Discussing the misnomer: Exploring multidimensional perception to academic dishonesty in Nigeria. Do school attributes really matter?

Abstract

The study was centred on examining multidimensional perception of academic dishonesty in Nigeria using three predictors. Cross sectional survey research was carried out using 11,787 students from different universities. Data collections were done using questionnaire and school records. The instrument used for the study undergone thorough validity checks and the reliability was adequately assessed and the coefficient of the sub scales ranged from 0.78 to 0.89. Simple regression, independent t-test and one sample t-test was used for data analysis. Students’ perception of plagiarism, cheating and impersonation was positive but they had a negative perception of fabrication and falsification. School size was not a significant factor in perception of academic dishonesty. Significant mean differences were found in perception of plagiarism, falsification and impersonation based on school location, but urban and rural students had similar perception on cheating and fabrication of data. Similarly, school community relation has negative relation with perception of academic anxiety with low percentage contributions to plagiarism, cheating, and impersonation but school community relations had strong contribution to impersonation. Thus, programmes that will instigate integrate, honesty and discipline in the students. Considering the disparities in rural and urban setting to academic dishonesty, orientations on ethical research and use of technology should be implemented for students.

Introduction

Academic integrity is a cornerstone in the educational landscape, vital not only for maintaining the credibility of qualifications but also for fostering a sense of ethical responsibility among students. It sets a moral compass for both personal and professional life and emphasizes the importance of truthfulness, discipline, and integrity in shaping well-rounded, accountable individuals. Unfortunately, the prevalence of academic dishonesty threatens to erode this foundation, undermining the trust in educational systems and the quality of education that students receive (Krou et al. 2021; Şendağ et al. 2012; Simola 2017; Taradi et al. 2012).

Academic dishonesty encompasses a variety of unethical behaviors that contravene the norms of scholarly conduct, including plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, and various forms of cheating. These practices not only compromise the educational process but also prepare students poorly for future challenges, potentially leading to professional misconduct (Daniels et al. 2021; Bertram-Gallant et al. 2015; Ofem et al. 2023; Şendağ et al. 2012). Extortion and impersonation, along with other deceptive collaborations between students and educators, further compound these challenges, disrupting the educational environment and diminishing the value of academic achievements (Eneji et al., 2022; Kumar 2008). The classroom implications are significant, with dishonest actions ranging from the theft of educational resources to submitting work that is not the student’s own. These actions can lead to severe disciplinary actions, including expulsion, and damage the institution’s reputation, thus reducing public trust in educational qualifications (Gullifer and Tyson 2014; Bachore 2016). Graduates may emerge lacking critical skills, ostensibly certified by their degrees, potentially fostering a culture of antisocial and unprofessional behavior in the wider community (Amrane-Cooper et al. 2022; Burgason et al. 2019; Hunter and Kier 2022).

Contributing factors to academic dishonesty are varied, including individual pressures like the pursuit of high grades, and external factors such as age, gender, and motivation. Misunderstandings about the definition and implications of plagiarism also play a significant role. Institutional factors, such as ineffective plagiarism detection systems and inadequate monitoring, compound the problem, creating environments where dishonesty can thrive (Bassey and Owan 2020; Memory and Abosede 2021; Owan et al. 2023; Brown et al. 2020; Burgason et al. 2019).

Research has shown that many students perceive dishonest practices favorably, especially when they are seen as a means to achieve better academic outcomes. This perception is influenced by multiple factors, including gender, academic field, and the context of domestic versus international study (Young et al. 2019; Akbasli et al. 2019; Peled et al. 2019; Sideridis et al. 2016). Large class sizes and the nature of instructional delivery have also been identified as predictors of academic dishonesty (Owan et al. 2023).Parental involvement and attitudes towards education significantly influence student behavior. Engaged parenting, characterized by attentiveness and support, has been linked to lower incidences of dishonest behaviors (Awosoga et al. 2021; Balderas and Caballero-Hernández 2020). Orim and Awala-Ale (2024) studies on academic integrity perspective from Africa showed that several factors such as economic environment, technology and managements systems impact on the integrity in academics in school. Mwamwenda (2012) study found that academic dishonesty is widely practised by East African university students. Nketsiah et al. (2023) found that postgraduate student’s academic level and level of plagiarism differ. The findings further revealed that students do not differ by gender nor academic level in their perceived reason for engaging in plagiarism. Teferra (2019) study in Ethiopia found that academic dishonesty is pervasive and that the trend must be curtailed in order to mitigate the repercussion it has in the future.

