Examining the relationship of academic dishonesty with academic procrastination, and time management in distance education

Emine Aruğaslan

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38827

. 2024 Oct 1;10(19):e38827. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38827

Examining the relationship of academic dishonesty with academic procrastination, and time management in distance education

Emine Aruğaslan ¹

PMCID: PMC11471248 PMID: 39397943

Abstract

Academic dishonesty undermines the integrity of educational processes and remains a widespread concern in higher education institutions, including those offering distance learning. In this context, identifying the factors that influence students' academic dishonesty behaviors is crucial. This study aims to explore the relationship of academic dishonesty with academic procrastination behaviors, time management skills among distance education students. For this purpose, the study employed a correlational survey model, which is a quantitative research method. The research sample comprised 220 students enrolled in an associate degree program via distance education at a public university, selected using the convenience sampling method. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, Pearson correlation analysis, and stepwise regression analysis. The findings indicate that academic dishonesty behaviors among distance education students are low, while their academic procrastination behaviors and time management skills are at a medium level. The analysis of demographic characteristics revealed varying trends in their effects on academic dishonesty, academic procrastination, and time management skills among the participants. The study found no significant effect of demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, marital status, and employment status, on academic dishonesty. A positive relationship was found between academic procrastination behavior and academic dishonesty behavior; while a negative relationship was observed between time management skills and academic dishonesty. The analyses revealed that academic procrastination behavior and time management skills together predict academic dishonesty behaviors, with the developed model explaining approximately 26 % of the total variance in these behaviors. This study aims to address a critical gap in the literature and contribute to the development of academic integrity strategies by examining the relationships between academic dishonesty behaviors, academic procrastination behaviors, and time management skills in distance education.

Keywords: Distance education, Academic dishonesty behavior, Time management, Academic procrastination behavior

1. Introduction

Advancements in computer and communication technology have introduced numerous new ways for engaging in academic dishonesty [1]. Therefore, academic dishonesty constitutes one of the most significant issues that educational institutions should address through preventive measures [2,3]. The advancement of educational technologies has rendered the struggle against academic dishonesty in education systems more complex and challenging [4,5]. Academic dishonesty can fundamentally be defined as the act of obtaining, using, or presenting information in a misleading way. This term encompasses a wide range of behaviors, from plagiarizing the work of others in assignments [6] and cheating on exams, to providing incorrect bibliographic information and forging academic documents [4,7]. To eradicate these undesirable behaviors in educational settings, educators and institutions must develop new strategies to promote and protect academic integrity [2].

Academic dishonesty has long been a pervasive issue, particularly within institutions of higher education [8,9]. Academic dishonesty compromises the integrity of students and undermines the quality of educational institutions [1]. Academic dishonesty is not only an ethical issue but also a phenomenon that impedes students’ academic and professional growth [3,10,11]. Therefore, the concept of academic honesty should be regarded as a fundamental issue warranting attention in both traditional face-to-face and distance learning environments.

Academic dishonesty in distance education is a worrying issue due to factors such as easy access to information on the internet, opportunities provided by communication technologies, and the greater isolation of individual learning processes [2]. Stuber-McEwen et al. [12] stated that the distance between faculty and students in online education may contribute to the belief that students are more likely to cheat than those enrolled in traditional classroom environments. Students' procrastination behaviors may increase due to factors such as isolation, lack of social interaction, and distance from support systems. This procrastination behavior can increase the likelihood that students will resort to academic dishonesty due to assignments and projects not being completed on time. Contrary to these views, Peled et al. [13] investigated the decisive factors of academic honesty behaviors in the context of both traditional and distance courses in higher education. The results showed that, contrary to traditional views and existing research, students committed less academic dishonesty in online courses compared to face-to-face courses. The main reasons for this situation are that students exhibit higher levels of intrinsic motivation and tend to engage in less opportunistic behavior in online learning environments. Online courses provide students with more opportunities to develop independent learning abilities, thereby reducing their tendency to cheat.

Some studies suggest that instances of academic dishonesty are lower in distance education compared to traditional education [12]; while other research emphasizes that students are more likely to cheat in distance education [2,4,14]. Therefore, it is critical to examine the tendencies toward academic dishonesty among distance education students and to identify the factors associated with such behaviors. This study explores the relationship between students’ academic dishonesty behaviors, academic procrastination behaviors, and time management skills. The absence of studies in the distance education literature that concurrently address these concepts underscores the unique contribution of this research.

