults do not support the idea of homework. I refer you to the Stanford research by Clifton B Parker, in 2014. Clifton concluded that too much homework may have negative effects on children and on their life outside of school. Homework can be associated with greater stress, sleep deprivation, and other health problems, and less time for friends and extracurricular activities. I will emphasize here that this study refers to “too much” homework, not just a reasonable amount of homework.

The ProCon.org article also reports that homework can increase stress on children and reduce the amount of leisure time available to them. Sometimes homework can lead to cheating because children do not finish the work themselves but obtain outside help. The Psychology Today article noted that homework can be problematic for children without access to the appropriate technology, a factor of which teachers and parents need to be aware.

So Just Wondering, may I suggest you build homework time into your child’s routine just as surely as his mealtime, bath-time and hockey practice. You will be setting him up for success with his academics and teaching him to prioritize work and play. Should he be unable to complete an assignment you can teach him how to approach his teacher and request an extension or to rearrange his schedule to allow the completion of the task as required. Failing that, allow your son or daughter to take the consequences of non-completion of assignments that his teachers feel is appropriate. This experience in self will be a valuable teacher.

I will conclude with some inspiring quotations about homework Just Wondering:

“ Nothing is more powerful for your future then being a gatherer of good ideas and information. That’s called doing your homework. ” — Jim Rohn

“ A genius is a talented person who does his homework. ” — Thomas Edison

“ Listen to your parents, do your homework, and listen to your teachers. Those are the real heroes. ” — Carl Crawford

Sincerely, Adele

Photo: Jeremy Avery, Unsplash

Recommended Articles

When your children prefer the family bed

Ways to de-stress your body

Addressing frailty part of the solution for improving healthcare

Ontario health colleges offer important public services

Non-GamStop casino

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, the 5 best homework help websites (free and paid).

Other High School , General Education

Listen: we know homework isn’t fun, but it is a good way to reinforce the ideas and concepts you’ve learned in class. But what if you’re really struggling with your homework assignments?

If you’ve looked online for a little extra help with your take-home assignments, you’ve probably stumbled across websites claiming to provide the homework help and answers students need to succeed . But can homework help sites really make a difference? And if so, which are the best homework help websites you can use? 

Below, we answer these questions and more about homework help websites–free and paid. We’ll go over: 

• The basics of homework help websites
• The cost of homework help websites 
• The five best homework websites out there 
• The pros and cons of using these websites for homework help 
• The line between “learning” and “cheating” when using online homework help 
• Tips for getting the most out of a homework help website

So let’s get started! 

The Basics About Homework Help Websites–Free and Paid

Homework help websites are designed to help you complete your homework assignments, plain and simple. 

What Makes a Homework Help Site Worth Using

Most of the best sites allow users to ask questions and then provide an answer (or multiple possible answers) and explanation in seconds. In some instances, you can even send a photo of a particular assignment or problem instead of typing the whole thing out! 

Homework help sites also offer more than just help answering homework questions. Common services provided are Q&A with experts, educational videos, lectures, practice tests and quizzes, learning modules, math solving tools, and proofreading help. Homework help sites can also provide textbook solutions (i.e. answers to problems in tons of different textbooks your school might be using), one-on-one tutoring, and peer-to-peer platforms that allow you to discuss subjects you’re learning about with your fellow students. 

And best of all, nearly all of them offer their services 24/7, including tutoring! 

What You Should Should Look Out For

When it comes to homework help, there are lots–and we mean lots –of scam sites out there willing to prey on desperate students. Before you sign up for any service, make sure you read reviews to ensure you’re working with a legitimate company. 

A word to the wise: the more a company advertises help that veers into the territory of cheating, the more likely it is to be a scam. The best homework help websites are going to help you learn the concepts you’ll need to successfully complete your homework on your own. (We’ll go over the difference between “homework help” and “cheating” a little later!) 

You don't need a golden piggy bank to use homework help websites. Some provide low or no cost help for students like you!

How Expensive Are the Best Homework Help Websites?

First of all, just because a homework help site costs money doesn’t mean it’s a good service. Likewise, just because a homework help website is free doesn’t mean the help isn’t high quality. To find the best websites, you have to take a close look at the quality and types of information they provide! 

When it comes to paid homework help services, the prices vary pretty widely depending on the amount of services you want to subscribe to. Subscriptions can cost anywhere from $2 to $150 dollars per month, with the most expensive services offering several hours of one-on-one tutoring with a subject expert per month.

The 5 Best Homework Help Websites 

So, what is the best homework help website you can use? The answer is that it depends on what you need help with. 

The best homework help websites are the ones that are reliable and help you learn the material. They don’t just provide answers to homework questions–they actually help you learn the material. 

That’s why we’ve broken down our favorite websites into categories based on who they’re best for . For instance, the best website for people struggling with math might not work for someone who needs a little extra help with science, and vice versa. 

Keep reading to find the best homework help website for you! 

Best Free Homework Help Site: Khan Academy

• Price: Free!
• Best for: Practicing tough material 

Not only is Khan Academy free, but it’s full of information and can be personalized to suit your needs. When you set up your account , you choose which courses you need to study, and Khan Academy sets up a personal dashboard of instructional videos, practice exercises, and quizzes –with both correct and incorrect answer explanations–so you can learn at your own pace. 

As an added bonus, it covers more course topics than many other homework help sites, including several AP classes.

Runner Up: Brainly.com offers a free service that allows you to type in questions and get answers and explanations from experts. The downside is that you’re limited to two answers per question and have to watch ads. 

Best Paid Homework Help Site: Chegg

• Price: $14.95 to $19.95 per month
• Best for: 24/7 homework assistance  

This service has three main parts . The first is Chegg Study, which includes textbook solutions, Q&A with subject experts, flashcards, video explanations, a math solver, and writing help. The resources are thorough, and reviewers state that Chegg answers homework questions quickly and accurately no matter when you submit them.  

Chegg also offers textbook rentals for students who need access to textbooks outside of their classroom. Finally, Chegg offers Internship and Career Advice for students who are preparing to graduate and may need a little extra help with the transition out of high school. 

Another great feature Chegg provides is a selection of free articles geared towards helping with general life skills, like coping with stress and saving money. Chegg’s learning modules are comprehensive, and they feature solutions to the problems in tons of different textbooks in a wide variety of subjects. 

Runner Up: Bartleby offers basically the same services as Chegg for $14.99 per month. The reason it didn’t rank as the best is based on customer reviews that say user questions aren’t answered quite as quickly on this site as on Chegg. Otherwise, this is also a solid choice!

Best Site for Math Homework Help: Photomath

• Price: Free (or $59.99 per year for premium services) 
• Best for: Explaining solutions to math problems

This site allows you to t ake a picture of a math problem, and instantly pulls up a step-by-step solution, as well as a detailed explanation of the concept. Photomath also includes animated videos that break down mathematical concepts to help you better understand and remember them. 

The basic service is free, but for an additional fee you can get extra study tools and learn additional strategies for solving common math problems.

Runner Up: KhanAcademy offers in-depth tutorials that cover complex math topics for free, but you won’t get the same tailored help (and answers!) that Photomath offers. 