Conversely, societal and peer pressures can drive students towards dishonest behaviors, particularly under intense academic pressure (Yang et al. 2013). Educators also play a critical role, sometimes inadvertently fostering a culture of dishonesty by emphasizing test preparation over genuine learning or by providing inappropriate assistance during exams (Lancaster and Cotarlan 2021; Westacott 2008). Therefore, both institutional and parental strategies need to be reevaluated and strengthened to effectively promote academic integrity and address the root causes of academic dishonesty. Despite extensive efforts by educational institutions to curb dishonest behaviors, challenges persist. In many regions, particularly in parts of Africa, lax enforcement of policies does little to deter repeat offenses (Arop et al. 2018; Madukwe et al. 2019).

Nigeria educational institutions have been facing the issues of academic dishonesty and misconducts over the years (Owan et al. 2023). Within this context, academic dishonesty in Nigeria manifest in diverse forms which includes but not limited to plagiarism, examination malpractices in its diverse form, gift and ghost authorship, falsification of data among others. these issues ate exacerbated by the increase in online technologies like the artificial intelligence which has been abused by many students (Ofem et al. 2024). Nigeria with its vast population leaves so many researchers in doubt over the integrity of the system as the problem grows in forms and bounds. According to Oko et al. (2017), the systemic weakness orchestrated by overcrowded classroom and lack of enforcement of policies that promotes academic integrity leaves so many stakeholders which has led to a culture of impunity and disregard for academic credentials. These issues underscore the need for updated policies and practices that will address the evolving form of misconducts in the tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Ossai et al. (2023) study found that academic integrity is essential for academic performance, but males differ from female students in their academic integrity and age was a factors in academic integrity. These studies as they appear did not look at perception from this perspective of this study, even though, they provided useful insight to understanding this study.

Measures such as installing Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras, utilizing plagiarism detection tools, and establishing quality assurance committees have been implemented, yet the problem remains significant (Bassey and Owan 2020; Madukwe et al., 2019; Owan et al. 2022b). Further research indicates that factors like school size, geographical settings, and the nature of school-community interactions significantly affect perceptions and incidences of academic dishonesty. Larger institutions may struggle with effective monitoring due to student anonymity, whereas smaller schools, despite potentially closer community ties, might lack the advanced technology needed for detecting dishonesty (Hamlin and Cheng 2020; Oberfield 2020). Parents often choose schools based not only on academic reputation but also on their management effectiveness, including their approach to handling academic dishonesty (Alsuiadi 2015; Waita et al. 2016). Geographical location plays a critical role, with urban schools potentially managing dishonesty more effectively than rural schools, where community values can play a deterrent role. However, students moving away from these community influences may adapt their behaviors accordingly (Burgess et al. 2019; Ibrahim et al. 2014).

The strength of the relationship between schools and their communities is paramount. A robust, positive relationship can lead to community-driven efforts to uphold academic integrity, whereas a weak bond might leave educational institutions more susceptible to dishonest practices (Bakwai 2013; Uzoechina 2016; Ajayi et al. 2009). Inadequate enforcement of policies and the absence of strict penalties contribute to the prevalence of dishonest behaviors, with peer pressure and the desire to excel academically exacerbating the issue (Abanobi 2017; Saana et al. 2016; Bachore 2016). Academic integrity is crucial for the quality and credibility of educational qualifications. Addressing academic dishonesty requires a multi-faceted approach, involving not only institutional reforms but also community and parental engagement to create a culture that genuinely upholds the values of honesty and integrity.

