(2024) 14:29
Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00304-1

Language Testing in Asia

Open Access

RESEARCH

Cheating in online assessment: a qualitative
study on reasons and coping strategies focusing
on EFL teachers’ perceptions
Kaveh Jalilzadeh1 , Mojgan Rashtchi2*   and Fatemeh Mirzapour3   *Correspondence:
mojgan.rashtchi@gmail.com
1

School of Foreign Languages,
University of Cerrahpasa,
Istanbul, Turkey
2
TEFL Department, Facultyof Foreign Languages, North
Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Tehran, Iran3
Department of English, Sofiyan
Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Sofiyan, Iran

Abstract
A challenging aspect of online education is assessment since academic integrity
could be violated due to students’ cheating behaviors. The current qualitative research
investigated English teachers’ perceptions of why students cheat in online assessments. Besides, it attempted to find strategies to reduce cheating in online assessments. Twelve teachers (seven males and five females) with at least 5 years of teachingexperience in different high schools in Tabriz, Iran, participated in the study. Data werecollected through semi-structured interviews and were analyzed using MAXQDA version 2022. Freedom in the absence of an invigilator, unpreparedness for assessment,
getting better grades/outcomes, low self-esteem/self-confidence, shortage of time/poor time management, peer influence or competition, not taking assessment seriously, fear of failure/bad assessment outcomes, and lack of respect for academic rules/
the teacher were some reasons of cheating in online assessment revealed by the analysis of the data. The teachers suggested strategies to curb cheating in online assessment, such as randomizing questions, using open-ended and essay-format questions,designing different test methods and question types, restricting exam time, designing learner-specific questions, showing one question at a time, and providing clear
exam instructions. The study has some pedagogical implications for faculty members
and administrators.
Keywords: Academic dishonesty, Cheating, Curbing strategies, Online assessment,
Security measures

Introduction
With the advent of technology, online education has led to changes in the academic
landscape, and online modes of teaching have spread worldwide, giving way to questions
regarding how to guarantee honesty in online classes, particularly during assessments(Holden et al., 2021). Thus, academic integrity is a challenging aspect of education that
requires policymakers, teachers, and educators to adopt appropriate policies (Morris,2023). However, despite the numerous benefits of online classes, which result in the continuation of online teaching and learning, cheating in online assessments has increased
as students find it easy to get exam answers or unpermitted assistance from others (Bilen& Matros, 2021; Derakhshan & Shakki, 2024; Elsalem et al., 2021).
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permitsuse, 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/.

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Academic integrity in online assessment should be prioritized due to the decisive roleof assessment in students’ future lives and careers. That is why some individuals struggle to present an image of themselves that is not real, resulting in challenging conditions that make maintaining high academic honesty difficult (Holden et al., 2021). The
non-invigilated nature of online assessment adds to the problem and creates more student cheating opportunities (King et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2021), in which cheaters gain
higher scores than those who do not cheat (Goff et al., 2020). Thus, the unfairness resulting from academic dishonesty can encourage cheating among students, leading to amore general problem of corruption in educational systems (Benson & Enstroem, 2023).
As a menacing issue, academic dishonesty or cheating dates back to the start of teaching and education (Ababneh et al., 2022; Ahmed, 2018; Griffin et al., 2015) and has serious negative personal, institutional, and societal consequences (Anderman & Midgley,
2004; Zhao et al., 2021). At the personal level, cheating results in the misevaluation oflearners’ learning and decreases the chance of receiving feedback and relearning on thepart of the learner (Chance et al., 2015). At the institutional level, cheating can create anunjust condition that frustrates learners who do not cheat, contaminating the essence
and culture of learning (Zhao et al., 2023). At the societal level, cheating results in distrust of the general public, employers in universities, students, and graduates (Norris,2019).
Although recent studies have boosted our understanding of online cheating, the current study’s researchers believe the issue still needs further exploration. Most studies
on cheating are primarily done in Western countries (Bilen & Matros, 2021; Janke et al.,2021; Walsh et al., 2021), while cultural context might effectively shape learners’ academic disintegrity (Aljurf et al., 2020; Tolman, 2017). Besides, like many similar areas
related to human behavior, the subject matter necessitates multiple studies to discoverindividuals’ incentives for cheating in online assessments. Investigating the issue fromdifferent perspectives can unravel the interwoven complex variables and the driving
forces of individuals to misconduct in academic contexts. Another aspect of online
assessment cheating is finding solutions for the problem, which is only possible when
researchers from different settings and backgrounds look into the issue. Therefore, thepresent qualitative study focused on EFL high school teachers’ perspectives to discover
why students cheat in online assessments and aimed to find coping strategies to reducesuch academic misbehavior among Iranian high school students.

Literature review
Theoretical background

Cheating is a misbehavior through which individuals tend to give or receive information from others, mainly when they aim to perform better on exams, present a different
picture of their knowledge, or get good grades. As several researchers believe, cheating is a global phenomenon that has contaminated educational systems at different
school and university levels (Anderman & Midgley, 2004; Baran & Jonason, 2020; Starovoytova Madara et al., 2016). A review of previous studies shows that most studies on
cheating have attempted to find the variables (demographic, social, psychological, andsituational) that might have relationships with such an act (Macgregor & Steubs, 2012;
Pramadi et al., 2017). However, research done explicitly on the theoretical foundations

Page 2 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

of academic cheating is scarce since, due to its multi-dimensional nature, no single theory can explain the underlying reasons for cheating. For example, Starovoytova Madaraet al. (2016) refer to nineteen theories, ten models, and three approaches from several
domains like psychology, sociology, and organizational theory to explain academic
cheating behavior theoretically. However, they argue that an amalgamation of theories and not one single theory can explain the misbehavior since it is complicated andmultifaceted.
Most studies have considered ethical issues or theories related to morality when discussing academic cheating. One such theory that explains the essence of cheating is
Kohlberg’s (1958) moral development theory. Kohlberg believes that individuals should
learn about justice and unfairness. He counts on parents’ responsibility to teach theirchildren about moral issues, enabling them to differentiate between wrong and right.
Kohlberg also views teachers’ role in developing children’s interpersonal relationships
and teaching them to maintain social order. Dienstbier et al.’s experimentations on theimpact of moral theories on cheating explain cheating as the result of the “interactionof moral schemas and emotional attribution processes” (1980, p. 214). Based on theirinvestigations, Dienstbier et al. provide a model to explain the ethical reasons for cheating. They draw on behavioristic psychology and view cheating as a conditioned behavior
originating from an emotional response to previous socialization. They believe honesty/
dishonesty is an emotional arousal that activates moral schemata. Thus, moral schemata
and emotions interact in tempting situations and force learners to act honestly (or dishonestly). Viewing cheating as unethical behavior, Moeck (2002) defines it within thetheories of deviance in sociology. He believes cheating is a sign of disobeying social
norms. In other words, cheating is a deviation from the accepted standards, which condemn cheating as dishonest and unethical.
Another theory that can explain cheating behavior is the psychodynamic theory (Gabbard & Rachal, 2012), rooted in Freud’s psychological views. This theory focuses on individuals’ past experiences and asserts that human behavior reflects such experiences. The
theory considers individuals’ feelings, emotions, and incentives nested in their unconscious minds to explain cheating behavior.
Cheating can also be defined within the conflict theory framework, as proposed by
Marx (see Barkan, 2018), who believes the inadequacy of resources gives way to conflicts, forcing people to compete for more shares. Within this theory, it can be postulated
that assessment causes competition among learners. In their challenge for future opportunities, they tend to cheat to gain superiority over their peers via cheating.
Cheating and online assessment

Academic dishonesty is an unfair advantage that can threaten the validity of online
assessments. Thus, detecting and preventing students from cheating in online
assessments is indispensable. Watson and Sottile (2010) found that students are
more prone to cheating in online exams than in face-to-face exams, indicating challenges that authorities encounter in online assessments for maintaining their integrity. Several studies reported on cheating rates among students in different fields
and levels. For example, Ebaid (2021) reported that cheating in online assessments
was shared among 93% of accounting students in Saudi universities. Elsalem et al.

