FACTORS INFLUENCING ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ DECISIONS TO CHEAT BY TYPE OF ASSESSMENT

210 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Using the theory of planned behavior and cheating justifications to predict academic misconduct (2009, background): “, 2007), and two ex post facto studies of cheating and plagiarism (Passow et al., 2006; Stone et al., 2007).”
Predicting Academic Misconduct Intentions and Behavior Using the Theory of Planned Behavior and Personality (2010, methodology): “Recent work by Passow et al. (2006), Harding et al. (2007), and Stone et al. (2007) examined modified versions of the TPB model that included moral obligation that was correctly labeled as separate from the TPB. Passow et al. provided weak support for the TPB, but the study did not examine cheating…”
The Theory of Planned Behavior as a Model of Academic Dishonesty in Engineering and Humanities Undergraduates (2007, background): “Do students approach cheating on tests and homework in the same way? How do the underlying psychological mechanisms that predict cheating behaviors differ for students in a testing versus homework context? Previous research has established that type of cheating plays a significant role in determinin”
Are Online Exams an Invitation to Cheat? (2007, background): “The studies consistently reported that the highest incidence of cheating occurs among vocational majors such as business and engineering (Passow et al. 2006).”