There is a notable gap in the literature regarding how attributes such as school size, location, and community relations influence perceptions of academic dishonesty. Few empirical studies directly address these broader psychological and ethical dimensions, which are essential for developing effective programs that can truly shift these perceptions and enhance academic integrity (Owan et al. 2023). By exploring these lesser-examined factors, educational administrators can devise more effective interventions, not only maintaining academic standards but also ensuring the legitimacy of the credentials schools issue. Understanding the complex interdependencies within the educational ecosystem and the importance of community support is vital for crafting inclusive programs that promote a culture of integrity. This study aims to explore these broader influences, potentially leading to significant advancements in how educational institutions uphold academic integrity. The following questions have been raised.

• i. What perception do students hold about academic dishonesty in terms of plagiarism, cheating, falsification, fabrication, and impersonation?

• ii. To what extent do higher education students school size influence their academic dishonesty?

• iii. How does school location influence academic dishonesty among higher education students?

• iv. What is the predictive effect of school community relation on academic dishonesty among higher education students?

Methodology

The study followed the positivist research paradigm where quantitative methods are heavily involved. The cross-sectional survey design was adopted for the study since the researchers collects information from different response unit at the same time. This was done through the use of questionnaire. A total of 11,787 final year university students were selected for the study. These respondents were from 18 universities in eighteen federal universities in Nigeria. Nigeria is organized into six unique geopolitical zones, each showcasing the nation’s diverse cultural, linguistic, and economic characteristics. These zones aim to ensure balanced representation and equitable resource allocation across the country. They include the North Central zone, encompassing seven states; the Northeast zone with six states; and the Northwest zone, also with seven states. In the South, the Southeast zone comprises five states, the South South zone includes six states, and the Southwest zone has six states as well. Differences among zones, including levels of economic development and access to quality education, can shape both the frequency and types of academic dishonesty encountered. Analyzing these zones enables researchers to design interventions that address regional needs, fostering more effective and culturally appropriate solutions. This strategy also highlights challenges unique to each zone and promotes fair policy development across Nigeria’s educational system. Three universities were selected from each of the six geopolitical zones in Nigeria. The study participant of the study were 58.31% male (n = 6873) and 41.69% females(n = 4914). The demographics of the respondents also revealed that 36.51% (n = 4304) are of the faculty of education, 28.85% (n = 3401) are of the physical and biological sciences, 19.82% (n = 2336) are of humanities and art faculty while 14.81%(n = 1746) are of the social sciences. Similarly, 32.86% (n = 3873) are below the age of 25, 45.99% (n = 5421) are between 25 and 35yrs while 21.15% (n = 2493) are above the age of 35. The study was made up of final years students only who are assumed to have learnt about research and have experienced the university for a period of 4 to 5 years. They are also involved in writing ther academic projects and may be using various dishonest means to achieve their objectives This does not imply that others may not be knowledgeable of what is studies here.

Measures

The study was made up of seven variables which are school size, school location and school community relations as the explanatory variables while the criterion variable was plagiarism, cheating, falsification, and impersonation. A google form was designed for data collection. The questionnaire designed using a google form was divided into three sections. Section A was designed to obtain demographic data of the respondents such as gender(male or female), age (below 25yrs, 25-35yrs and above 35yrs), faculty(as indicated in the google form), school location(urban or rural) and school size (large or small). The measurement of the school attributes which are school location defined as the area were school is located at the time of this study was placed on a nominal scale since it involves categorical responses. Thus, two boxes were created for a tick on either urban or rural area. The measure of school size was determine using the school size. The information was obtained from the registry of various institutions that were visited for the study. A school that is not large should have recommended teacher to student’s ratio. The required classification is based on the recommendation that that for any class size, there should be 1: 35(one teacher to 35 students). Thus, once the ratio of teacher to students in each of the school visited has a value higher than 0.03(1/35), then such a school is classified as large. The researcher thus, measured the school size on a nominal scale with two responses as large or small using the ratio. This ratio is often computed using the following formula.

$$\text{TSR}=\frac{Total\;number\;of\;teachers\;in\;the\;school}{Total\;number\;of\;stundents\;in\;the\;school}$$

Section B contained items that measures school community relations. School community relations defines the type of relationship that exist between the community that may be cordial, mutual, or alien. The measure was developed with six items with a sample item such as ‘ My school sometimes receives security assistance from the community. The measure was placed on a four-point response option of strongly Agree(SA), Agree(A), Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree(SD).