Best Site for English Homework Help: Princeton Review Academic Tutoring

• Price: $40 to $153 per month, depending on how many hours of tutoring you want 
• Best for: Comprehensive and personalized reading and writing help 

While sites like Grammarly and Sparknotes help you by either proofreading what you write via an algorithm or providing book summaries, Princeton Review’s tutors provide in-depth help with vocabulary, literature, essay writing and development, proofreading, and reading comprehension. And unlike other services, you’ll have the chance to work with a real person to get help. 

The best part is that you can get on-demand English (and ESL) tutoring from experts 24/7. That means you can get help whenever you need it, even if you’re pulling an all-nighter! 

This is by far the most expensive homework site on this list, so you’ll need to really think about what you need out of a homework help website before you commit. One added benefit is that the subscription covers over 80 other subjects, including AP classes, which can make it a good value if you need lots of help!  

Best Site for STEM Homework Help: Studypool

• Best for: Science homework help
• Price: Varies; you’ll pay for each question you submit

When it comes to science homework help, there aren’t a ton of great resources out there. The best of the bunch is Studypool, and while it has great reviews, there are some downsides as well. 

Let’s start with the good stuff. Studypool offers an interesting twist on the homework help formula. After you create a free account, you can submit your homework help questions, and tutors will submit bids to answer your questions. You’ll be able to select the tutor–and price point–that works for you, then you’ll pay to have your homework question answered. You can also pay a small fee to access notes, lectures, and other documents that top tutors have uploaded. 

The downside to Studypool is that the pricing is not transparent . There’s no way to plan for how much your homework help will cost, especially if you have lots of questions! Additionally, it’s not clear how tutors are selected, so you’ll need to be cautious when you choose who you’d like to answer your homework questions.  

What Are the Pros and Cons of Using Homework Help Sites?

Homework help websites can be a great resource if you’re struggling in a subject, or even if you just want to make sure that you’re really learning and understanding topics and ideas that you’re interested in. But, there are some possible drawbacks if you don’t use these sites responsibly. 

We’ll go over the good–and the not-so-good–aspects of getting online homework help below. 

3 Pros of Using Homework Help Websites 

First, let’s take a look at the benefits. 

#1: Better Grades Beyond Homework

This is a big one! Getting outside help with your studies can improve your understanding of concepts that you’re learning, which translates into better grades when you take tests or write essays. 

Remember: homework is designed to help reinforce the concepts you learned in class. If you just get easy answers without learning the material behind the problems, you may not have the tools you need to be successful on your class exams…or even standardized tests you’ll need to take for college. 

#2: Convenience

One of the main reasons that online homework help is appealing is because it’s flexible and convenient. You don’t have to go to a specific tutoring center while they’re open or stay after school to speak with your teacher. Instead, you can access helpful resources wherever you can access the internet, whenever you need them.

This is especially true if you tend to study at off hours because of your extracurriculars, work schedule, or family obligations. Sites that offer 24/7 tutoring can give you the extra help you need if you can’t access the free resources that are available at your school. 

#3: Variety

Not everyone learns the same way. Maybe you’re more of a visual learner, but your teacher mostly does lectures. Or maybe you learn best by listening and taking notes, but you’re expected to learn something just from reading the textbook . 

One of the best things about online homework help is that it comes in a variety of forms. The best homework help sites offer resources for all types of learners, including videos, practice activities, and even one-on-one discussions with real-life experts. 

This variety can also be a good thing if you just don’t really resonate with the way a concept is being explained (looking at you, math textbooks!).

Not so fast. There are cons to homework help websites, too. Get to know them below!

3 Cons of Using Homework Help Websites 

Now, let’s take a look at the drawbacks of online homework help. 

#1: Unreliable Info

This can be a real problem. In addition to all the really good homework help sites, there are a whole lot of disreputable or unreliable sites out there. The fact of the matter is that some homework help sites don’t necessarily hire people who are experts in the subjects they’re talking about. In those cases, you may not be getting the accurate, up-to-date, and thorough information you need.

Additionally, even the great sites may not be able to answer all of your homework questions. This is especially true if the site uses an algorithm or chatbot to help students…or if you’re enrolled in an advanced or college-level course. In these cases, working with your teacher or school-provided tutors are probably your best option. 

#2: No Clarification

This depends on the service you use, of course. But the majority of them provide free or low-cost help through pre-recorded videos. Watching videos or reading info online can definitely help you with your homework… but you can’t ask questions or get immediate feedback if you need it .

#3: Potential For Scamming 

Like we mentioned earlier, there are a lot of homework help websites out there, and lots of them are scams. The review comments we read covered everything from outdated or wrong information, to misleading claims about the help provided, to not allowing people to cancel their service after signing up. 

No matter which site you choose to use, make sure you research and read reviews before you sign up–especially if it’s a paid service! 

When Does “Help” Become “Cheating”?

Admittedly, whether using homework help websites constitutes cheating is a bit of a grey area. For instance, is it “help” when a friend reads your essay for history class and corrects your grammar, or is it “cheating”? The truth is, not everyone agrees on when “help” crosses the line into “cheating .” When in doubt, it can be a good idea to check with your teacher to see what they think about a particular type of help you want to get. 

That said, a general rule of thumb to keep in mind is to make sure that the assignment you turn in for credit is authentically yours . It needs to demonstrate your own thoughts and your own current abilities. Remember: the point of every homework assignment is to 1) help you learn something, and 2) show what you’ve learned. 

So if a service answers questions or writes essays for you, there’s a good chance using it constitutes cheating. 

Here’s an example that might help clarify the difference for you. Brainstorming essay ideas with others or looking online for inspiration is “help” as long as you write the essay yourself. Having someone read it and give you feedback about what you need to change is also help, provided you’re the one that makes the changes later. 

But copying all or part of an essay you find online or having someone write (or rewrite) the whole thing for you would be “cheating.” The same is true for other subjects. Ultimately, if you’re not generating your own work or your own answers, it’s probably cheating.

5 Tips for Finding the Best Homework Help Websites for You

Now that you know some of our favorite homework help websites, free and paid, you can start doing some additional research on your own to decide which services might work best for you! Here are some top tips for choosing a homework help website. 

Tip 1: Decide How You Learn Best 

Before you decide which site or sites you’re going to use for homework help, y ou should figure out what kind of learning style works for you the most. Are you a visual learner? Then choose a site that uses lots of videos to help explain concepts. If you know you learn best by actually doing tasks, choose a site that provides lots of practice exercises.

Tip 2: Determine Which Subjects You Need Help With

Just because a homework help site is good overall doesn’t mean that it’s equally good for every subject. If you only need help in math, choose a site that specializes in that area. But if history is where you’re struggling, a site that specializes in math won’t be much help. So make sure to choose a site that you know provides high-quality help in the areas you need it most. 

Tip 3: Decide How Much One-On-One Help You Need 

This is really about cost-effectiveness. If you learn well on your own by reading and watching videos, a free site like Khan Academy is a good choice. But if you need actual tutoring, or to be able to ask questions and get personalized answers from experts, a paid site that provides that kind of service may be a better option.

Tip 4: Set a Budget

If you decide you want to go with a paid homework help website, set a budget first . The prices for sites vary wildly, and the cost to use them can add up quick. 

Tip 5: Read the Reviews

Finally, it’s always a good idea to read actual reviews written by the people using these homework sites. You’ll learn the good, the bad, and the ugly of what the users’ experiences have been. This is especially true if you intend to subscribe to a paid service. You’ll want to make sure that users think it’s worth the price overall!