1.1. Theoretical background

1.1.1. Academic integrity and academic dishonesty

Academic integrity encompasses honesty, fairness, reliability, and adherence to ethical values within the educational context [3]. This concept requires that both students and academics to base their scientific research and academic endeavors on these values. In essence, academic integrity constitutes the foundational bedrock of trust, transparency, and respect within the academic and scientific community. On the other hand, academic dishonesty comprises a range of deceitful behaviors that individuals engage in within educational settings to secure unfair advantages or to avoid failure [9]. Zhao et al. [15] defined academic dishonesty as prohibited actions performed intentionally to gain undeserved benefits. Studies reveal that academic dishonesty is a common behavior among students [10] and is often triggered by factors such as high pressure [16] and competition [17,18].

Academic dishonesty may encompass behaviors such as cheating, collaborating with others during an exam, accessing unauthorized materials like textbooks and web resources, and having someone else take the exam on behalf of the student [1,19,20]. To address these issues, practices such as the use of proctored test centers, implementation of access passwords, administration of time-limited tests, and creation of database pools with randomly selected test questions have been developed as methods to decrease the propensity for dishonest behavior [21,22]. With the advancement of technology, biometric systems such as facial recognition, fingerprinting, and eye scanning are increasingly being used to prevent behaviors associated with academic dishonesty [5,23,24].

Students often view academic dishonesty as a pragmatic solution to meet academic standards [25]. However, academic dishonesty can have severe adverse consequences for students. Students who engage in academic dishonesty may face disciplinary sanctions and receive negative notations on their academic records. More importantly, such behavior can detrimentally affect students' learning processes and ethical standards. Therefore, it is imperative to devise comprehensive policies and preventive strategies aimed at safeguarding students' academic integrity and curtailing behaviors associated with academic dishonesty [26,27]. Scanlan [28] emphasized that fostering a culture of academic integrity is achievable through the establishment of a supportive institutional environment. Educators should instruct students in ethical behaviors that uphold and promote academic integrity. However, it may not suffice for educators to merely articulate their expectations regarding academic integrity to students, even though this approach fosters an environment conducive to improvement. In particular educators, should appeal to students’ moral sensibilities and provide clear guidance on behaviors that breach academic integrity [29].

Academic dishonesty represents a pervasive challenge that educators and educational institutions face in both traditional and distance learning environments [19,30]. While ensuring academic integrity is crucial in all educational programs, this issue demands greater attention, particularly in online environments. Reports indicate that during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the implementation of distance education, university students submitted their assignments late, produced low-quality work, and violated academic integrity rules, such as plagiarism [31]. In this context, the COVID-19 pandemic has further reinforced the perception of academic dishonesty in distance education [32].

1.2. Academic dishonesty in terms of demographic variables

Academic dishonesty is influenced by various demographic variables including gender, age, marital status, ethical values, socio-economic status, education level, cultural background, academic achievement level, self-efficacy, technology literacy, school climate and culture, and peer group influence. This situation highlights a multifaceted problem. Understanding how these variables contribute to academic dishonesty is critical for fostering a culture of integrity in educational institutions and designing targeted interventions.

Existing literature generally indicates that gender is an important factor in ethical decision-making processes and academic attitudes. Analyses related to the subject often show that male students are more likely to engage in academic dishonesty than female students [6,33,34], or that female students are more likely to deny engaging in such behaviors [35]. Lanier [14] noted that similar situations were encountered in distance education, with male students attempting to cheat more frequently than female students. Contrary to the aforementioned results, some studies have found that females commit more academic dishonesty than males [36,37]. Additionally, Shah and Monahan [38] noted that gender does not have a decisive effect on academic honesty in online education. Tayfun, Aysen, and Silik [39] revealed that females tend to commit more academic dishonesty in tasks such as homework and projects compared to males. Ward and Beck [40] stated that this situation, which is generally in favor of females than males, complies with the Sex-Role Socialization Theory and that females are raised to obey the rules, but this situation is less binding for males. Based on the aforementioned literature indicating that the gender variable has different effects on academic dishonesty, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H1

Gender has a significant effect on academic dishonesty behavior.