The Section C contains items for the four measures of academic dishonesty: plagiarism, charting, fabrication, falsification and impersonation. Each of the construct was measured with five items. Perception of plagiarism which has to do with the belief and knowledge one holds about copying one idea without referencing the author was measured with a sample item, ‘ I don’t see anything wrong when I do not put references in my assignments’. Perception of cheating which what they hold about using extraneous materials in examination hall ad has sample item like: ‘I sometimes help myself inside examination hall’. Perception of fabrication of data which has to do with developing data for analysis from fraudulent means rather than going to get data from the field. The sample item was ‘ Sometimes I just think that I can use my software to collect data than going to the field’. For perception of falsification which is more of what the students think about changing the outcome of a result has a sample item as;’ Sometimes, I change the result of my study when it does not give me what I want’ was measured with five items. Finally, the sample items for impersonation were ‘I sometimes allow my friends to write exams for me’. The four-point modified Likert-type scale is strongly agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD). These were the options that the respondents were to respond to based on their knowledge of the items.

Validity and reliability

A draft of the questionnaire with the objectives of the study was submitted to three experts: one in Educational Measurement and Evaluation, one from educational management and one from Guidance and Counselling. The evaluators were to assess the suitability, relevance, and clarity of the items for each measure using quantitative method. The item Content validity Index(I-CVI) and Scale Content Validity Index(S-CVI) were employed. For clarity, the items for school community relation and the five measures of perception ton academic dishonesty, it ranged from 0.87 to 0.89, relevance (0.80–0.87). and clarity(0.89–0.91). The scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI)has values for the three criteria ranged from 0.90 to 0.93 for all the measures. ‘Researchers have noted that the criteria for determining Item Content validity Index (I-CVI) for two experts, is at least a value of 0.80; but where there are three to five experts 0.99 is adequate and where there are six to eight experts, it should range from 0.83; and where it involves 9 to above experts, the least index should be 0.78 (See Polit et al, 2007; Yusoff 2019; Ofem et al. 2023). Thus, for our measures involving three experts, the values obtained are within the acceptable range for content validity to be considered. However, six items were removed from the scale due to ambiguity and producing values that were below 0.70 which is an indication that the experts do not agree to the inclusion of those items. Thus, a scale with a toral of 31 items was reduced to 25 items for the study. Reliability of the scale was carried out using a total of 50 students who were not part of the study and Cronbach alpha was used for the analysis and the coefficient of the sub scales as presented in Table 1 ranged from 0.78–0.89 which is an indication of internal consistencies (Table 2).

Table 1 Cronbach Alpha Reliability coefficient of the six sub scales of the study (N = 50)

Table 2 One sample test of student’s perception of academic dishonesty

Ethical consideration

The study is a survey that poses no threat to the respondents. Thus, the study does not require any ethical approval as stated by the Federal Ministry of Health, 2007, pp.13–14. However, in line with global best practices, the students were informed of the purpose of the study and written informed consent was received for those who were interested in the study. similarly, the respondents were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and that third party will have no access to the data. This was why it was encrypted with a password that no other person can have access to. Out of 11,787 that were identified for the study, 165 students did not provide consent and were not coarse into the study by any means.

Data collection method

The data was collected by the researchers with the assistant of 67 research assistants that were financially incentivised. The size of the research assistants was large because of the sample size. The researchers first identified various class representativeness from various institutions through the help of the research assistants. A Telegram group was created for this purpose where the researchers and the class representatives had elaborate discussion on what was required of them in this study. The class representatives were instructed not to send the copy of the link to any other platform that is not students oriented and which also is not a final year students’ platform. This was to avoid having information from those who were not part of the study. To ensure that multi submissions were controlled, each of the respondents was to put his/her phone number and email that were in asterisk(*) before the form could be submitted. The researchers ensure that .CVS file was created that will collate the responses of the students as they respond to it. The administration and collation of the responses lasted for 7 months (July 2023-December 2023). The .CVS file was downloaded by the researcher and out of the 11,622 responses that were anticipated, a total of 10,983 students responded to the scale. A cursory look at the data showed that almost 346 students did not complete their responses and such were removed from the scale. Thus, a total of 10,637 respondents were used for the final analysis which is still large enough for the study to be performed using SPSS version 26.