What’s Next?

If you want to get good grades on your homework, it’s a good idea to learn how to tackle it strategically. Our expert tips will help you get the most out of each assignment…and boost your grades in the process.

Doing well on homework assignments is just one part of getting good grades. We’ll teach you everything you need to know about getting great grades in high school in this article.

Of course, test grades can make or break your GPA, too. Here are 17 expert tips that’ll help you get the most out of your study prep before you take an exam.

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Student and Parent Forum

Our new student and parent forum, at ExpertHub.PrepScholar.com , allow you to interact with your peers and the PrepScholar staff. See how other students and parents are navigating high school, college, and the college admissions process. Ask questions; get answers.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

• Follow us on Twitter
• Join our Facebook Group
• Picking a College
• Financing Your Education
• Choosing a Major
• Preparing for College
• Managing the Personal Side of the Transition to College
• Developing Discipline to Do Well
• Managing the Social Side of College
• Being an Efficient Learner
• Taking Tests
• Ensuring You Receive The Grade You Want
• Managing Group Projects
• Becoming a Campus Leader
• Student Athletes
• Navigating College Practices
• Succeeding on Internships and Co-ops
• Making Critical Decisions
• Overcoming Challenges for Specific Types of Students
• Setting Goals
• Being an International Student In The United States
• Using Resources
• Communication Skills for College Graduates
• Building a Professional Network
• Using LinkedIn to Develop Your Network
• Preparing for a Career
• Understanding Job Protocols
• Developing Essential Career Skills
• Becoming a Leader
• Overcoming Career Challenges
• Planning for your Financial Future
• Being a Supportive Parent
• Financing Your Student’s Education
• Parent Emails
• Teacher Resources

Student Success Skills

Having a strong work ethic.

Really successful people generally have one thing in common:  They work harder than anyone else.  The brilliant, but lazy person, can only go so far.  All of us like to think we have a strong work ethic, but do we really?

Here are some suggestions for developing a strong work ethic:

• Get an early start – Most people who have an exemplary work ethic will be on the job by at least 7 AM.  That may be tough in college, but you should at least be ready to work at 8 AM.
• Focus on work and avoid distractions – A strong work ethic means that you focus on work without distractions.  People respect you for your focus and will not interrupt you.
• Stay on the job – People with a strong work ethic will generally work for about 10 hours a day. While that may seem extreme, ten-hour days just become routine after a short amount of time.  Any degree program that is worth the investment requires this level of dedication.
• Learn to multi-task – There are things you can do at the same time.  For example, it’s easy to prepare flashcards during class.  You can also review these during commercials on TV.  There are just examples of way to multi-task.  The key to multi-tasking is to plan ahead.  Think about things that need to be done that can be done with something else.
• Become efficient – People with strong work ethic are also very efficient.  When they are doing something, they are also thinking about how they could do this quicker.  As students, think of the time you waste trying to find things, figuring out what the assignment is, moving from one location to another when the trip wasn’t necessary, or teaching yourself because you weren’t an active learner in class.
• Match the effort with the outcome – Not everything requires the effort we put into it.  People with strong work ethic learn how to judge the effort needed to achieve a desired outcome.  For example, do you need to write those extra 300 words when the teacher only wanted a short response?  Do you really need to put in extra time to make an assignment grade is just based on the answer.  (Note: you don’t want to be sloppy, but you don’t have to overdue the appearance.)
• Associate with the right people – If you want to sustain a high level of work ethic, then become friends with others like you.  This is actually easy to do since you’ll see each other early in the morning when everyone else is asleep.  When you develop these friends, you’ll find a lot of mutual support and motivation.
• Develop a non-work passion – You can’t just work and sustain this for long.  You will need a strong passion as well to sustain you.  Often the passion is 180º different from your work.  But you’ll find yourself separating work and your passion in a way that the time away from work becomes a rejuvenation of your mind and body.
• Find a role model – People with a strong work ethic often have someone they know who they can learn from.  It could be a parent, a relative, a mentor, a coach, or anyone who you see fairly often.  You will find you can learn a lot from this person and often eventually exceed your role model in your work ethic.
• Love what you do – It’s hard to have a strong work ethic if you don’t love what you do.  In college, you need to have a major that excites you.  If you just dread your courses, you really need to think about another major.

All of these may seem extreme to you.  The reality is that you’ll gradually see your work ethic changing in college.  If you’re smart, you’ll accelerate the change in your work ethic early in college because it becomes harder to make sudden shifts when your course load gets tougher.

Suggest a Topic

Looking for a topic and can't find it? Why not submit one...

Rate This Topic

Testimonials.

The biggest improvement I have made this semester has got to be my study habits.  This semester I made it my goal to study more and work harder in school.  I have kept pretty well to my word up till now and I hope I can continue to do so.  Another improvement that I have made this semester that I'm not too proud to say is not going out during the week.  Along with studying, I also made this my goal.  My dad always told me work comes before play, it's such a simple quote, but it's the truth.  If I plan on doing well this semester, I am going to have to limit my "play" to the weekends and work hard during the week.  With both of my improvements being said, it's likely that my grades are going to improve greatly.  I need to have self-discipline in order to complete my goals until the semester is over.  Discipline is something I lack and I also hope to improve as I make good habits in regards to my studies. .

Sign Up For Student Emails

Enter your email below to get weekly student emails.

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Sign Up For Parent Emails

Enter your email below to get weekly parent emails.

9 Best Homework Help Websites

July 22, 2023

When I was in high school, resources for extra homework help weren’t exactly abundant. If you were struggling with a Shakespeare sonnet, you could always run to the bookstore and pick up a CliffNotes guide. SparkNotes was also gaining in popularity. But these early homework help resources had limited catalogs and were focused primarily on literature. Today, I imagine students suffer from the opposite problem—having too many choices when it comes to homework help websites. When the options are seemingly endless, knowing what to look out for takes on an added importance. Below, I’ll go through a list of 9 stand-out homework help websites and briefly discuss what makes them worth a visit.

Homework Help Websites – The Basics

The best homework help websites do more than just spit out an answer to that tricky math problem. They actually help students learn the material. Common features of homework help websites are educational videos and lectures, practice tests and quizzes, study tools like flashcards, and Q&As with experts. Many sites offer features that allow students to ask specific questions and get real-time feedback. There are also a number of services that offer one-on-one tutoring. Some homework help sites are free, while others require a paid subscription.

1) Khan Academy

Khan Academy is an amazing resource for students of all ages. It’s free, and it really is an academy—it offers full courses in a wide array of subjects, from pre-K math to high school physics. The courses consist of readings, video lectures, practice exercises, and quizzes. The breadth of material is impressive. In math alone, I see course listings for Algebra 1 and 2, Geometry, Trigonometry, Precalculus, Statistics, Multivariable calculus—you get the idea. Khan Academy also offers a wide variety of AP courses, state-specific curricula, test-prep programs, and life skill courses, like personal finance.

It’s important to note that Khan Academy isn’t a one-on-one tutoring platform. But because of their extensive library of material, the search function is especially powerful. Try it out. I did a search for argumentative essay help, and found a comprehensive guide to writing argumentative essays that was a part of a larger writing course.