When examining studies on academic dishonesty behavior by age, Jensen et al. [6] noted that younger students are more likely to exhibit academic irregularities. Hasri et al. [41] also reported a relationship between age and academic dishonesty behaviors, noting that older students resort to academic dishonesty more frequently. Hasri et al. [41] stated that although older students have a better understanding of the seriousness of academic dishonesty, this understanding does not definitively prevent them from engaging in such behavior. This finding underscores that the factors influencing academic dishonesty extend beyond mere awareness or understanding of ethical implications. In studies addressing marital status, Korn and Davidovitch [42], as well as Lanier [14], stated that single students are more likely to cheat than married students. Ladera-Castañeda [43] stated in his study that marital status is not a decisive factor for academic dishonesty. Considering that young and typically single students generally have more social activities and more flexible schedules, this may lead to time management problems and consequently make them more prone to academic irregularities. Studies examining the effects of age and marital status on academic integrity are present in the literature. In this study, to determine the impact of both these variables and the not yet researched variable of employment status on academic integrity, the following hypotheses have been formulated:

H2

Age has a significant effect on academic dishonesty.

H3

Employment status has a significant effect on academic dishonesty.

H4

Marital status has a significant effect on academic dishonesty.

1.3. Academic procrastination behaviors

Academic procrastination refers to the tendency of students to delay or postpone the completion of study plans, tasks, or projects within the allotted time frame or by a specified deadline [44]. Academic procrastination is considered as a complex phenomenon involving cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors, characterized by the deliberate postponement of an intended course of action [45,46]. Steel [47] and Klingsieck et al. [48] characterize academic procrastination as a prevalent and harmful self-regulation failure. Hayat et al. [49] concluded that one out of every three students exhibit academic procrastination behavior. Academic procrastination can adversely impact students’ academic performance and overall well-being [50]. The pressure experienced by individuals is likely to intensify as the deadline for postponed tasks approaches. Therefore, high levels of academic procrastination are associated with decreased academic performance [51] and can elevate stress and anxiety levels among students [50].

Numerous studies have been conducted on academic procrastination. These studies have examined the relationship between academic procrastination and several key factors, including anxiety [46], academic motivation, attribution styles, self-efficacy beliefs [44], student achievement [49], emotional intelligence, school life, self-evaluation, and self-efficacy competencies [45]. Chavez-Fernandez et al. [52] concluded that the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic procrastination is significant and negative, and that emotional intelligence significantly predicts academic procrastination. Cheng and Xie [53] examined why university students exhibit procrastination in online courses from a self-regulated learning perspective. In their study, Cheng and Xie investigated the structural relationships between students’ perceptions of course structure (teacher participation, peer interaction, content interest, and technology usability), feelings of responsibility, motivational beliefs (academic self-efficacy, task value, and emotional cost), and academic procrastination. The results of the study show that procrastination is directly related to the sense of responsibility and motivational beliefs, and indirectly related to perceived course structures.

Although distance education offers flexible learning opportunities to students, it also presents challenges such as high dropout rates, low academic performance, and prevalent academic procrastination [51]. The relationship between distance education and academic procrastination is closely linked to self-regulation [48]. In distance education environments, academic procrastination behavior can be described as students’ postponing their homework, projects, or coursework until the last moment. This phenomenon can arise from various causes and may result in severe consequences for students. First, the absence of a physical classroom environment and direct face-to-face interaction with instructors in distance education can diminish students' motivation and discipline [54]. In the absence of direct supervision from teachers and peers, students may struggle to manage their own learning process, potentially leading to procrastination. Furthermore, home distractions and the flexibility in time management [55] may render students more susceptible to procrastination. Specifically, distractions such as social media and television can hinder students' ability to concentrate on learning tasks. Ucar [56] stated that various factors contribute to academic procrastination in distance education, including habit, purposeful procrastination, social influences, course structure, instructor attitudes, and fear of failure.

1.4. Academic procrastination behavior in terms of demographic variables

Academic procrastination is a significant problem that negatively affects students' academic success and overall quality of life. Examining this concept in terms of demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status, and employment status can help understand the procrastination behaviors of different student groups and develop interventions to reduce these behaviors.