Result

To test the first hypothesis, a one-sample t-test was conducted using a population mean of 10.0, derived from summing the expected mean of 2.5 for each of the four items that measured the variable. The analysis revealed several key insights. First, students’ perceptions of plagiarism had a mean score of 9.26 (SD = 2.02), which was lower than the population mean of 10.0. The difference between the sample and population means was 0.98, and the 95% confidence interval [9.21, 10.30] indicated this mean difference was statistically significant, t(10,637) = 523.52, p < .001. Given that the population mean exceeded the sample mean, this result suggests that students hold a generally positive perception toward plagiarism. Similarly, students’ perceptions of cheating in school yielded a mean of 8.07 (SD = 0.33), also below the population mean of 10.0. This difference of 1.93, with a 95% confidence interval [8.07, 8.08], was statistically significant, t(10,637) = 2,499.75, p < .001, indicating that students similarly hold a positive perception toward cheating.

In contrast, for the perception of falsification, the mean was 15.41 (SD = 3.15), which was greater than the population mean of 10.0. This yielded a mean difference of 5.41, with a 95% confidence interval [15.36, 15.47], and was statistically significant, t(10,637) = 504.37, p < .001. Since the sample mean exceeded the population mean, this suggests that students hold a negative perception toward falsification. For the perception of impersonation, the mean was 8.66 (SD = 0.011), below the population mean of 10.0. The mean difference was − 1.33, with a 95% confidence interval [8.64, 8.68], and this result was statistically significant, t(10,637) = 780.48, p < .001, implying a positive perception toward impersonation among students. Lastly, in relation to fabrication, the mean was 11.64 (SD = 3.44), exceeding the population mean of 10.0. The mean difference of 1.64, with a 95% confidence interval [11.36, 11.92], was statistically significant, t(10,637) = 349.01, p < .001, indicating a negative perception toward fabrication among students. In conclusion, students generally hold positive perceptions toward plagiarism, cheating, and impersonation, while their perceptions of falsification and fabrication are more negative.

The results for Hypothesis Two examined the differences in students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty based on school size. Schools were classified as large or small using the TSR index, and student perceptions of academic dishonesty were assessed across five dimensions. As shown in Table 3, an independent samples t-test revealed that 6,376 students attended large schools, while 4,261 students attended small schools. The analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between students in large and small schools in terms of their perceptions of plagiarism, t(10,635) = 1.39, 95% CI [−0.022, 0.13], p > .05; falsification, t(10,635) = −0.28, 95% CI [−0.014, 0.001], p > .05; cheating, t(10,635) = 0.95, 95% CI [0.06, 0.18], p > .05; fabrication, t(10,635) = 0.86, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.19], p > .05; and impersonation, t(10,635) = −1.53, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.00], p > .05. These results suggest that school size does not significantly influence students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty across the five assessed dimensions.

Table 3 Independent t-test analysis of student’s perception of academic dishonesty by differences in school size