Chegg is a paid homework help service. Unlike Khan Academy, Chegg isn’t built around specific courses. Rather, it offers a variety of homework-support resources. Among those resources are plagiarism and grammar checkers, a proofreading service, and a “math solver”, which allows students to enter a problem and get back both a solution and a detailed step-by-step explanation of how the problem was solved. Perhaps the most powerful tool Chegg offers is its “Expert Q&A” feature. This service allows students to take a picture of their homework problem, upload it to the site, and get a detailed response in return. Chegg’s emphasis on process and explanation make it a valuable educational resource for students—not just a way to get a quick answer.

Best Homework Help Websites (Continued)

Quizlet is a well-known and worthwhile study resource. It offers a variety of courses, and it also has an expert-response feature. But Quizlet’s best feature, in my option, is the flashcards tool. Students can create their own digital decks of cards and practice them on Quizlet—just like an old fashion set of index cards. I had a ton of success using Quizlet’s flash card feature to help me memorize words for my foreign language requirement in college. It’s a simple but powerful tool. Although often maligned as a learning method, rote rehearsal and spaced repetition are effective ways to encode information . Quizlet’s flashcard feature is a great way to put those techniques into practice.

4) Socratic

is an AI-powered homework support app that allows students to type or take pictures of questions and receive solutions right away. Since it works with AI, it relies on the web’s vast stores of accumulated knowledge—you’re not interacting with a human tutor. Nonetheless, I found it to be an extremely helpful tool. I tried it out first using a specific math problem. In just a few seconds I was provided with the solution and an explainer with relevant formulas, plus a graphic to help visualize the underlying logic. There were also suggested links to additional resources. For example, when I asked Socratic to explain how the German genitive case works, it suggested a YouTube video and a number of articles from blogs and other language-learning sites.

Since Socratic doesn’t feature courses or one-on-one tutoring support, I wouldn’t lean on it if I were really struggling in a particular class. But as a tool to check your work, make sure you’re on the right track, and become aware of additional resources, it’s worth a download.

5) Photomath

Photomath is, as you might have guessed, a site for math homework help. Like other homework help websites, Photomath allows students to take a picture of a problem and receive an instant, step-by-step solution. Included along with the solution is an explanation of relevant concepts and formulas, plus videos covering mathematical concepts. Photomath does offer a few basic courses, too. So if in addition to homework-specific help you want to brush up on the basics, they’ve got you covered in arithmetic, algebra, and calculus crash courses.

6) Studypool

Studypool is a paid homework support service that provides solutions to specific questions. Studypool offers support in all the major subjects, with a particular emphasis on science. Students can ask questions on everything from anatomy to physics. Like other services, students upload their exact questions or problems directly to the site. But Studypool’s payment model is a bit different: instead of paying for tutoring time or a monthly subscription, students pay for solutions to each question they submit. When a student submits a question, tutors submit bids to answer them. The student then can select which tutor/price option works best. After students select the price and tutor they want, they’re connected with the tutor and given the solution and explanation via messenger.

The draw of Studypool is that it gives students access to real (i.e., human) tutors who are experts in their field. The downside is that pricing isn’t transparent, and students pay per question.

7) College Info Geek

College Info Geek is the study-support website that I wish I knew about when I was in high school and college (they didn’t pay me to write that, I swear). The site focuses not on specific courses or questions, but on how to become a more effective learner. Here it’s all about “learning how to learn”—study tips, memorization and note-taking techniques, and much more. The articles are well-researched, clearly-communicated, practical, and comprehensive. For example, the article on how to improve your memory includes a breakdown of the different types of memory processes, memorization techniques, and even a discussion of how nutrition affects memory. College Info Geek is a great resource for everyone, not just high school and college students.

8) SparkNotes

Yes, Sparknotes made the list! The site offers lessons in a whole bunch of subjects—biology, chemistry, computer science, history, philosophy, math—but its specialty is literature. SparkNotes provides summaries and analyses of novels, short stories, poetry, and non-fiction, from The Canterbury Tales to Toni Morrison, Saul Bellow, and Junot Diaz. SparkNotes breaks down books into sub-sections and provides synopses and analyses for each section. There are also separate pages for character breakdowns, discussions of themes and motifs, and explanations of important quotes. I’d caution against using SparkNotes if you’re trying to “hack” a novel or poem and get simple answers about what it “means.” But as a way to supplement your own understanding and interpretation, it’s a great resource. Shmoop is also worth checking out for extra support in literature, poetry, mythology, and the history of literary movements.

9) Grammarly

I’m not sure if Grammarly is an obvious or unexpected choice to round out the list. Either way, it deserves a mention here. Grammarly is a writing tool. It checks and suggests corrections for incorrectly spelled words and misused punctuation. But Grammarly also scans and corrects for things like clarity and vocab usage. It flags sentences that are vague, or overly wordy, and alerts you if you’re using that flashy vocab word incorrectly. It even gives suggestions if it thinks your writing is a bit bland. I don’t see Grammarly as a crutch, but rather as a tool. It can help you master those pesky recurring grammar and usage issues. Always mix up effect and affect? Grammarly will continue to course correct until you’ve got it down yourself.

Homework Help Websites – Final Thoughts

None of the above homework help websites should be seen as a panacea. Each has benefits and drawbacks, strengths and weak points. The list is far from exhaustive. And the sites don’t have to be used in isolation. Try a few out, mix and match. College Info Geek is an excellent supplement to any study regimen. Socratic can be used as a tool to check answers for math homework, and at the same time you can use Grammarly to describe your problem to a tutor on Chegg. At their best, these sites are more than quick fixes to stubborn homework problems—they’re aids to genuine learning.

Additional Resources

You should also check out College Transitions’ “ High School Success ” blogs for help with a number of common high school assignments, including:

• Lord of the Flies Summary & Analysis 
• The Great Gatsby and The American Dream
• Analysis of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” Speech
• Robert Frost’s Road Not Taken Analysis 
• High School Success

Dane Gebauer

Dane Gebauer is a writer and teacher living in Miami, FL. He received his MFA in fiction from Columbia University, and his writing has appeared in Complex Magazine and Sinking City Review .

• 2-Year Colleges
• Application Strategies
• Best Colleges by Major
• Best Colleges by State
• Big Picture
• Career & Personality Assessment
• College Essay
• College Search/Knowledge
• College Success
• Costs & Financial Aid
• Dental School Admissions
• Extracurricular Activities
• Graduate School Admissions
• High Schools
• Law School Admissions
• Medical School Admissions
• Navigating the Admissions Process
• Online Learning
• Private High School Spotlight
• Summer Program Spotlight
• Summer Programs
• Test Prep Provider Spotlight

“Innovative and invaluable…use this book as your college lifeline.”

— Lynn O'Shaughnessy

Nationally Recognized College Expert

College Planning in Your Inbox

Join our information-packed monthly newsletter.

I am a... Student Student Parent Counselor Educator Other First Name Last Name Email Address Zip Code Area of Interest Business Computer Science Engineering Fine/Performing Arts Humanities Mathematics STEM Pre-Med Psychology Social Studies/Sciences Submit

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

The Ethics of Utilizing Online Homework Sharing Sites for Academic Success

How To Write an Ethics Essay: With Free Samples

Ethics is a vital field of study that focuses itself with the moral principles that govern human conduct. It entails examining diverse moral conundrums and offering persuasive justifications for the best course of action.