Page 3 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29(2021) also found that 45% of medical science students at a university in Jordan were
engaged in cheating in online assessments.
Similarly, Bernardi et al. (2012) reported an overrating increase in cheating worldwide among college students. Such findings warn researchers about cheating andencourage looking for practical steps to eliminate cheating behaviors by provoking
focus on factors that influence academic dishonesty. One reason for such efforts isthat the ease of cheating in online assessments compared to face-to-face assessments
diminishes the authenticity of online education (Noorbehbahani et al., 2022), whichin the long run can deprive many individuals who have problems with attending
face-to-face classes of educating themselves. Besides, cheaters in online assessments
will have higher chances of joining the workforce in the future while not having therequired qualifications, which might have adverse outcomes for society. In theirlarge-scale research, Henderson et al. (2023) found that academic dishonesty occurs
despite security measures and assessment conditions. However, they reported thatstudents’ characteristics, such as age, gender, perceptions, and motivation, are decisive factors in their inclination toward cheating in online assessments.
On the contrary, in their study on 139 high school students, Pramadi et al. (2017)
found individual characteristics are not the only predictive factor of cheating behavior. Multiple variables, including teachers, classmates, risk-taking, parents, school,
and class, interact with personality factors. That is why teachers need explicit
instruction on assessment, particularly online assessment (Estaji & Ghiasvand,2024), to have a profound perception of assessment and use several techniques for
successful online assessment. Improving teachers’ assessment identity (Estaji & Ghiasvand, 2023) can affect students’ behavior during online assessments (Estaji & Ghiasvand, 2024).
Classmates are also responsible for cheating behavior. Bernardi et al. (2012) foundthat cheating behavior can be stimulated by witnessing classmates cheating. Muthili
Kimanzi et al. (2023) also reported that cheating in online assessments results fromvarious reasons, such as peer pressure and a fear of failure. Another feature that canbe related to learners’ cheating is their anxiety and stress about getting higher grades(Awdry & Ives, 2022). Academic dishonesty can also be viewed from a cultural perspective. Aljurf et al. (2020) believe cultural issues can lead to different perceptionsof cheating, increasing its probability among learners.
Accordingly, the issue of academic integrity in online assessment requires adopting effective strategies. For example, Bretag et al. (2019) found that students whose
first language was not English cheated more during online assessments due to the
cognitive load of dealing with exams in a language other than their L1. Novick et al.
(2022) surveyed 500 university students and found a positive correlation between
online assessment and cheating. Their study revealed that randomizing questions
and avoiding using multiple-choice question formats are the most effective ways toreduce the rate of cheating. In another study, Sevnarayan and Maphoto (2024) concluded that students’ lack of perseverance in studying, inadequate cognitive abilities,
and difficulty managing their learning procedures result in academic cheating.

Page 4 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Managing cheating in online assessment

The threats of cheating in online assessment for education have caused educational
institutions like universities, schools, and colleges to take preventive measures (Henderson et al., 2023). Security measures and changing assessment conditions have been
employed to control the online assessment process. However, online cheating methods
differ from physical assessment, such as hacking systems, fraudulent access to systems
for impersonation, and access to online resources (Dawson, 2020). Therefore, academic
institutions use different devices for identity verification (including student photo checking, multi-factor authentication, and checking fingerprints), detection of using authorized materials (through browser control and head pose monitoring), and the detectionof receiving unauthorized assistance (through the use of microphone or webcams tocontrol the assessment environment) (Asep & Bandung, 2019; Prathish et al., 2016). As
Newton and Essex (2024) argue, employing remote proctoring systems is a response
to concerns about cheating in online assessments. Students can be supervised throughwebcams and locked-down browsers in these systems.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these measures and systems is not yet apparent; thus,
debates and controversies regarding their employment exist. Some believe that students
might feel anxious about being under surveillance and that they are unfairly judged forcheating (Marano et al., 2024). A lengthy legal battle between proctoring companies andtheir critics indicates that it is still unclear whether using different systems can reduce
cheating (Lawson, 2020). Whisenhunt et al. (2022) suggest ways to lessen cheating
opportunities, such as guiding online exam preparation.
Several studies have concentrated on the types of security systems and surveillancelevels that affect the cheating behavior of students (Atoum et al., 2017; Chuang et al.,2017; Gudiño Paredes et al., 2021), and some have explored students’ perceptions ofopportunity to cheat (Chirumamilla et al., 2020; Hylton et al., 2016). Besides, someresearchers have addressed the different impacts of using proctoring instruments indecreasing the possibility of cheating (Bilen & Matros, 2021; Fask et al., 2014; Hylton
et al., 2016). Zhao et al. (2023) reported that some universities employed various honor
code reminders to reduce cheating during assessments. Some studies attested to theireffectiveness in promoting academic integrity (McCabe et al., 2001; Tatum, 2022).
As the literature review shows, cheating in online assessment is a global issue thatneeds exploration. In the present study, the researchers defined cheating as getting
improper assistance, such as using unapproved materials during online assessments
and asking for others’ help in answering questions to give a false impression of one’s
academic performance and gaining better grades. Thus, for the researchers, academic
integrity is equal to following ethical principles and values, such as honesty and responsibility, that students should follow when being assessed for their academic outcomes.
The present study focused on the reasons for cheating in online assessments from highschool teachers’ viewpoints and explored their perceptions regarding coping strategies
to reduce cheating. Thus, the study aimed to answer the following research questions.
Research question 1: What are the main reasons for cheating in online assessments?
Research question 2: What coping strategies can reduce cheating in online assessment?

Page 5 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Page 6 of 22

Methodology
Design of the study

The current study was qualitative and phenomenological in perspective, and interviews were used as the design of the study to gather the required data. The researchers
used the interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), an inductive method, to collect examples of the phenomenon under scrutiny and then develop them into broader
views based on the participants’ lived experiences regarding academic cheating (Smith
and Nizza, 2022). The IPA method helps researchers ensure that the data collected fromthe participants are rich, first-person, and in-depth. Smith et al. (2019) noted that IPA iscommonly utilized to develop models that significantly enhance the comprehension of
the meaning individuals ascribe to their experiences. In the present study, the researchers attempted to delve into language teachers’ individual experiences to get insights that
promote understanding of the probable reasons for cheating in online assessment by
employing IPA.
Participants and setting

The researchers used purposive sampling to select 12 English language teachers fromdifferent high schools in Tabriz, Iran, as participants. Following Palmer et al. (2005), thecriterion for sample selection was having at least 5 years of teaching experience, as theissue under scrutiny required experienced teachers. The sample comprised seven males
and five females aged 25 to 32. The researchers explained the study’s objectives andinformed the participants that they could withdraw from the study at any stage. They
were also assured that their responses would be handled with the utmost confidentiality.
Table 1 presents their demographic information.
Instruments

Semi-structured interviews were utilized to understand the participants’ viewpoints andanswer the proposed research questions. Interviews are appropriate for examining sensitive topics and encouraging interviewees to respond unrestrictedly and express theirperspectives (Sarantakos, 2005). The researchers developed eight interview questions
after a thorough review of related literature. Then, they asked five university instructors
with more than 10 years of teaching experience to judge the necessity and suitability of
Table 1 Demographic information of the participants
Numberandpercentage
Education

Bachelor of Arts (BA)

6 (50%)

Master of Arts (MA)

6 (50%)

GenderMale

7 (60.4%)

Female5 (39.6%)

Experience

3–7 years

3 (36.6%)

7–10 years

5 (24.6%)

Above 10

4 (36.4%)

Holding Certificate in English Language Teaching
to Adults (CELTA)

6 (50%)

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

the questions. Lawshe’s formula was used to compute the content validity ratio (CVR)
for interview questions (Gilbert & Prion, 2016). The experts considered six items as“essential,” and thus, two questions were removed (see Appendix).