The results for hypothesis three highlighted differences in students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty based on school location. Schools were classified as urban or rural based on the certain indices used by the researchers such as access road, educational facilities, population densities, mobility among others with student perceptions of academic dishonesty measured across five dimensions. As shown in Table 4, an independent samples t-test revealed that 6,376 students attended large schools, while 4,261 students attended small schools. The analysis indicated a statistically significant difference in perceptions of plagiarism, falsification, and impersonation between students in large and small schools. Specifically, students in large schools had a different perception of plagiarism compared to those in small schools, t(10,635) = −7.51, 95% CI [−0.37, −0.21], p < .05. Perceptions of falsification also differed significantly, t(10,635) = −2.24, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.01], p < .05, as did perceptions of impersonation, t(10,635) = 4.96, 95% CI [0.06, 0.15], p < .05. More so, Table 4 provides additional insights into the impact of school location (urban vs. rural) on students’ perceptions. The analysis revealed no significant difference in perceptions of cheating, t(10,635) = −0.31, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.012], p > .05, or fabrication, t(10,635) = −1.10, 95% CI [−0.20, 0.05], p > .05, based on school location. However, significant differences emerged in perceptions of plagiarism, falsification, and impersonation, with students in urban schools demonstrating stronger views on these dimensions than those in rural schools.In summary, these results suggest that school location significantly influences students’ perceptions of plagiarism, falsification, and impersonation, with urban students showing heightened awareness. However, perceptions of cheating and fabrication do not significantly differ by location, implying that students from both urban and rural areas may engage in these behaviors similarly.

Table 4 Independent t-test analysis of student’s perception of academic dishonesty by differences in school location

Hypothesis Four examined the predictive effect of school-community relations on students’ perceptions of academic dishonesty across five dimensions. As shown in Table 5, the findings indicated that school-community relations had a statistically significant predictive effect on students’ perceptions of plagiarism, F (1, 10635) = 65.04, p < .05; cheating, F(1, 10635) = 487.21, p < .05; fabrication, F(1, 10635) = 21.09, p < .05; and impersonation, F(1, 10635) = 517.03, p < .05. However, there was no significant predictive effect of school-community relations on students’ perception of falsification, F (1, 10635) = 0.31, p > .05. The analysis further revealed that the effect was most pronounced for impersonation and cheating, with school-community relations explaining 31.1% of the variance in perceptions of impersonation and 4.4% for cheating. In contrast, the predictive power of school-community relations on other dimensions was minimal: falsification (0.0%), fabrication (0.2%), and plagiarism (0.6%). These findings suggest that, although school-community relations have a statistically significant impact on students’ perceptions of impersonation and cheating, their influence on perceptions of falsification, plagiarism, and fabrication is limited.

Table 5 Simple regression analysis of the predictive effect of school-community relations on academic dishonesty

Discussion of findings

The study’s results indicate that students tend to have more lenient views towards academic misconduct involving plagiarism, cheating, and impersonation, while they express a more disapproving stance toward falsification and fabrication. This pattern implies that students may perceive certain dishonest acts as more acceptable or less serious, while viewing others as more ethically problematic. Understanding these differences in perception can provide insight into how students justify various dishonest behaviors and how they perceive institutional attitudes toward them. The generally positive view toward plagiarism, cheating, and impersonation might be attributed to the familiarity and perceived ease of engaging in these behaviors. Plagiarism, for example, may be seen as a relatively minor violation or as a common occurrence, particularly in educational environments where strict citation practices are not heavily enforced. Previous research supports this normalization, especially in areas with limited educational resources or weak enforcement of academic integrity (Sutherland-Smith 2008). Similarly, cheating is sometimes viewed as a necessary response to academic pressures, a trend seen in diverse educational settings (McCabe et al. 2001). Peer dynamics may further influence this perception, as witnessing others engage in such behavior without consequences can reduce the perceived severity.

On the other hand, students’ negative perceptions of falsification and fabrication likely reflect a recognition of the fundamental impact these behaviors have on academic integrity. Falsification, which involves the dishonest alteration of information, and fabrication, or the invention of false data, directly challenge the values of truthfulness and reliability central to academia. Research supports the view that students consider these forms of dishonesty as more severe, given their potential to mislead others and cause broader harm (Honig and Bedi 2012). Fabrication, in particular, is often seen as ethically unacceptable due to its repercussions for trust within academic and professional fields where decision-making relies on accurate information (Fanelli 2009).