Critical thinking, analytical abilities, and attention to detail are crucial when writing an ethics essay. It entails analyzing ethical theories and applying them to actual circumstances.

In this article, our team of professional essay writers at  my homework help  will cover the essential steps to writing an ethics essay, including comprehending the assignment, conducting research, coming up a thesis statement, outlining the essay, and  writing a good introduction , body, and conclusion.

Table of Contents

Definition of ethics.

Ethics refers to a branch of philosophy that deals with moral principles and values that govern individual and collective conduct behavior.

Ethics is focused with distinguishing right from wrong, well from worse, and just from unfair actions.

Importance of ethical reasoning in academic & professional settings

• Integrity maintenance: Ethical reasoning assist individuals maintain their integrity by making decisions that are retained with their values, principles, and beliefs
• Avoidance of unethical behavior: Ethical reasoning assist individuals identify and avoid unethical actions
• Promoting Fairness and Justice: Fostering Fairness and Justice: By requiring people to take into account the rights and interests of all stakeholders, ethical reasoning helps to advance fairness and justice. By doing this, prejudice, discrimination, and other types of injustice are reduced.
• Fostering Respect for Others: Ethical reasoning helps individuals to respect the rights and dignity of other individual others.
• Enhancing Professionalism: Ethical reasoning is a crucial component of professionalism. It is important for building a professional reputation and building oneself as a trustworthy and reliable colleague or employee

Understanding the assignment

Understanding the assignment is a crucial step in writing an ethics essay. It entails reading the prompt carefully, identifying the main ethical aspects or theories that apply, and clarifying the scope and requirements of the essay.

Read the prompt carefully:

In order to understand the question being posed, the writer should attentively read the prompt. In this instance, the writing prompt requests an explanation of  how utilitarianism might be used to address a particular ethical conundrum  in the healthcare sector as well as a thorough examination of the stakeholders involved.

Identify the key ethical concepts or theories:

The writer needs to point out the main ethical concepts or theories that apply to the prompt. In this scenario, the prompt particularly mentions utilitarianism, so the writer needs to be familiar with this ethical theory and its guiding principles.

Clarify the scope and requirements of the essay:

The essay’s purpose and specifications should be made clear by the writer. In this situation, the assignment requires a thorough examination of the relevant parties and an assessment of the possible effects of various courses of action.

Ethical Frameworks and Theories

When writing an ethical essay, it is vital to take into account the various ethical frameworks and theories that exist. Ethical frameworks and theories give a structure for thinking about ethical issues and assist to guide decision-making. In this article, we’ll look at some of the most popular ethical theories and frameworks and give instances of how we might use them to address   ethical issues.

Utilitarianism : the ethical theory that stresses the greatest good for the largest number of people

Deontology : the ethical theory that stresses the moral duty and obligation to act ethically, regardless of the repercussions.

Virtue ethics : the ethical theory that stresses the growth of virtuous character features and behaviors

Care ethics : the ethical theory that stresses the importance of caring relationships and compassion

Analyzing Ethical Dilemmas

When writing an ethical essay, examining ethical dilemmas is a essential aspect of the process. An ethical dilemma occurs when one is faced with a selection between two conflicting moral principles or values

A. Identify the Ethical Dilemma

The first step in examining an ethical dilemma is to point it. This includes recognizing the conflicting moral principles or values that are in play.

B. Consider All Perspectives

Once the ethical dilemma has been identified, it is essential to take into account all perspectives. This involves learning more the different moral principles and values that are in play, as well as the potential repercussions of each course of action

C. Evaluate Each Option

After taking into account all perspectives, the next step is to examining each option. This includes weighing the potential advantages and harms of each course of action, as well as considering the implications for all parties involved.

D. Choose the Best Option

After examining each option, the end step is to select the best course of action. This entails making a decision based on the ethical principles and values that are most essential in the given situation

Here are some instances of ethical dilemmas that can be utilized in an ethical essay:

• The Trolley Problem – A trolley is directed towards a group of people on a track, and you can divert the trolley onto a different track where only one individual one person is located.
• The Insider Trading Dilemma – A stockbroker is given insider information that can allow them to make a large profit on a trade.

Structuring an Ethics Essay

Structuring an essay on how to write an ethical essay with samples can be done using the following steps:

Introduction

Start the essay with a strong opening statement that attracts the attention of the reader. Introduce the topic of the essay and present a brief overview of what will be debated in the essay.

Thesis statement

Provide a concise and comprehensible that summarizes the essay’s major point..

Background information

Present background information about the topic being discussed, such as the history of ethical philosophy and main ethical theories.

Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should concentrate on a specific point relevant to the thesis statement. Use examples and evidence to prove each point.

Counterarguments

Discuss probable potential counterarguments to the thesis statement and provide rebuttals.

Summarize the major points of the essay and restate the thesis statement. Finalize with a strong closing statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader. You can read more about  how to write a conclusion  in our previous article.

Writing Style and Tone

When writing an ethics essay, it’s crucial to carefully take into account your writing style and tone. Your style needs to be clear, concise, and professional, and your tone needs to be objective and respectful. You want to avoid using jargon or too complicated language that your reader could find difficult to understand.

One impactful writing style for an ethics essay is to use the “hierarchical” approach. This can assist to keep your reader focused and interested in your argument.

In terms of tone, it’s essential to maintain neutral and prevent taking a strong stance on the topic. Rather, you should provide a balanced argument that takes both sides of the issue.

References and Citations

Use references and citations to back up your claims and show that you have done thorough study while writing an essay on ethics. References are the books, papers, and websites that you consulted when conducting research for your essay.

References are the sources that you have consulted while researching your essay, such as books, articles, and websites.

Citations are the brief statements you make in your essay to show where you got indications within your essay that indicate where you found the information you are citing. There are different citation styles used in academic writing, includes APA, MLA, and Chicago, and it’s crucial to adhere to the rules of the format advised by your instructor or academic institution.

You can understand more about APA in our previous guide on  APA formatting style .

Editing and Proofreading

When writing an essay, including an ethics essay, editing and proofreading are crucial steps in the process.

Editing includes reviewing the written work to refine its structure, flow, and coherence, whereas proofreading focuses on identifying and fixing errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and formatting.

An Example of an Ethics Essay

The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

Introduction:

The development of  artificial intelligence (AI)  has brought about many ethical concerns. While though AI has the power to change a wide range of industries, it also has a number of concerns, including the loss of jobs and the emergence of autonomous weaponry. This essay will examine the ethics of artificial intelligence and suggest measures to reduce these dangers.

The first section will focus the ethical implications of job displacement caused by AI. It will analyze the effects on the labor market and provide recommendations for reforms including universal basic income and retraining programs.  The second section will explore the ethical concerns around the building of autonomous weapons. It will look at the dangers of giving robots control over life and death decisions and provide solutions including international treaties to control the creation and use of such weapons.

In conclusion, the advancement of AI needs us to think about the ethical implications of its use. While AI has the potential to revolutionize wide range industries, we must make sure that its advancement and use align with our values and respect human dignity. Adopting ethical guidelines and rules that make sure AI serves the greater good will help us achieve this.