Procedure

The researchers used the Google Meet communication platform to contact the participants. Interview sessions, conducted in English and face-to-face by one of the researchers, were arranged in coordination with each individual’s time and date preferences.
Each interview took about 45 min, with overall discussions ranging from 55 to 80 min.
First, the interviewer briefly introduced the study and asked the interviewees to discuss
their experiences with online assessments (interview question one). The purpose wasto establish a friendly atmosphere and encourage conversation. The second and third
questions elicited the participants’ general perceptions about online assessment. As theinterviews proceeded, the respondents answered the questions carefully and attentively.
The interviews were recorded with the respondents’ consent and transcribed later fordata analysis.
After transcription, to reduce potential bias and increase the study’s trustworthiness(Guba, 1981), the researchers sent the data to the interviewees to ensure they agreed
with the content of the transcriptions. They had the opportunity to change their views oramend the transcribed data. The member check enabled the researchers to enhance thecredibility of the data. The results revealed no changes to the original transcribed data,
although two interviewees added some additional issues. After inserting the new information, the researchers analyzed the data following IPA in several stages: first, they readthe transcribed texts to understand the content, identify the major themes, cluster them,and detect their interrelationships. In the next step, they asked two external reviewers(an expert in qualitative data analysis and a university professor) to examine the data
and verify whether they agreed with the extracted themes. They agreed with most codesand categories, although discrepancies existed between their views. After lengthy discussions, they agreed on the extracted themes, and their viewpoints were merged withthe researchers’. Subsequently, the researchers summarized the themes with supporting
examples (Smith et al., 2019). In the final stage, they used MAX Qualitative Data Analysis (MAXQDA) software version 2022 to create codes, categories, and themes, extracting eight categories with 354 codes.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed via inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The
result was obtaining 345 codes (F = 345) combined to create eight categories (F = 8).
Finally, the related categories were classified under two higher-level themes (F = 2). To
ensure the credibility of the data analysis results, an external coder expert in thematic
analysis who had a Ph.D. in applied linguistics reviewed 20% of the codes. The external
coder disagreed with the first coder (one of the researchers) on three codes. Thus, thecoders reviewed, discussed, and modified them and agreed on the final version, leading
to an inter-coder agreement coefficient of 96%.

Page 7 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Findings
The participants’ answers to the first, second, and third interview questions showed they
were reasonably familiar with online assessment, its advantages, and disadvantages.
They emphasized that cheating threatens online assessment and endangers the validityof the tests and scores. They also believed cheating in such assessments has multiple
reasons and asserted their preference for face-to-face exams until the security of online
assessments is ensured. Besides, they all believed that most students cheat when an
assessment is done online. They thought such an assessment could question the value of
education and cause unfairness in society.
Theme 1: reasons for cheating in online assessment

The analysis of respondents’ answers to the reasons for cheating in online assessments(interview question five) led to extracting four principal categories, as shown in Table 2
and Fig. 1: Learner-oriented factors (F = 120), Educational and assessment-oriented factors (F = 27), Online-oriented factors (F = 32), and Teacher-oriented and parental factors (F = 10).
Learner-oriented factors category included 19 codes, the most frequent of which was
Online assessment and anxiety/stress (F = 21), Freedom in the absence of an invigilator (F = 18), Unpreparedness for assessment (F = 15), Getting better grades/outcomes(F = 11), Low self-esteem/self-confidence (F = 9), Shortage of time/poor time management (F = 9), and Peer influence or competition (F = 9). Other codes with less frequency
embraced Lack of motivation/interest (F = 5), Lack of strict regulations/consequences forcheating (F = 5), Not taking assessment seriously (F = 4), Impulsivity (F = 3), Fear of failure/bad assessment outcomes (F = 3), Lack of respect for academic rules/the teacher (F =3), Lack of practical study skills (F = 2), Frustration due to lack of immediate assistance(F = 2), Laziness (F = 2), and lack of morality (F = 2). However, Negative perceptions ofassessment (F = 1), Lack of responsibility (F = 1), Overestimating one’s knowledge (F = 1),
and Personal problems (F = 1) were the least frequent codes. Some quotations from theparticipants pertaining to the Learner-oriented factors are as follows:“Fear of failure may force learners to devote their time to designing cheating strategies instead of studying.”“The absence of proctors helps them use their sources for cheating without rigorous
endeavors.”“The teachers do not have much control over how the students take the exam.”“Cheating may be the result of the anxiety posed on examinees due to the difficulties
of answering questions in an online format.”
The second category, Educational and assessment-oriented factors, included eightcodes. The most frequent code asserted by the interviewees was Unfair exam procedures (F = 6), followed by Difficulty of test questions/assessment (F = 5) and Overloadof materials to be studied for exams (F = 4). The other codes with less frequency were
Low quality of the online learning system (F = 3), Lack of teacher-student contact (F =Page 8 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Page 9 of 22

Table 2 Reasons for cheating in online assessment
Categories and codes

Frequency (F)Learner-oriented factors

120

Online assessment and anxiety/stress21

Freedom in the absence of an invigilator

18

Unpreparedness for assessment

15

Getting better grades/outcomes11

Low self-esteem/self-confidence

9

Shortage of time/poor time management

9

Peer influence or competition

9

Lack of strict regulations/consequences for cheating5

Not taking assessment seriously

4

Impulsivity

3

Fear of failure/bad assessment outcomes3

Lack of respect for academic rules/the teacher

3

Lack of practical study skills

2

Frustration due to lack of immediate assistance2

Lack of morality

2

Negative perceptions of assessment

1

Lack of responsibility

1Overestimating one’s knowledge

1

Personal problems

1

Educational and assessment-oriented factors

27

Unfair exam procedures

6

Difficulty of test questions/assessment

5Overload of materials for exams

4

Low quality of the online learning system

3

Lack of teacher-student contact3

Poor exam design

3

Unrelated test questions

2

Use of summative assessment

1

Online-oriented factors

32

Ease of cheating in online platforms

18

Easy access to the World Wide Web

12

Anonymity during exams

2

Teacher-oriented and parental factors

10

Parental pressure/expectations

5

Teachers’ lenience toward cheating

3

Parents’ support for cheating

1

Teachers’ unethical actions

13), and Difficulty of the course/learning tasks (F = 3). Some interviewees pointed toUnrelated test questions (F = 2) and Poor exam design (F = 3), and one respondent
believed summative assessment (F = 1) could be the reason for cheating. The following are some quotations participants stated regarding the factors related to Educational and assessment-oriented:“Students are compelled to cheat on online exams when the questions are overly
difficult and unrelated to the course topic.”Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Fig. 1 Reasons for cheating in online assessment“There is a lack of serious consequence if cheating is discovered.”“Some students cheat because the materials are so overwhelming that they cannot completely study them.”“A sense of receiving unfair treatment.”
The third category pertained to Online-oriented factors, including the three codesof Ease of cheating in online platforms (F = 18), Easy access to the World Wide Web (F= 12), and Anonymity during exams (F = 2). The following extracts indicate respondents’ viewpoints about Online-oriented factors:“The ease of cheating in the online assessment context aided by technology plays agreat role in the increased amount of cheating in virtual spaces.”“Cheating is more frequent and easier in an online course.”“The lack of control over learners’ activities and the easy access to authentic
sources endow examinees with a proper chance for cheating.”
The last category within the first theme was “Teacher-oriented and parental factors,”
which included four codes: Parental pressure/expectations (F = 5), Teachers’ lenience
toward cheating (F = 3), Parents’ support for cheating (F = 1), and Teachers’ unethicalactions (F = 1). Following are some excerpts to clarify the interviewees’ viewpoints:“Some students are under pressure from their family to get better reports.”“A lot of instructors choose not to report instances of online cheating.”“The other reason why students cheat on online exams is family expectations.
When a person receives family support for their studies, they see themselves
obliged to meet the family expectations and be a perfect student; cheating is a
way to promote one’s educational status.”