These findings align with prior studies that emphasize how students’ views on academic misconduct differ by type and perceived impact (Finn and Frone 2004). For instance, Jordan (2001) found that students often categorize dishonest behaviors into “serious” and “less serious” forms, with plagiarism typically regarded as less severe than falsification or fabrication. Likewise, Anderman and Midgley (2004) note that perceptions of dishonesty are shaped by individual, institutional, and cultural factors, which in turn influence students’ ethical judgments and actions. The negative attitudes toward falsification and fabrication observed here may reflect a shared ethical appreciation for integrity in scholarly work, even in cases where enforcement varies.

The findings, showing that school size has no significant effect on students’ views of academic dishonesty across the evaluated dimensions, offer key insights into students’ perspectives on dishonest behavior independent of institutional size. This result suggests that factors other than school size—like individual moral development, peer dynamics, or the overarching institutional culture—may have a greater impact on shaping students’ attitudes toward academic dishonesty. A potential reason for this outcome is that academic dishonesty might be a widespread issue across different types of educational environments, with shared experiences that override the distinctions between large and small institutions. Research has shown that students’ attitudes towards dishonest behavior are often influenced more by personal values or peer actions than by the size or type of institution. For example, McCabe et al. (2001a, b) found that students at both large and small schools exhibited similar attitudes toward cheating, with peer approval significantly contributing to the normalization of dishonest behaviors. This supports the idea that social norms, rather than institutional factors, have a more substantial influence on student conduct.

These findings also align with the view that students might see academic dishonesty as similarly acceptable or necessary in any environment with significant academic pressures. Regardless of school size, students often encounter comparable academic demands, potentially leading them to justify dishonest practices as a strategy for coping. In settings with high expectations, students may resort to dishonest methods to fulfill academic requirements or gain an edge, as noted by Anderman and Midgley (2004). This shared experience could explain why students in various institution sizes hold similar perceptions regarding dishonest behaviors.

The results of this study indicate that the location of a school plays a key role in shaping students’ views on plagiarism, falsification, and impersonation, with urban students displaying a higher level of awareness regarding these dishonest behaviors. This could be attributed to the more pronounced focus on academic policies and the stricter enforcement of academic integrity that is often characteristic of urban institutions. Urban schools, typically equipped with better resources, may provide more clearly defined rules and consistent reminders about what constitutes dishonesty, leading to a stronger awareness among students. Previous research has suggested that students in well-resourced urban environments are more likely to recognize and reject certain dishonest actions due to the support systems in place (Sattler et al. 2013).

On the other hand, the lack of significant differences in students’ perceptions of cheating and fabrication implies that these behaviors might be viewed as common hurdles in both urban and rural settings. The high academic demands that students face in various environments could normalize behaviors like cheating. Studies such as McCabe and Trevino (1997) have shown that students facing significant academic pressures may justify cheating as a necessary strategy for success, regardless of whether they are in an urban or rural school. Moreover, with easy access to online tools and technology, students in both settings may encounter similar opportunities and justifications for engaging in such behaviors.

These outcomes suggest that while institutional policies in urban schools may enhance awareness of academic integrity, the motivations behind dishonest actions like cheating and fabrication are influenced by broader, universal academic pressures. This underscores the importance of focusing educational efforts not just on institutional factors like location, but on promoting personal responsibility and a collective commitment to academic honesty across different educational contexts.

The results of this study indicate that the relationship between schools and their surrounding communities has a significant effect on how students perceive behaviors like impersonation and cheating, while its influence on perceptions of falsification, plagiarism, and fabrication is more limited. This suggests that the social and cultural factors shaped by the school-community relationship are more impactful in shaping attitudes toward behaviors that are seen as involving direct social interactions, such as impersonation and cheating. Research by Harvey et al. (2014a, b, c) emphasizes that in collectivist environments or smaller community contexts, cheating and impersonation may be seen as expressions of loyalty rather than dishonesty. This communal influence could explain why school-community relations have a greater impact on students’ views of these behaviors.

On the other hand, actions such as falsification, plagiarism, and fabrication are typically regarded as more serious violations of academic integrity, involving complex ethical issues. These behaviors are less likely to be influenced by peer interactions and are more strongly shaped by institutional policies and individual ethical values. Studies like those of McCabe and Trevino (1997) suggest that the perception of acts like plagiarism and falsification is often influenced by the clarity of academic integrity rules and institutional enforcement, which are less affected by social dynamics. Moreover, these forms of dishonesty tend to be perceived as more damaging to academic credibility, further explaining why school-community relations have a lesser influence on these perceptions.