Final Thoughts

To conclude, writing an ethical essay needs a precise comprehending of ethical theories and principles, as well as their practical applications in real-world situations.

It is critical to recognize ethical dilemmas and examine them objectively while taking into account various viewpoints and possible outcomes. The essay should be organized well and structured, with a clear thesis statement and strong proving arguments.

Hire Someone to Write My Ethics Essays

Our  homework helpers  recognize of the significance of commemorative speeches and how they can leave an impression on your audience that lasts for a long time. That is why we are here, to assist our clients with this essential critical task!

Our expert team of experienced  do my homework  writers is committed in supplying dedicated to providing high quality top-notch services that will produce in a remarkable memorable essay.

Whether you need  help with programming assignment  or just need to understand  how to write an argumentative essay ; our team at myhomeworkhelp.org will get it done.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

When it comes to writing an ethics essay, many students have recurring questions that arise in their minds.

In this post, we will cover some of the most frequently asked problems in this post and offer solutions.

An ethics essay is a form of academic writing that examines ethical ideas and precepts in relation to a specific topic. This essay needs you to examine and evaluate ethical theories, apply them to real-world circumstances, and argue for a particular ethical viewpoint.

The following steps can assist one to write an ethics essay:

• Select a relevant and interesting topic
• Do research to compile information and sources
• Define and examine ethical concepts and principles relevant to the topic
• Build a clear thesis statement that avails your argument or position
• Organize your essay with a logical structure, including an introduction, body, and conclusion
• Use of evidence and examples to prove your arguments
• Cite your sources properly and precise accurately
• Edit and reassess your essay for clarity, coherence, and accuracy.

The following components should be present in your essay on ethics:

• A concise thesis statement that presents your argument or position
• Evidence and examples to back up your arguments
• A crucial analysis of ethical concepts and principles related to the topic
• An assessment of different ethical perspectives and their consequences precise citation of sources to prevent plagiarism.

There are many ethical theories that you can use in your essay, such as:

• Utilitarianism: the ethical theory that emphasizes the largest good for the greatest number of people
• Deontology: the ethical theory that that places a strong emphasis on having a moral obligation to act morally, no matter what the consequences may be.
• Virtue ethics: the ethical theory that emphasizes the growth of virtuous character traits and conduct
• Care ethics: the ethical theory that the importance of relationships and compassion.

To examine ethical arguments in your essay, you need:

• Point out the premises and conclusions of the argument
• Examine the soundness and validity of the argument
• take into account counterarguments and goals
• Examine the impacts and repercussions of the argument

Order an Essay Now & Get These Homework Help Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

• Get Homework Help
• How It Works
• Math homework Help
• Excel Homework Help
• Case Study Assignment Help | Do My Case Study Homework
• PowerPoint Presentation Help
• CIPD Assignment Help
• Civil Engineering Homework Help – Do My Asssignment For Me
• CPM Homework Help | Do My CPM Assignment For Me
• Discussion Board Homework Help
• Finance Homework Help – Do My Finance Assignment For Me
• Nursing Homework Help
• Programming Homework Help
• SPSS Homework Help | Do My SPSS Assignment For Me Cheap
• Statistics Homework Help

WhatsApp us

Essay on My Personal Ethics

Students are often asked to write an essay on My Personal Ethics in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on My Personal Ethics

What are personal ethics.

Personal ethics are like invisible rules that guide what I do and how I behave. They help me tell right from wrong and make good choices. My family, friends, and experiences have all shaped my ethics.

I believe in always telling the truth. Even when it is difficult, being honest is important to me. It builds trust with others and makes me feel good about my actions.

Being kind means treating people with respect and helping them when I can. I try to be friendly and understanding because it makes the world a nicer place for everyone.

Responsibility

I take care of my duties, like homework and chores, without being told. Being responsible shows that I am reliable and can be trusted with important tasks.

I show respect by listening to others and valuing their feelings and thoughts. It’s important to treat others as I would like to be treated, which means being polite and considerate.

250 Words Essay on My Personal Ethics

Personal ethics are like invisible rules that guide me in making choices. They are my inner compass that helps me decide between right and wrong. Imagine having a small voice in your head that whispers advice when you are about to make a decision. That’s what personal ethics are like for me.

One big part of my personal ethics is honesty. This means I always try to tell the truth, no matter how hard it might be. If I find money on the ground, I will look for the owner instead of keeping it. At school, this means doing my own work and not copying someone else’s answers.

Another important part is respect. I believe everyone deserves to be treated well, no matter who they are. This includes not making fun of others, listening when someone is talking, and being kind to people and animals.

Being responsible is also key to my ethics. I take care of my things and do my chores without being told. At school, I hand in my homework on time. Responsibility also means admitting when I make mistakes and trying to fix them.

Helping Others

Lastly, I think it’s ethical to help others. If I see someone struggling, I offer to help. This could be as simple as holding the door for someone or helping a friend with a tough homework problem.

To sum it up, my personal ethics are about being honest, respectful, responsible, and helpful. They are the rules I live by to be the best person I can be.

500 Words Essay on My Personal Ethics

Personal ethics are like invisible rules that guide what I do and how I behave. They are my own ideas of what is right and wrong. These rules are important because they help me live in a good way, making sure I am kind to others and true to myself.

Being Honest

One big part of my personal ethics is being honest. This means I always try to tell the truth, no matter how hard it might be. If I break something at home, I tell my parents instead of hiding it. In school, I do my own work and don’t copy from friends. Being honest helps me feel good about myself and keeps my friends and family trusting me.

Respecting Others

Another important rule for me is to respect everyone. This means I listen when others are talking and don’t make fun of them. I understand that all people are different and that’s okay. At school, I don’t laugh at a classmate if they answer a question wrong. I treat others like I want to be treated.

Being fair is also a big part of my ethics. I share my things with my brother and take turns with my friends when playing games. In a group project, I do my part of the work and don’t leave it all for others. Being fair means everyone gets a chance and no one feels left out.

I believe in helping people who need it. If I see someone struggling with heavy bags, I offer to carry some. When a friend is sad, I try to cheer them up. Helping doesn’t have to be big; even small acts of kindness can make a big difference in someone’s day.

Being responsible is a key part of my ethics. I do my homework on time and take care of my pet by feeding it every day. When I say I’ll do something, I make sure to do it. Responsibility is about doing the right thing even when no one is watching.

Learning from Mistakes

Nobody is perfect, and I make mistakes too. But I try to learn from them. If I do something wrong, I say sorry and try to fix it. This helps me grow and become a better person. It’s important to not keep making the same mistakes.

My personal ethics are the rules that help me live a good life. They are about being honest, respecting others, being fair, helping people, being responsible, and learning from my mistakes. These rules might be invisible, but they shape who I am and how I act every day. They help me make good choices and be a person others can look up to. Everyone has their own set of ethics, and it’s these rules that make the world a better place for all of us.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on My Parents Is My Hero
• Essay on My Mother My Hero
• Essay on My Mom Is My Best Friend

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• How It Works
• Our Experts

Business Ethics Homework Help – How to Ace Your Ethics Assignment

Business ethics homework can be a bit of a challenge. You may not know all the answers to the questions, and you may not have the experience to get the job done right. If you’re struggling with business ethics homework, you need help! This guide will teach you how to do your business ethics assignment justice, and will give you a few tips on how to make sure that your paper is ethical and professional.