Page 10 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Theme 2: coping strategies to reduce cheating in online assessment

The second theme generated from data analysis was coping strategies to reduce cheating in online assessment, asked by the sixth interview question. As Table 3 and Fig. 2
show, four categories emerged under this theme: Improvement of online assessment
design and questions (F = 85), Improvement of online assessment security (F = 36),
Promotion of honest conduct in online assessment (F = 21), and Teacher assistanceto and good treatment of students (F = 14). Accordingly, the first category, namely,
Improvement of online assessment design and questions, Creating questions requiring
higher levels of thinking (F = 11), Randomizing questions (F = 10), Using open-ended
and essay-type questions (F = 9), Designing different test methods/types of questions(F = 9), and Restricting exam time (F = 7) were the most frequent codes. The codeswith lesser frequency were Designing learner-specific questions (F = 6), Showing one
question at a time (F = 5), Employing quality test design (F = 5), Employing oral
assessment (F = 3), and Using performance-based assessment (F = 3). However, Using
problem-solving questions (F = 2), Allotting more score to class performance and lessto exam (F = 2), Providing clear exam instructions (F = 2), Giving sufficient exam time
(F = 2), Using open-book tests (F = 2), Setting separate time frames for each assessment task/question (F = 2), Using all-at-once assessment (F = 1), Setting assignments
instead of tests (F = 1), Giving sample tests to students (F = 1), Using a proper grading system (F = 1), and Employing think-aloud requests during exam (F = 1) were theminor frequent codes. The following are some extracts taken from the respondents’viewpoints related to the Improvement of online assessment design and questions:“Teachers can devote more marks to students’ participation in the class and set
lower marks for the final assessment as a strategy to cope with cheating.”“Posing questions requiring a higher level of thinking.”“Teachers should spend much time designing different types of questions.”“Additionally, it is important to ensure that the assessment is timed appropriately, that the instructions are clear and unambiguous, and that the assessment
is properly graded.”“The second strategy is to restrict time. When time is given more than needed,
students feel free to take advantage and check their answers with verified sources.”
The second category, Improvement of online assessment security, embraced codes
for Setting an open-camera policy (F = 14), Using suspicious-activity/plagiarism
detector systems/software (F = 9), Disabling the copy and paste features (F = 4), Using
desktop-sharing policy (F = 3), Setting strict anti-cheating regulations (F = 2), Asking
students to unmute their microphones (F = 2), Using a random password generator (F= 1), and Using safe exam browsers (F = 1). Some quotations stated by the respondents are:
“Disabling the copy-and-paste features”

Page 11 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Page 12 of 22

Table 3 Coping strategies to reduce cheating in online assessment
Categories and codes

Frequency (F)Improvement of online assessment design and questions

85

Creating questions requiring higher levels of thinking

11

Randomizing questions

10

Using open-ended and essay questions

9

Designing different test methods/types of questions

9

Restricting exam time

7

Designing learner-specific questions

6

Showing one question at a time

5

Employing quality test design

5

Employing oral assessment

3

Using performance-based assessment

3

Using problem-solving questions

2

Allotting more scores to class performance and less to exam

2

Providing clear exam instructions

2

Giving sufficient exam time2

Using open-book tests

2

Setting separate time frames for each assessment task/question

2

Using all-at-once assessment

1

Setting assignments instead of tests

1

Giving sample tests to students

1

Using a proper grading system

1

Employing think-aloud requests during exam

1

Improvement of online assessment security

36

Setting an open-camera policy

14

Using suspicious-activity/plagiarism detector systems/software

9

Disabling the copy-and-paste features

4

Using a desktop-sharing policy

3

Setting strict anti-cheating regulations

2

Asking students to unmute their microphones

2

Using a random password generator

1

Using safe exam browsers

1

Promotion of honest conduct in online assessment

21

Promoting dedication to academic integrity

7

Speaking to students about the consequences of cheating

5

Teaching culture of assessment to students

5Integrating honor codes into online evaluation

3

Informing students that diligence is more important than scores

1

Teacher assistance to and good treatment of students

14

Trying to reduce students’ stress4

Creating a more engaging and friendly atmosphere3

Setting realistic expectations of students

2

Providing resources helping students prepare for assessment

2

Changing students’ views about learning

1

Trying to build relationships with students

1

Increasing students’ sense of community

1

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Fig. 2 Coping strategies to reduce cheating in online assessment“The teachers can use a policy like open cameras during the exam or use softwarewith noise detection.”“Plagiarism checker programs and authenticators could work to the benefit of theeducators.”“Some types of cheating can be automatically avoided by using cheat-resistant systems.”
Promotion of honest conduct in online assessment, the third category, included
Promoting dedication to academic integrity (F = 7), Speaking to students about theconsequences of cheating (F = 5), Teaching culture of assessment to students (F = 5), Integrating honor codes into online evaluation (F = 3), and Informing students that diligenceis more important than scores (F = 1). The following extracts can clarify the interviewees’ viewpoints:“Instructors are responsible for reinforcing academic integrity by instituting honor
codes.”“An institution’s dedication to academic integrity is another technique that may bebeneficial in reducing cheating in online environments.”“Teachers should warn their students about the severe consequences of cheating.”“It is important to emphasize the importance of integrity and academic honesty.”
The last category, Teacher assistance and students’ good treatment, comprised Trying
to reduce students’ stress (F = 4), Creating a more engaging and friendly atmosphere (F =3), Setting realistic expectations of students (F = 2), Providing resources to help students
prepare for assessment (F = 2), Changing students’ views about learning (F = 1), Trying
to build relationships with students (F = 1), and Increasing students’ sense of community(F = 1). Following are some excerpts related to Teacher assistance and good treatment ofstudents:“The next thing teachers can do to decrease cheating in online assessments is to have

Page 13 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

more engaging and interesting classes.”“Looking for ways to strengthen students’ sense of community in online classes is
one of them. Learners in online classes would feel less alienated and more a partof a community if provided with opportunities to feel closer to the teacher and theirclassmates.”“The last thing teachers can do to diminish the chances of cheating is to reduce thestress level in students.”

