Why Do Students Engage in Academic Misconduct?

Over the years, nearly half of students have consistently reported engaging in academic misconduct. Moreover, the underlying reasons for which students turn to unauthorized sources have largely remained unchanged. Research consistently links misconduct to high-stakes assessments that emphasize performance, lack clarity of expectations, and offer inadequate support (;). Taken together, this suggests that academic misconduct may be a response to structural features of course and assessment design rather than individual disregard or malice toward academic integrity.

Below, we summarize several situational factors that can inform proactive measures to foster academic ethics through course and assessment design. These include: 

  • Students may experience anxiety if the purpose of a task, what constitutes success, or what constitutes academic misconduct is not clearly articulated.
  • Students rarely receive explicit and consistent guidance for each assignment about the extent to which external tools may be used or what counts as fair use.
  • Lack of nuanced, ongoing class discussions can result in a lack of clarity around evolving expectations regarding academic integrity. 
  • Instructors at the same institution also vary in how they define and enforce norms around collaboration and integrity, which may further confuse students ().
  • High-stakes assessments typically form a large portion of a student's final grade, signalling that mistakes are irreversible, and performance is prioritized.
  • For students, pressure may stem from course structure, cumulative deadlines, or perceived consequences of failure, and is intensified by broader economic labor‑market pressures.
  • When assessments emphasize polished final products over drafts, reflection, or documented learning processes, students may see limited payoff to persisting through struggle, particularly during time‑intensive or challenging tasks.
  • In these conditions, academic misconduct may feel like risk management rather than deliberate rule‑breaking, especially if shortcuts allow students to complete work more efficiently and redirect time to other demands.
  • Students report an unmanageable workload as one of the most common reasons for utilizing unauthorized tools ().
  • If students feel less confident or have low self-efficacy (i.e., a belief that they cannot succeed at a given task), they are less likely to persist with a challenging task. 
  • Instructors often underestimate the extent to which workload may be unmanageable (). Moreover, they may underestimate the level of support today’s learners need with respect to prioritizing tasks and managing their time ().
  • Students can experience intense stress if feedback or support is not timely, making external assistance appear necessary rather than optional.
  • Students unfamiliar with disciplinary norms, citation practices, or U.S. academic conventions (e.g., directness, individuality) may view external help as compensatory support rather than misconduct.
  • Cultural differences in how collaboration, authorship, and the stakes associated with assessments may influence how students engage with coursework (;).
  • Thus, students may unintentionally engage in academic misconduct in ways that are misaligned with instructors’ expectations rather than intentionally deceptive.
  • These factors are particularly salient for first-generation, international, and BIPOC students whose cultural references may differ from norms at historically white institutions. 
  • In these cases, misconduct often reflects differing interpretations of authorship, collaboration, and assistance rather than deliberate attempts to gain unfair advantage.
  • Even if expectations and policies are clear, students may disengage if they do not see how assessments connect to course learning goals, the skills they hope to develop, or real-world applications.
  • When the purpose or value of an assessment is unclear, students may be less motivated to engage deeply with the work.
  • In these contexts, academic integrity requirements may be perceived as procedural rather than meaningful, increasing disengagement or the tendency to use shortcuts
  • Students often perceive academic misconduct as a victimless crime, and may fail to consider how it can affect their own learning and undermine trust.
  • Students are also more likely to engage in misconduct if their peers do so without consequences ().
  • Widespread cheating may further isolate students if their peers question their loyalty or trustworthiness for refusing to “help” or threatening to report misconduct. 
  • Thus, peer dynamics can reinforce aiding misconduct even among students who otherwise value integrity.
Academic Integrity

How Does Access to Generative AI Tools Impact This Context?

ұԱپAI has altered how students seek help and how misconduct is perceived by students, not why they engage in misconduct. Particularly, AI has increased the ease, availability, and perceived legitimacy of external assistance. This has made it a more convenient response to longstanding pressures such as time constraints, performance anxiety, and uncertainty about expectations. Generative AI tools impact students’ decision-making in the following key ways:

  • AI use may substitute earlier types of misconduct, such as plagiarizing directly from peers or internet sources, or collaborating without attribution, rather than increasing overall rates of misconduct. 
  • For students experiencing limited support, AI tools can function as timely, non-judgmental assistance, particularly when expectations are unclear.
  • Normalization and integration of AI tools into common platforms (e.g., Microsoft, Google, or Grammarly) can increase the possibility of unintentional misconduct, given the lack of distinction between helpful assistance and unauthorized use.  
  • Most students report using AI in limited, task‑specific ways, such as brainstorming, troubleshooting, or editing for clarity, rather than to complete entire assignments (ETRA, 2026;).Because this use often feels incremental and supportive, students may struggle to recognize when it crosses into unauthorized territory.

What Does This Mean for Instructors?

When expectations around AI use are unclear at the course or institutional-level, students can rationalize AI use even when it is not authorized. At the same time, over‑reliance on surveillance‑based approaches is unlikely to reduce misconduct. When assessments remain high stakes with ambiguous expectations and insufficient support, AI can become a tool that students turn to, rather than intentionally misuse. 

To better support academic integrity, instructors should consider:

Recommended Resources:

  • Bertram Gallant .,Rettinger, D.A. (2025).. The University of Oklahoma Press.
  • 鶹ѰBoulder ISSS. (2016, March 22). [Video]. YouTube. 
  • Lang, J. M. (2013).. Harvard University Press.
  • Rettinger, D.A., Bertram Gallant, T. (2022).. Jossey-Bass.
  • Shapiro, S., Farrelly, R., Tomas, Z. (2023).. TESOL Press