Get started with business ethics homework

The first step is to get started with ethics homework . You need to be familiar with the ethical principles that pertain to your topic. You also need to be able to answer the questions accurately and fairly. If you can’t do this, your ethics assignment will likely not meet the standards that you are expecting.

Tips for doing business ethics homework correctly

There are a few things that you can do to make sure that your ethics assignment is ethical and professional. First, be sure to read the assignment thoroughly before starting. This will help you understand the questions that you’ll be asked and the implications of your choices. Secondly, ask around for help. Many people in your class may have more experience with the topic than you do, so it’s important to get some support from people who know what they’re talking about.

Finally, make sure that you have a good understanding of the principles of business ethics. By understanding these principles, you’ll be better equipped to make responsible decisions when it comes to your business – whether it’s during your ethics paper or in any other area of your life.

Get an idea of what you want your paper to look like

Before you start your ethics assignment, it’s important to get an idea of what you want your paper to look like. What are the main points that you want to make? What are the ethical implications of your argument? Once you have a good idea of what you want your paper to look like, it will be much easier to write quality ethical essays .

Make sure your ethical beliefs are reflected in your paper

One of the most important things you can do when writing your ethics paper is to make sure that your ethical beliefs are reflected in your paper. You should be aware of the different types of Ethics assignments, and make sure that your paper falls within the appropriate ethical beliefs.

Write the academic paper you deserve

When you write a business ethics paper , you should aim to be as accurate and informative as possible. You may not be a legal expert, but you should at least be familiar with the legal landscape of business. Furthermore, it’s important to make sure that your paper is ethical in the same way that your decisions are ethical. You should avoid making any false assumptions or using unprofessional language when writing your paper.

Check your work and make sure it meets the standards set by the school

When you’re completing business ethics homework , it’s important to make sure that your work meets the standards set by the school. In order to do this, you’ll need to be aware of the ethical principles that your school believes in. You’ll also need to be able to answer the questions related to those principles.

Tips for ethical business writing

When you’re writing ethics papers, it’s important to be aware of the different types of ethical questions that may be asked. You should also be prepared to answer these questions in a way that is respectful of the people who will be reading your paper.

You should also be aware of the different ways that you can ethically handle business decisions. For example, when you are considering whether or not to make a purchase, you might want to consider the consequences of making the purchase.

You might also want to ask yourself whether or not it is in the best interests of your company to make a purchase. You should also consider how you would deal with employees who break the rules of business. Finally, it’s important to remember that no one is perfect, and there may be times when you have to make difficult choices about how to run your business.

How to Ace Your Ethics Assignment

One of the most important things you can do for your ethics assignment is to read the assigned material. This will help you understand the concepts and will give you a better understanding of what is being asked of you. You should also be familiar with the different ethical principles that are common in business. By understanding these principles, you can more easily meet the ethical standards set by your school or company.

Introduction to business ethics

Business ethics is the process of deciding how to behave in the workplace so that your business is both successful and ethical. It covers a variety of topics, including honesty, integrity, social responsibility, and waste management. You’ll need to do some research before you start your ethics assignment, so be sure to get started on this important task with this guide.

Business Ethics and Responsible Management

When doing business, it is important to consider the ethical implications of your actions. This includes understanding your business model and what you are doing with the resources you’re using. Additionally, it’s important to be aware of the laws that apply to your industry and the people who may be affected by your actions. You should also make sure that you are following the code of ethics that your organization uses.

Business Ethics Homework Help from Experts

1. Get the Proper Instruction

Before starting your ethics assignment, be sure to get the proper instruction. You don’t want to make any mistakes that could damage your reputation or cause you trouble in the future.

2. Follow the Guidelines

Make sure that all of your Ethical questions are answered according to the guidelines set out by the school or course you are taking. These questions should include: what is an ethical decision? what should I do if I am unsure? What should I avoid doing? These questions will help you develop a better understanding of business ethics and what behavior is considered ethical.

Topics on Business Ethics

1) What are the general principles of business ethics?

2) What are the specific steps you need to take in order to follow ethical guidelines?

3) What should you do if you feel that you have violated any of the principles of business ethics?

4) How do you determine if a particular action is ethically acceptable?

5) How can you make sure your paper is ethical and professional?

Other Broader Topics include:

• Business decision making homework help
• Business principles homework help
• Business social responsibility assignments
• Business social responsibility homework help
• Consumer ethics in the digital age
• Corporate accounting fraud
• Corporate greenwashing and contemporary consumers
• Corporate responsibilities homework help
• Corporate Social Responsibility from an ethical standpoint
• Corporative ethics homework help
• Cross cultural business assignments
• Cross cultural business homework help
• Employee relationships homework help
• Ethical codes homework help
• Ethical conflicts assignments
• Ethical conflicts homework help
• Ethical conflicts in the workplace
• Ethical dilemmas in the workplace
• Ethical failures homework help
• Ethical issues assignments
• Ethical issues homework help
• Ethical issues in the healthcare setting
• Ethical standards homework help
• Ethics for personnel and manager homework help
• Insider Trading
• International business ethics homework help
• Moral judgments homework help
• Moral principles homework help
• Pragmatic approach to corporate ethics assignments
• Pragmatic approach to corporate ethics homework help
• Professional ethics assignments
• Psychological aspect of corporate ethics assignments
• The role of ethical codes of conduct in the workplace
• Types of corporate crimes assignments
• Types of ethical dilemmas assignments
• Types of ethical dilemmas homework help
• Work ethics homework help

Examples of Ethical Responsibility in Business

There are a few examples of ethical responsibility in business. Here are a few:

-You must never misuse your position for personal gain.

-You must always be honest and truthful in your dealings with others.

-You should never use your position to harm another person or company.

-You must always put the needs of others before yourself.

Business Ethics vs. Social Responsibility

When it comes to business ethics, there is a clear difference between social responsibility and business ethics. Social responsibility is the idea that businesses should be contributing to the well-being of their employees and the community they operate in. Business ethics, on the other hand, is about making sure that your business does what’s best for your company, your customers, and the environment in which you operate.

Business Ethics Assignment Topics

Ethics is the practice of judging what is right and proper in order to maintain a productive business relationship. Many ethical issues are faced by businesses, such as the struggles between morality and profit, the impact of business on social responsibility, and the use of power in relationships.

When you’re struggling with business ethics homework, it can be tough to know where to start. This guide will help you out – by providing a few topics to get you started, and by giving you tips on how to do your Ethics assignment justice.

Resolving Ethical Dilemmas and Making Ethical Decisions

When you’re writing business ethics papers, it’s important to first understand the ethical dilemmas that your paper will face. You may not be able to answer all the questions, but you should at least know what the ethical issues are. After knowing the ethical issues, you can then make a decision based on the best interests of your business.

Homework Help for Social Responsibility and Ethical Business Behavior

Ethical business behavior is important, and it’s something that you should be aware of. In order to do your best work, you need to be well-versed in the concepts of social responsibility and ethical business behavior.

How To Complete Assignments When You Are Busy With Part-Time Job? Take Up Our Business Ethics Assignment Help Services

How To Deal With Complicated Topics?

When it comes to business ethics, the sky is the limit. You may not know all the answers to the questions, and you may not have the experience to get the job done right. That’s why we recommend that you get help with your ethics assignment.