Discussion
The participants’ answers to the first interview question verified their viewpoints regarding students’ reasons for cheating in online assessments. In the interviews, the respondents provided fruitful suggestions regarding the strategies to enhance the integrity of
online assessments. The review of the interviewees’ answers (as shown in Table 2) showsthat stress and anxiety were the most prominent reasons for students’ cheating, probably
arising from the absence of face-to-face contact with the teacher and feeling lonely. The
presence of teachers in the exam sessions can give learners a sense of security because
they feel they can get clarification when they are confused. An alternative reason for students’ stress could be the pressure they experience to get good grades, which forces themto cheat. This finding aligns with previous studies (Ives, 2020; Muthili Kimanzi, 2023).
Conversely, Varble (2014) found that students gained better scores in online assessments
than in face-to-face exam sessions, not because they cheated but because they felt morerelaxed.
Another code found from data analysis, lack of immediate assistance, however, withlesser frequency than stress and anxiety, also indicates that the online assessment causes
stress. Current researchers assume that learners try to overcome their negative feelings
by cheating. In the same line, Putwain (2009) found that exams are a source of stressbecause students tie their future success to the results of the tests they must take. Similarly, Abdelrahim (2022) maintains that examinations can create stress, increasing students’ engagement in cheating, especially during online tests.
Additionally, the findings showed that participants attributed learners’ cheating topersonality factors such as low self-esteem, overestimating one’s knowledge, and impulsivity. Impulsive learners are more prone to cheating than reflective learners because
they are inclined toward taking risks without giving their actions a second thought(Vorauer et al., 2009). This finding is in line with Mcternan et al. (2014), who found that
impulsivity and empathic feelings (like low self-esteem) correlated with cheating behaviors. Besides, lack of motivation, responsibility, and preparation, which can result frompersonal problems, could also force learners to cheat in exams, particularly when there
is inadequate supervision during online assessment sessions (Sevnarayan & Maphoto,2024). Students’ problems indicate that their other priorities leave no room for perseverance. Low motivation can also be due to not learning (Dişlen, 2013). In line with
Kim et al. (2013), the present study clarified that teachers’ responsibility to use effective
teaching strategies can facilitate learning. Teachers also should have a supportive attitude toward learners to give them self-confidence and encourage them to improve theirPage 14 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

willingness to learn. Henderson et al. (2023) argue that supporting attitude and feelingresponsible toward learners’ education can increase their motivation not to cheat.
Another reason for cheating is peer influence, which can happen for two reasons:competing to get better grades and peer pressure. Competition for getting better grades
and making progress without having the required qualifications can explain students’cheating in online assessments. Drawing on Marx’s views (Barkan, 2018) regarding theshortage of resources could be a possible assumption. Students’ attempts to provide
themselves with future opportunities can stimulate them to cheat, especially in online
assessments, as there is a consensus that cheating online is more accessible than faceto-face assessments (King et al., 2009; Walsh et al., 2021). Pulfrey et al. (2018) argue thata competitive setting affects students’ cheating. They state that students are more likely
to cheat when they see themselves in competition with others than when they perceive aless competitive environment.
Likewise, peer pressure can explain the increased cheating in online assessments(Akbulut et al., 2008). While students may get help from peers to answer the questions,they keep silent and do not report their peers’ misconduct because they want to remain
loyal to their peers or worry about being judged as traitors (Muthili Kimanzi et al., 2023).
Moreover, studies show that witnessing classmates’ cheating can encourage such misbehavior among students (Bernardi et al., 2012; Pulfrey et al., 2018). These findings indicatethat teachers should be active in dealing with cheaters and adopt an uncompromising
attitude.
Additionally, a lack of morality among learners appears to be one of the reasons forcheating in online assessments. In line with Kohlberg (1958), the current researchers assume that raising learners’ consciousness toward fairness issues can awaken theirunderstanding of socially accepted norms. One factor essential in reducing cheating isreminding individuals of the negative consequences of cheating in online exams, as put
forth by previous studies (Cizek, 1999; Zhao et al., 2023). Thus, teachers should educate
students on the immoral aspects of cheating and its negative impact on students, workplaces, and society. However, establishing friendly relationships with learners rather thanadopting a didactic tone can more effectively encourage unfavorable attitudes towardcheating (Ababneh et al., 2022). Such efforts can occur through course syllabi, ethics
courses, setting honor codes, and the Ethics Committee/Honor Board (McCabe, 2016;
McCabe et al., 2006). In their study, Ives et al. (2017) found that not punishing students
involved in cheating boosts such an act among them. Teachers, principals, and policymakers should consider punishments and negative consequences for those involved inacademic dishonesty.
For some learners, cheating is a sign of disrespect to academic rules, assessments, andteachers. Moeck’s (2002) opinion regarding theories of deviance can best explain theissue. By violating the norms of society, some learners intend to show their opposition
to social norms or legal systems. Research shows that proctoring online exams could
be a good measure for confronting breaking the rules and reducing cheating in online
exams (Alessio et al., 2017; Arnold, 2016; Hylton et al., 2016). Cultivating interpersonal
relationships (Kohlberg, 1958), fostering student-peer perceptions (Stogner et al., 2013),
and underscoring cultural values (Hendy et al., 2021; Chen, 2020) can also reduce thecheating rate among students.

Page 15 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Another reason for cheating, as the findings indicated, was time pressure in examinations and fear of failure, a finding consistent with previous studies (Anderman & Won,
2019; Burrus et al., 2016), which found that students who were under time pressure tocomplete the exam and experienced the fear of failure were more prone to cheating. For
some students, the need to get a good score prevails over acquiring knowledge. Thus, as
previous studies showed, supervising students through online visual/audio monitoringand online proctoring can reduce the rate of cheating (Dendir & Maxwell, 2020; Dyeret al., 2020; Gudiño Paredes et al., 2021). Educational centers should integrate proctoring for all assessments and examinations when creating online coursework curricula.
As Dyer et al. pointed out, “Faculty and staff should not make the egregious mistake of
believing an honor code, signed statement of integrity, verbal acceptance of syllabi expectations, or other tacitly communicated acceptance is alone enough to sway academic dishonesty in online courses” (p. 19). Proctoring online assessments reveals the institution’scommitment to ensuring the quality of online exam results. On the other hand, not taking any measures from educational centers to provide a secure exam administration canbe interpreted as not considering cheating and test security important.
Regarding the second code, educational and assessment-oriented factors, the respondents’ answers put the responsibility on teachers’ shoulders. Codes such as unfair exam
procedures, difficulty of tests, poor exam design, and overload of materials (Table 2)
indicate that teachers should strictly follow the rules of testing and assessment in language teaching (Brown, 2012). Teachers can avoid administering unfair exams by following the rules for test construction, such as preparing tables of specifications (Fives &DiDonato-Barnes, 2019). Questions requiring higher-order thinking skills, randomizing
questions, and using essay-type questions are other solutions that can lower the cheating rate in online assessments (Novick et al., 2022). Besides, by defining the course’s
objectives, teaching within the scope of the syllabi, and asking colleagues to review
exam questions for relevance and difficulty level before the administration, teachers can
reduce the chances of cheating in online assessments.
Furthermore, effective online teaching strategies, such as online questioning andanswering, can reduce the rate of cheating in online assessments. Teachers can assess
their students’ capabilities by designing assignments and tasks that require creativity
rather than plagiarizing others’ works. Besides, by employing formative assessment techniques, teachers can assess their students at various intervals and decrease the role ofthe final exam. Teaching and testing are not separate; thus, the researchers of the current
study, in line with Stogner et al. (2013), argue that by incorporating effective teaching
techniques, such as occasional group video calls, teachers can increase student-teacher
contact, develop rapport, and encourage students to respect their teachers, which canaffect the rate of cheating in online assessment.
On the other hand, it is necessary to help students develop learning goals by detecting their needs and interests when planning instruction. Students with strong learning
objectives are less likely to cheat in examinations (Krou et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2023)
since they regard cheating as an undermining factor for proper understanding. Teachers should support learners in setting their learning goals by providing valuable feedback, creating collaborative learning environments, and fostering autonomous learning