These findings align with previous research suggesting that academic dishonesty is shaped not just by community dynamics but also by a mix of institutional, cultural, and individual factors (Finn and Frone 2004). While community norms may have a significant impact on behaviors like cheating and impersonation, perceptions of more formal dishonest practices like plagiarism and falsification are influenced by academic policies, personal ethics, and broader societal pressures, making school-community relations less impactful in these areas.

Limitations and suggestion for further direction

The study like any other study had some limitations. First, the study was only centred on Nigeria public universities and does not consider private institutions. Thus, this may not be applicable to other institutions like the nonethnics and colleges of education. Further studies should be carried out involving private institutions in order to determine appropriately the extent of academic dishonesty in these areas. The study is not also exhaustive as other variables like extortion of students, arm twisting, ghost and gift authorship are not included. Similarly, the tendencies for subject biases and prejudices been introduced in the study is possible since it adopted a self-survey method which respondents may not be able to report accurately their experiences. The adoption pf alternative methods such as observation could be very adequate. More so, the study is a cross sectional study that requires a one-shot collection of information that may not be more comprehensive compared to adoption of longitudinal method where information about the perception may follow a developmental pattern. This will help us understand how this perception, to academic dishonesty changes as the learner progress in academics over time. However, these limitations do not invalidate the findings or makes it useless but has aided in providing useful insight into Nigeria students perception, of academic dishonesty and what really matters so as to build intervention strategies.

Conclusion

The study provides a multifaceted analysis of academic dishonesty among tertiary institution students, highlighting both the factors influencing and the perceptions toward various unethical academic behaviors. The results suggest a complex landscape where both contextual and personal factors interplay to shape students’ attitudes and actions regarding academic integrity.t The findings revealed that students hold a positive perception to plagiarism, cheating, and impersonation but negative perception to fabrication and falsification. School size is not a factor in students’ perception of academic dishonesty but school location was a string determinate to perception of plagiarism, falsification, and impersonation but with fabrication and cheating School community relations, while generally fostering a negative relationship with dishonest practices, contribute minimally to predicting these behaviors, with the notable exception of impersonation. This finding highlights the potential of a strong community connection to deter more severe forms of dishonesty like impersonation, which may be viewed as a significant betrayal of community trust. The implications of the study are that educational integrity programmes should be strengthened and school should foster a strong tie. Considering the disparities in rural and urban setting to academic dishonesty, orientations on ethical research and use of technological in line with best practices should be carried out to bridge the gap between students’ understanding of what constitutes dishonest behavior and why such behavior undermines the academic enterprise.

To address academic dishonesty effectively, standardized academic policies must be established, clearly defining what constitutes dishonest behavior, specifying the consequences for such violations, and outlining the procedures for reporting and adjudicating cases of misconduct within schools. These policies will provide a framework for maintaining academic integrity and accountability across all educational institutions.

In addition to policy development, targeted interventions should be implemented to address specific forms of academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism. Tailored programs aimed at preventing plagiarism can be designed to educate students about proper citation practices, the importance of originality in academic work, and the consequences of plagiarizing. By addressing this specific problem directly, educators can help instill a culture of academic honesty among students. Investment in activities that strengthen ties between schools and communities is also essential. By fostering strong school-community relationships, parents, local leaders, and community organizations can serve as watchdogs for the school, even in their absence. This collaborative approach creates a supportive environment where stakeholders work together to promote integrity and hold each other accountable for maintaining academic standards.

Furthermore, ethical education should be integrated into curricula at all levels of education. By embedding ethical principles and critical thinking skills into the educational experience, students develop strong ethical foundations that discourage dishonest behavior. Through interactive lessons and discussions, educators can cultivate a culture of honesty, integrity, and responsible conduct among students, preparing them to navigate ethical challenges in academic and professional settings.