Improve Your Grades By Having The Business Ethics Assignment Help Online

You can improve your grades by having the business ethics assignment help online . This service will provide you with the resources you need to get the job done right, and will also give you feedback on your work so that you can make sure that it’s ethical and professional.

What constitutes a Good Ethics Essay?

The definition of a good ethics essay can vary, but generally, it’s an essay that meets the following criteria:

– It is written in an objective and unbiased manner

– It is well- researched

– It is accurate

– It has a clear and concise argument

– It is written in a clear and concise language

– The author has a strong understanding of the topic at hand

Advantages of Using Our Online Business Ethics Assignment Help Services

1. We are able to help you get the job done quickly and efficiently.

2. We have a wide range of business ethics resources at our disposal, so we can provide you with all the information you need to make your paper ethical and professional.

3. We are committed to providing an ethical and professional experience for our customers, so we take care to ensure that all our products and services are safe and effective.

4. We offer a 100 percent satisfaction guarantee on all of our business ethics homework services, so you can be sure that you’re getting the best possible value for your money.

Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation Assignment Help

Get Help with English Literature Homework

Gender Studies Assignment Help

Criminal Justice Assignment Help

Anthropology Homework Help

Do my paper for cheap

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Ukraine invasion — explained

The roots of Russia's invasion of Ukraine go back decades and run deep. The current conflict is more than one country fighting to take over another; it is — in the words of one U.S. official — a shift in "the world order." Here are some helpful stories to make sense of it all.

Ukraine's prime minister says, if passed, $60B U.S. aid package will be critical

Andrew Limbong

Tinbete Ermyas

Michael Levitt

Denys Shmyhal, Ukraine's Prime Minister, at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C. Mhari Shaw for NPR hide caption

Denys Shmyhal, Ukraine's Prime Minister, at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C.

As Congress considers whether to send more aid to Ukraine, that country's prime minister, Denys Shmyhal, is visiting the U.S., and making the case for why further funding matters.

Shmyhal has been traveling around the nation meeting with members of Congress and officials in the Biden administration.

He says that the $60 billion aid package is critical to Ukraine's war effort.

In an in-person interview with NPR's Andrew Limbong on All Things Considered , Shmyhal talked about how that aid would make a difference on the front lines, and the state of the war in general.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Interview Highlights

Andrew Limbong : Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said recently that without aid, Ukraine doesn't have a chance of winning. And I'm curious if you can tell me how so?

Prime Minister Shmyhal : We need more ammunition. I visited the front line four weeks ago and asked the guys how are they. They have one artillery shell per day, per 20 kilometers of the frontline. Russians have dozens or even hundreds of artillery shells per day on the same line of the front.

Here's what's in the House foreign aid bills

Russians are absolutely learning the lessons and they improve their weaponry. They make huge progress during this war. So we need weapons and we will [do] our job, not just deter them, but push them out of our territory. I should mentioned that we [liberated] 50% of occupied territories during these two years of full scale war. We liberated the Black Sea. So now the Russian fleet is hiding somewhere on the east of the Black Sea. So these examples demonstrate that if we have support of United States --when we have support of our partners--we may push Russians out of our land.

Limbong : On the note of equipment, the Pentagon's office of the Inspector General issued a report earlier this year, and it said that there are nearly 40,000 weapons that were provided to Ukraine but have not been accounted for. If you do get more support and more weapons, will there be any improvement on how those weapons are accounted for and tracked so we know where they are.

Shmyhal : According to my information, all that the United States supplied to Ukraine is absolutely clearly accounted [for] and we cooperate with inspectors general from Defense [department], from Department of State, from USAID.

2 years of Russia-Ukraine war

A mayor in ukraine aids his town's few remaining people, as russia closes in.

I personally have met them two times and we have regular communication with inspectors general and they never communicate about any problems with accountability and transparency of using United States equipment or weaponry. So it's crucially important for us to be accountable and to be transparent for using of equipment of our partners. So because the United States is the biggest partner, the biggest supplier of military support, we pay special attention to questions of accountability.

Limbong : So you've never heard from any of our people from us that like they've been like, "hey, we don't know where these guys [the weapons] are?"

Shmyhal : No, no. Sometimes they told us about this.

But we shouldn't forget that we are that; we all are on the influence of Russian propaganda, Russian disinformation, Russian cyberattacks. They play a role in the sense of disinformation [in] all of our societies, Ukrainian and Western societies and United States society. And especially, [they] implement these messages that 'Ukrainians are using weaponry not in proper ways,' 'they are selling this weaponry' and so on. So because of this, we cooperate with our partners very closely and we are very accountable for this, to destroy this propaganda and this lie from the Russian side.

Limbong : Ukraine has actually taken a lot of drastic steps to combat corruption within the country. I was wondering if you could lay out some of those steps and explain what has been done and what you think needs to be done further.

Shmyhal : We pay huge attention to implementation of reforms and during these two years of war, we've made huge progress. And I should say that we implement all needed legislation and create all needed anti-corruption infrastructure. So we created an anti-corruption National Bureau and National Agency for Prevention of Corruption, National Anti-Corruption Court and Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor. So all the needed infrastructure is created. It works perfectly. As a demonstrated result, unfortunately for me — they demonstrated some cases when high level, top level officials are caught on corruption.

Ukraine's Kharkiv moves classrooms underground so kids survive Russian attacks

But it means that this infrastructure will bring results. So [we're making] our next steps, we improving this infrastructure, we improving our legislation. We implement all the directives of the European Union because now we [are making] absolutely big steps towards EU and now we are opening a negotiation process. And it means that this is the last step before EU membership.

So I hope that it will take not more than two years to go through the negotiation process and we will be the fastest country in sense of [obtaining] EU membership. We will be ready, we will do our homework and I believe that in two years we will give the ball on the side of European partners to take a political decision about membership of Ukraine in the EU.

From other side, we have very good information from a group of countries against corruption, so named GRECO , which named progress of Ukraine in the sphere of fighting corruption as a "remarkable." Plus, Transparency International said the same, that we made huge steps toward fighting corruption. And the last one, we implemented digitalization because computers do not take bribes, it's impossible to corrupt a computer. And more than 130 state and public services now are absolutely digitalized without any human factor. So this is a crucial factor [in preventing] corruption. And I think that we will continue very actively to implement all of these steps to make corruption impossible in our country.

Limbong : Fighting corruption can be a double edged sword, I think. Like when you say when you catch someone committing corruption and you say, here's this person, on the world stage, people say "they're catching a lot of people of corruption, they must have a lot of corruption!"

Whereas on your side, you're like, "We're getting all of this corruption out of here." How do you combat the perception of corruption while fighting corruption itself?

Shmyhal : Thank you so much for this question, actually. This is something that we try to explain to our society through our partners. When we catch corruption, it doesn't mean that we have so much corruption. It means that our system, that our anti-corruption system, works.

So the human factor is presented all around the world, unfortunately. But the main issue is to demonstrate that on the high political level, there is no corruption, that there is no systematic corruption.

So all of these issues are not presented in Ukraine, so this is crucial and actually we demonstrate that we are absolutely clear and open for this reforms and we will implement it step by step.

• Ukraine prime minister
• Denys Shmyha
• Russia-Ukraine war