Page 16 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29(Aryanjam et al., 2021; Dişlen, 2013). Although challenging, such a learning environment can effectively decrease the cheating rate.
The third theme related to reasons for cheating arises from the nature of online assessment. Ease of cheating and using the internet necessitates more supervision of such
exams, requiring educational centers and teachers to take responsibility for reducing
the opportunities for cheating. Relevant instruction (Day et al., 2011; Estaji & Ghiasvand, 2024), continuous communication (Khan, 2017), honor codes (Tatum et al., 2018),
security measures during exams (Lepp, 2017; Weinstein, 2013), and the use of plagiarism detection instruments (Jones, 2011) have all been reported as effective. Educational
centers and teachers should warn students that cheating is not easy and that several tools
can catch and punish violators of academic integrity (Hosseini et al., 2021). The current
study adds to this by emphasizing the importance of proctored settings and invigilated
exam sessions. Educational centers should implement the required tools to enforce theircommitment to academic honesty.
Teacher-oriented and parental factors, as the last source of academic dishonesty, needparticular attention. Educational centers should continuously have school meetings
with parents to explain the menaces of cheating. The problem of academic dishonesty
can only be solved when schools, teachers, and parents cooperate. Parents should be
reminded of the disadvantages of academic dishonesty and asked to talk with their children (Pramadi et al., 2017). Teachers’ unethical actions need more attention from educational centers. The value of their work as educators of generations should be reminded.
They should also be invited to be more strict against cheating and take practical steps toenhance the integrity of their profession.

Conclusions
Academic dishonesty/cheating is a widespread challenge that academic administrators,
instructors, parents, and students should take unconditioned measures to mitigate. The
adverse outcomes of academic dishonesty are not limited to the classroom; they havenegative consequences for society, the education system, and the workplace. Supervising online assessments via every possible measure requires the cooperation of academic
centers, policymakers, teachers, and parents. Fostering ethical values among students
and teachers can help avoid such misconduct. Besides, employing appropriate strategies
for syllabus designing, teaching, and testing can reduce students’ tendency toward cheating. However, such actions do not eliminate the role of invigilated exams. Unfortunately,
spending so much time controlling learners instead of teaching them reduces teachers’
enthusiasm and energy, resulting in a decline in the quality of education. Online assessment is likely to remain; thus, implementing procedures to curb cheating through higher
accountability is suggested.
This current study showed that no one reason can explain cheating; thus, further triangulated studies with parents, principals, and administrators are necessary. Future studies can examine the impact of ethical instructions and elements of critical thinking likefairness, justice, and truthfulness on students’ cheating behaviors. This study was limitedin the number and selection of participants; thus, generalizing findings should be done
cautiously. Although qualitative studies do not aim to generalize findings, interviewing

Page 17 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

more teachers from other areas and diverse cultures and backgrounds can deepen views
regarding the reasons for cheating and how to cope with them.

Appendix
Interview questions

1) Do you have any experience with online assessments in your classes?
2) What are the merits of online assessment?
3) What are the demerits of online assessment?
4) Do you think students cheat in online assessments?
5) Do you have any idea why some students cheat on exams?
6) Do you have any idea about how to minimize cheating?
Abbreviations
BA	Bachelor of Arts
CELTA	Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults
CVR	Content validity ratio
EFL	English as a foreign language
F	Frequency
IPA	Interpretative phenomenological analysis
MA	Masters of Arts
MAXQDA	MAX Qualitative Data Analysis
Acknowledgements
We thank all individuals who took part in this study.
Authors’ contributions
KJ contributed substantially to the formation of research aims and the study design, ran the interview sessions for datacollection, analyzed the data, interpreted the findings, and helped write the manuscript. MR contributed to developing
the research aims, wrote the introduction and literature review sections, helped in the transcription and interpretation of
the data, wrote the discussion section, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. FM contributed to the formation of thestudy design, helped in writing the literature review section, ran interview sessions, transcribed and analyzed data, andreviewed the findings. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
None.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national
research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Received: 12 March 2024 Accepted: 17 July 2024

References
Ababneh, K., Ahmed, K., & Dedousis, E. (2022). Predictors of cheating in online exams among business students during
the COVID pandemic: Testing the theory of planned behavior. The International Journal of Management Education,
20, 1–15. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijme.​2022.​100713
Abdelrahim, Y. (2022). The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on online exam cheating: A test of COVID-19 theoreticalframework. In T. Ahram & R. Taiar (Eds.), Human interaction, emerging technologies and future systems V (pp. 443–453).
Springer.

Page 18 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Ahmed, K. (2018). Student perceptions of academic dishonesty in a private Middle Eastern university. Higher Learning
Research Communications, 8(1), 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18870/​hlrc.​v8i1.​400
Akbulut, Y., Şendağ, S., Birinci, G., Kılıçer, K., Şahin, M. C., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons ofinternet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS). Computers & Education, 51(1), 463–473. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​
du.​2007.​06.​003
Alessio, H., Malay, N., Maurer, K., Bailer, A. J., & Rubin, B. (2017). Examining the effect of proctoring on online test scores.
Online Learning, 21(1), 146–61.
Aljurf, S., Kemp, L. J., & Williams, P. (2020). Exploring academic dishonesty in the Middle East: A qualitative analysis of
students’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(7), 1461–1473. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03075​079.​2018.​15642​62
Anderman, E.M., & Won, S. (2019). Academic cheating in disliked classes. Ethics & Behavior 29 (1), 1–22. https://​psycn​et.​apa.​org/​doi/​10.​1080/​10508​422.​2017.​13736​48
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (2004). Changes in self-reported academic cheating across the transition from middle
school to high school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 499–517. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cedps​ych.​2004.​
02.​002
Arnold, I. J. (2016). Cheating at online formative tests: Does it pay off? Internet and Higher Education, 29, 98–106. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iheduc.​2016.​02.​001
Aryanjam, L., Rashtchi, M., & Maftoon, P. (2021). Boosting reading achievement by employing learner autonomy curriculum: effects of strategy instruction. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(3), 51–70.
Asep, H.S., & Bandung, Y. (2019, July 9-10). A design of continuous user verification for online exam proctoring on m-learning.
[Paper presentation]. International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI), Bandung, Indonesia. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICEEI​47359.​2019.​89887​86
Atoum, Y., Chen, L., Liu, A. X., Hsu, S. D. H., & Liu, X. (2017). Automated online exam proctoring. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 19(7), 1609–1624. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TMM.​2017.​26560​64
Awdry, R., & Ives, B. (2022). International predictors of contract cheating in higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics,
21(1), 1–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10805-​022-​09449-1
Baran, L., & Jonason, P. K. (2020). Academic dishonesty among university students: The roles of the psychopathy, motivation, and self-efficacy. PLOS One, 15(8), e0238141. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02381​41
Barkan, S. E. (2018). The conflict approach. In A. J. Treviño (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of social problems (pp. 241–285).
Cambridge University Press.
Benson, L., & Enstroem, R. (2023). A model for preventing academic misconduct: Evidence from a large-scale intervention. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 19(25), 1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40979-​023-​00147-yBernardi, R. A., Banzhoff, C. A., Martino, A. M., & Savasta, K. J. (2012). Challenges to academic integrity: Identifying thefactors associated with the cheating chain. Accounting Education, 21(3), 247–263. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09639​284.​
2011.​598719
Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2021). Online cheating amid COVID-19. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 182, 196–211.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jebo.​2020.​12.​004
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1191/​14780​88706​qp063​oa
Bretag, T., Harper, R., Burton, M., Ellis, C., Newton, P., Rozenberg, P., Saddiqui, S., & van Haeringen, K. (2019). Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university students. Studies in Higher Education, 44(11), 1837–1856. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​03075​079.​2018.​14627​88
Brown, J. D. (2012). Testing in language programs. McGraw-Hill.
Burrus, R., Jones, A., & Schuhmann, P. (2016). Capitalism and crime in the classroom: an analysis of academic dishonesty
and latent student attitudes. Journal of Education for Business, 91(1), 23–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​08832​323.​2015.​
11101​05
Chance, Z., Gino, F., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2015). The slow decay and quick revival of self-deception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1075. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2015.​01075
Chen, X. (2020). Exploring cultural meanings of adaptive and maladaptive behaviors in children and adolescents: acontextual-developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44, 256–265. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1177/​01650​25419​877976
Chirumamilla, A., Sindre, G., & Nguyen-Duc, A. (2020). Cheating in e-exams and paper exams: The perceptions of engineering students and teachers in Norway. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(7), 940–957.
Chuang, C. Y., Craig, S. D., & Femiani, J. (2017). Detecting probable cheating during online assessments based on timedelay and head pose. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(6), 1123–1137.
Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Lawrence Erlbaum. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4324/​
97814​10601​520
Dawson, R.J. (2020). Defending assessment security in a digital world: Preventing e-cheating and supporting academic integrity in higher education. Routledge.
Day, N., Hudson, D., Dobies, P., & Waries, R. (2011). Student or situation? Personality and classroom context as predictors of
attitudes about business school cheating. Social Psychology Education, 14(2), 261–282.
Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human
Behavior Reports, 2, 100033.
Derakhshan, A., & Shakki, F. (2024). Opportunities and challenges of implementing online English courses in Iranianpublic and private schools. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 17–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22055/​RALS.​
2023.​44418.​3111
Dienstbier, R. A., Kahle, R. L., Willis, K. A., & Tunnell, G. B. (1980). The impact of moral theories on cheating studies of emotion attribution and schema activation. Motivation and Emotion, 4(3), 193–216.
Dişlen, G. (2013). The reasons of lack of motivation from the students’ and teachers’ voices. The Journal of Academic Social
Sciences, 1(1), 35–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​16992/​ASOS.​13