In terms of gender, studies show that male students exhibit more academic procrastination than female students [[57], [58], [59]]. There are additional studies that support this conclusion. Balkis and Duru [60] analyzed the academic procrastination behaviors of teacher candidates in terms of gender and they concluded that male teacher candidates exhibited higher procrastination tendencies than their female counterparts. Lu et al. [61] concluded that males exhibit stronger general and academic procrastination tendencies compared to females. Başpınar [62] concluded that both general and academic procrastination behaviors do not exhibit significant differences based on gender. When examining the results regarding academic procrastination behavior by age, Khan et al. [57], Nonis and Swift [63], and Cao [64] stated that young students exhibit more common academic procrastination behaviors than older students. Similarly, Balkis and Duru [60] found that the level of procrastination behavior decreases as age increases.

A review of the literature reveals studies that examine academic procrastination behavior in terms of various variables. Başpınar [62] emphasized that university students’ marital status, employment status, age, and income level do not lead to differences in academic procrastination behavior. However, Başpınar stated that university students' grade levels and departments differ in terms of academic procrastination behavior. Arıbaş [65] similarly concluded that academic procrastination scores are not statistically significant according to the variables of program, age, family relations, willingness to join the department, class, high school graduated from, and place of residence. Unlike other studies, Lu et al. [61] found that socioeconomic status, multiculturalism, nationality, family size, and department of education also affect procrastination tendencies. Academic procrastination behavior has generally been examined in terms of the above-mentioned variables; however, studies on marital status and employment status are limited.

1.5. Academic procrastination and academic dishonesty

Many students commonly procrastinate on studying or completing their assignments [25]. As deadlines approach stress and panic can make it difficult for students to work ethically. Under this pressure, some students may seek easier and faster solutions, leading to academic irregularities. Students' academic dishonesty behavior is influenced by various factors, including academic pressure, rationalization, the individual's ability to commit dishonesty, personal and ethical values, and academic procrastination [66].

There are studies that examine the relationship between academic procrastination and academic dishonesty. One of these studies was conducted by Oktaria et al. [67], and it revealed a relationship between these two concepts. As a result of the analyses, no relationship was detected between academic procrastination habits and academic dishonesty. In their study analyzing factors such as procrastination, academic pressure, and locus of control that affect academic dishonesty behavior, Usman and Izzati [68] found that academic pressure influences academic dishonesty. They revealed that procrastination and locus of control had no effect on academic dishonesty. Herdiana and Zamalb [69] emphasize in their study that students who exhibit procrastination behavior do not adequately prepare for various academic processes, including the pre-exam period. The results of the study indicated that an increase in academic procrastination behavior would also lead to an increase in academic dishonesty. Liesera et al. [25] emphasize that there is a significant positive relationship between procrastination behavior and academic dishonesty. Amirrudin et al. [70] concluded that academic dishonesty was positively linked to all the variables they examined, including peer influence, procrastination, and educational anxiety. Based on the aforementioned literature revealing the effect of academic procrastination behavior on academic integrity, the following hypothesis has been formulated in this study:

H5

Academic procrastination is a positive predictor of academic dishonesty.

1.6. Time management

Claessens et al. [71] defined time management as ‘behaviors that aim to ensure the effective use of time while performing specific goal-oriented activities.’ Time management encompasses maximizing functions such as effective time utilization, task initiation, maintaining focus, and balancing multiple tasks [72]. Rimadana et al. [73] defined time management as a measurable skill, while Ahmad et al. [74] argued that every student should possess this skill to achieve better outcomes. Especially in an academic context, time management skills are crucial as they positively impact students’ overall performance and academic achievement [72,75]. An examination of the literature on time management reveals studies indicating that individuals who develop these skills typically experience reduced stress, complete tasks more quickly, and generally achieve greater academic and professional success [74]. These skills also provide a balance between work and personal life, thereby enhancing overall life satisfaction [71].

Time management is particularly crucial in distance education and environments that require high levels of self-regulation. In online learning environments, where the structure to guide students may not meet the desired standards, there is an increased need for enhanced time management skills [74]. In the distance education learning process, students are expected to determine the manner, timing, and duration of their study sessions and to plan their learning process accordingly [56,76]. Therefore, in such environments, students must possess strong self-regulation skills and effectively manage their time. A review of the literature indicates that the primary reasons for distance learners’ dropout rates, course incompletion, and failure are issues related to time management and procrastination behavior [56,77].