Page 19 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Dyer, J. M., Pettyjohn, H. C., & Saladin, S. (2020). Academic dishonesty and testing: how student beliefs and test settings
impact decisions to cheat. Journal of the National College Testing Association, 4(1), 1–31.
Ebaid, I.E.-S. (2021). Cheating among accounting students in online exams during COVID-19 pandemic: exploratory
evidence from Saudi Arabia. Asian Journal of Economics Finance and Management, 3(1), 211–221.
Elsalem, L., Al-Azzam, N., Jum’ah, A. A., & Obeidat, N. (2021). Remote e-exams during COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study of students’ preferences and academic dishonesty in faculties of medical sciences. Annals of Medicine
and Surgery, 62, 326–333. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​amsu.​2021.​01.​054
Estaji, M., & Ghiasvand, F. (2023). Tracing the dynamics of Teacher Assessment Identity (TAI) through web-based audio
diaries. The Qualitative Report, 28(9), 2681–2715. https://​doi.​org/​10.​46743/​2160-​3715/​2023.​5903
Estaji, M., & Ghiasvand, F. (2024). Expanding novice and experienced Iranian EFL teachers’ assessment identity landscape:
Does online explicit instruction make a difference? International Journal of Language Testing, 14(1), 131–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​22034/​IJLT.​2023.​413583.​1279
Fask, A., Englander, F., & Wang, Z. (2014). Do online exams facilitate cheating? An experiment designed to separate
possible cheating from the effect of the online test taking environment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 12(2), 101–112.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10805-​014-​9207-1
Fives, H., & DiDonato-Barnes, N. (2019). Classroom test construction: the power of a table of specifications. Practical
Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18(1), 1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7275/​cztt-​7109
Gabbard, G.O., & Rachal, F. (2012). Psychodynamic psychotherapy: Theory and practice. In V.S. Ramachandran (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of human behavior ­(2nd ed., pp. 187–194), Academic Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​12-​375000-​6.​
00236-6.
Gilbert, G. E., & Prion, S. (2016). Making sense of methods and measurement: Lawshe’s content validity index. Clinical
Simulation in Nursing, 12(12), 530–531.
Goff, D., Johnston, J., & Bouboulis, B. S. (2020). Maintaining academic standards and integrity in online business courses.
International Journal of Higher Education, 9(2), 248–257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5430/​ijhe.​v9n2p​248
Griffin, D. J., Bolkan, S., & Goodboy, A. K. (2015). Academic dishonesty beyond cheating and plagiarism: students’ interpersonal deception in the college classroom. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 16(1), 9–19. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​17459​435.​2015.​10864​16
Gudiño Paredes, S., de Jasso Peña, F. J., & de La Fuente Alcazar, J. M. (2021). Remote proctored exams: integrity assurance
in online education? Distance Education, 42(2), 200–218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01587​919.​2021.​19104​95
Henderson, M., Chung, J., Awdry, R., Mundy, M., Bryant, M., Ashford, C., & Ryan, K. (2023). Factors associated with online
examination cheating. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(7), 980–994. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02602​
938.​2022.​21448​02
Hendy, N. T., Montargot, N., & Papadimitriou, A. (2021). Cultural differences in academic dishonesty: a social learningperspective. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19, 49–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10805-​021-​09391-8
Holden, O. L., Norris, M. E., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (2021). Academic integrity in online assessment: a research review. Frontiersin Education, 6, 639814. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​feduc.​2021.​639814
Hosseini, M. M., Egodawatte, G., & Ruzgar, N. S. (2021). Online assessment in a business department during COVID-19:
Challenges and practices. International Journal of Management in Education, 19(3), 100556. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
ijme.​2021.​100556
Hylton, K., Levy, Y., & Dringus, L. P. (2016). Utilizing webcam-based proctoring to deter misconduct in online exams. Computers & Education, 92–93, 53–63. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compe​du.​2015.​10.​002
Ives, B. (2020). Your students are cheating more than you think they are. Why? Educational Research: Theory and Practice,31(1), 46–53.
Ives, B., Alama, M., Mosora, L. C., Mosora, M., Grosu-Radulescu, L., Clinciu, A. I., Cazan, A.-M., Badescu, G., Tufis, C., Diaconu,
M., & Dutu, A. (2017). Patterns and predictors of academic dishonesty in Romanian university students. Higher Education, 74(5), 815–831. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10734-​016-​0079-8
Janke, S., Rudert, S. C., Petersen, A., Fritz, T. M., & Daumiller, M. (2021). Cheating in the wake of COVID-19: How dangerous
is ad-hoc online testing for academic integrity? Computers and Education Open, 2, 100055. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
caeo.​2021.​100055
Jones, D. (2011). Academic dishonesty: are more students cheating? Business Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 141–150.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10805​69911​404059
Khan, Z. (2017). What category are they anyway?: Proposing a new taxonomy for factors that may influence students’
likelihood to e-cheat. In D. Velliaris (Ed.), Handbook of research on academic misconduct in higher education (pp.
131–158). IGI Global.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching &Teacher Education, 29, 76–85. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​tate.​2012.​08.​005
King, C. G., Guyette, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: AN empirical analysis of business students’views. Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​9743/​JEO.​2009.1.5
Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10-16 [Doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago, Chicago].
Krou, M. R., Fong, C. J., & Hoff, M. A. (2021). Achievement motivation and academic dishonesty: a meta-analytic investigation. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 427–458. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10648-​020-​09557-7
Lawson, S. (2020). Are schools forcing students to install spyware that invades their privacy as a result of the coronavirus
lockdown? Forbes. Retrieved from https://​www.​forbes.​com/​sites/​seanl​awson/​2020/​04/​24/​are-​schoo​ls-​forci​ng-​stude​
nts-​to-​insta​ll-​spywa​re-​that-​invad​es-​their-​priva​cy-​as-a-​result-​of-​the-​coron​avirus-​lockd​own/
Lepp, L. (2017). Undergraduate students’ views on academic dishonesty. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities
and Social Sciences, 3(1), 41–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18844/​gjhss.​v3i1.​1728
MacGregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2012). To cheat or not to cheat: Rationalizing academic impropriety. Accounting Education,21(3), 265–287. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09639​284.​2011.​617174

Page 20 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Marano, E., Newton, P.M., Birch, Z., Croombs, M., Gilbert, C., & Draper, M.J. (2024). What is the student experience of
remote proctoring? A pragmatic scoping review. Higher Education Quarterly, .Article e12506. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​hequ.​12506
McCabe, D. L. (2016). Cheating and honor: Lessons from a long-term research project. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook ofacademic integrity (pp. 187–198). Springer.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics& Behavior, 11(3), 219–232. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​S1532​7019E​B1103_2
McCabe, D.L., Butterfield, K.D., & Trevino, L.K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence,causes, and proposed action. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 294–305. https://​psycn​
et.​apa.​org/​doi/​10.​5465/​AMLE.​2006.​22697​018
McTernan, M., Love, P., & Rettinger, D. (2014). The influence of personality on the decision to cheat. Ethics & Behavior,
24(1), 53–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10508​422.​2013.​819783
Moeck, P. G. (2002). Academic dishonesty: Cheating among community college students. Community College Journalof Research and Practice, 26(6), 479–491. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02776​77029​00418​46
Morris, E.J. (2023). Integrating academic integrity: An educational approach. In S.E. Eaton (Ed.). Handbook of academic
integrity (pp. 1–20). Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​287-​079-7_​96-1
Muthili Kimanzi, L., Muiru, A., & Thinguri, R. (2023). Influence of students’ peer pressure on academic dishonesty inpublic secondary schools in Makueni County, Kenya. East African Journal of Education Studies, 6(3), 161–173.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​37284/​eajes.6.​3.​1520
Newton, P. M., & Essex, K. (2024). How common is cheating in online exams and did it increase during the
COVID-19 pandemic? A systematic review. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22, 323–343. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10805-​023-​09485-5
Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A., & Aminazadeh, M. (2022). A systematic review of research on cheating in online
exams from 2010 to 2021. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 8413–8460. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10639-​022-​10927-7
Norris, M. (2019). University online cheating-how to mitigate the damage. Research in Higher Education Journal, 37,
1–20.
Novick, P. A., Lee, J., Wei, S., Mundorff, E. C., Santangelo, J. R., & Timothy, M. (2022). Maximizing academic integrity while
minimizing stress in the virtual classroom. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 23(1), e00292-21. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1128/​jmbe.​00292-​21
Palmer, D. J., Stough, L. M., Burdenski, T. K., & Gonzales, M. (2005). Identifying teacher expertise: an examination ofresearchers’ decision making. Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 13–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532​6985e​p4001_2
Pramadi, A., Pali, M., Hanurawan, F., & Atmoki, A. (2017). Academic cheating in school: a process of dissonance between
knowledge and conduct. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 8(6), 155–162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​
mjss-​2017-​0052
Prathish, S., Narayanan, S.A., & Bijlani, K. (2016, August 12-13). An intelligent system for online exam monitoring [Paper
presentation]. 2016 International Conference on Information Science (ICIS), Kochi, India. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​
INFOS​CI.​2016.​78453​15
Pulfrey, C., Durussel, K., & Butera, F. (2018). The good cheat: Benevolence and the justification of collective cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(6), 764–784. https://​psycn​et.​apa.​org/​doi/​10.​1037/​edu00​00247
Putwain, D. (2009). Assessment and examination stress in Key Stage 4. British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 391–411.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01411​92080​20444​04
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sevnarayan, K., & Maphoto, K. B. (2024). Exploring the dark side of online distance learning: Cheating behaviours, contributing factors, and strategies to enhance the integrity of online assessment. Journal of Academic Ethics, 22, 51–70.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10805-​023-​09501-8
Smith, J., & Nizza, I. E. (2022). Essentials of interpretative phenomenological analysis. American Psychological Association.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​00002​59-​000
Smith, J., Jones, M., & Brown, T. (2019). Technology and teacher wellbeing: a review of the literature. Journal of Educational
Technology, 5(3), 23–34.
Starovoytova Madara, D., Sitati Namango, S., & Katana, H. (2016). Theories and models relevant to cheating-behavior.
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(17), 108–139.
Stogner, J., Miller, B., & Marcum, C. (2013). Learning to e-cheat: A criminological test of internet facilitated academic
cheating. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24(2), 175–199. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10511​253.​2012.​693516
Tatum, H. E. (2022). Honor codes and academic integrity: Three decades of research. Journal of College and Character,23(1), 32–47. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​21945​87X.​2021.​20179​77
Tatum, H., Schwartz, B., Hageman, M., & Koretke, S. (2018). College students’ perceptions of and responses to academic
dishonesty: An investigation of type of honor code, institution size, and student-faculty ratio. Ethics & Behavior, 28(4),302–315. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10508​422.​2017.​13311​32
Tolman, S. (2017). Academic dishonesty in online courses: Considerations for graduate preparatory programs in higher
education. College Student Journal, 51(4), 579–584.
Varble, D. (2014). Reducing cheating opportunities in online test. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 3(3), 131–149.
Vorauer, J. D., Martens, V., & Sasaki, Stacey J. (2009). When trying to understand detracts from trying to behave: Effects ofperspective taking in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 811–827. https://​psycn​
et.​apa.​org/​doi/​10.​1037/​a0013​411
Walsh, L. L., Lichti, D. A., Zambrano-Varghese, C. M., Borgaonkar, A. D., Sodhi, J. S., Moon, S., & Callis-Duehl, K. L. (2021).
Why and how science students in the United States think their peers cheat more frequently online: Perspectives
during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 17(1), 1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40979-​021-​00089-3
Watson, G., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: Do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal ofDistance Learning Administration, 13(1). Retrieved from https://​core.​ac.​uk/​downl​oad/​pdf/​23271​4568.​pdf

Page 21 of 22

Jalilzadeh et al. Language Testing in Asia

(2024) 14:29

Weinstein, M. (2013). When numbers are not enough: Collection and use of collateral information and evidence to assess
the ethics and/or professionalism of examinees suspected of test fraud. In G. Cizek & J. Wollack (Eds.), Handbook ofquantitative methods for detecting cheating on tests (pp. 358–371). Routledge.
Whisenhunt, B.L., Cathey, C.L., Hudson, D.L., & Needy, L.M. (2022). Maximizing learning while minimizing cheating: New
evidence and advice for online multiple-choice exams. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 8(2),140–153. https://​psycn​et.​apa.​org/​doi/​10.​1037/​stl00​00242
Zhao, L., Zheng, J., Mao, H., Yu, X., Ye, J., Chen, H., & Lee, K. (2021). Effects of trust and threat messaging on academic
cheating: A field study. Psychological Science, 32, 735–742. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09567​97620​977513
Zhao, L., Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Li, G., Compton, B. J., Zhang, R., & Lee, K. (2023). Cheating among elementary school children:a machine learning approach. Child Development, 94, 922–940. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​cdev.​13910

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Page 22 of 22