1.7. Time management skills in terms of demographic variables

Effective time management is crucial for the success of both distance and face-to-face students. Time management skills directly affect students' academic performances and are crucial for their self-improvement. It is essential for students to have the ability to use time effectively for both academic and life success [74]. Examining time management skills in terms of demographic variables can provide better insight into how individuals develop and apply these skills. Therefore, demographic factors such as age, gender, marital status, employment status, socioeconomic status, and education level can influence individuals’ time perception, priorities, and time management strategies. In the literature review on time management based on gender demographic variables, although some studies show that men are better at time management [78,79], more studies indicate that women have better time management skills [[80], [81], [82], [83]].

As individuals become more established in their careers and develop a more structured routine in their personal lives, time management strategies may also mature and become more effective. This indicates that age, in relation to maturity and life experiences, can positively affect individuals' time management skills and academic behaviors [84,85]. Contrary to these findings, Kaya et al. [82] found that age is not related to time management skills. Similarly, employment status and marital status can significantly impact individuals’ time management skills. Hence, both variables can directly shape individuals' daily routines, responsibilities, and priorities. In particular, married individuals who work full-time may need to manage their time effectively while balancing work and family life. In line with this idea, Adebisi [86] found a positive relationship between employees' job performance and time management skills. It is also important to consider that effective time management skills enhance workplace performance and academic success [87].

1.8. Time management skills and academic dishonesty behavior

The lack of time management skills among students can lead to poor planning and prioritization of their studies. This situation may cause students to resort to unethical methods, such as the copy-paste approach, at the last minute. In their study investigating the causes of internet-based academic irregularities among university students, Orhan and Günay [88] found that students who failed in time management and consequently left their homework until the last minute tended to copy information from the internet to meet the deadline. When Demirkıran [89] examined the main reasons that push health manager candidates toward academic unethical behavior, he found that poor time management was highlighted by students as one of the three most frequently cited reasons. In their study, where they conducted thematic analyses on undesirable behaviors in the academic context, Kapoor et al. [90] identified various themes related to different factors and stated that poor time management was a prominent antecedent factor among these. The results of the study conducted by Khasseh [91] showed that a heavy homework load that strains students' capacities, ignorance about plagiarism, and poor time management skills cause students to engage in unethical behavior. All these reasons, especially in distance education, combined with time pressure and a sense of isolation, can increase academic dishonesty behaviors. In light of these contexts, the following hypothesis has been formulated in this study to reveal the impact of time management on academic dishonesty behavior:

H6

Time management skills are a negative predictor of academic dishonesty.

1.9. Research questions

Considering this conceptual framework, this study examines the relationships between academic dishonesty behaviors, academic procrastination behaviors, and time management skills of distance education students. No study examining these three variables together has been found in the literature. For this reason, this research aims to fill this gap in the literature by seeking answers to the following research questions:

RQ1- Are there any differences between the demographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status, and employment status) of distance education students and their academic dishonesty behaviors, academic procrastination behaviors, and time management skills?
RQ2- What is the relationship between academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination behavior, and time management skills of distance education students?
RQ3- Do demographic characteristics, academic procrastination behaviors, and time management skills of distance education students predict academic dishonesty behavior?

The hypotheses and research model developed within the scope of these research questions are presented in Fig. 1:

2. Method

This study was conducted to explore the relationship between academic dishonesty, academic procrastination behaviors, and time management skills among distance education students. The correlational survey model, being a quantitative research approach, was used in this study. The correlational survey model is used to investigate the presence or degree of co-variation between two or more variables [92].

2.1. Participants

The participants of the study consist of students enrolled in the Computer Technologies Program and the Medical Documentation and Secretarial Program of a distance education associate degree program at a state university. In this study, the convenience sampling method was used, and 220 students participated in the study. The distribution of these students according to their demographic characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Participants.

		N	%
Gender	Female	154	70.00
Gender	Male	66	30.00
Age	18–22 years old	166	75.45
Age	23 years and older	54	24.55
Marital Status	Single	170	77.27
Marital Status	Married	50	22.73
Employment Status	Not working	148	67.27
Employment Status	Working	72	32.73

Open in a new tab

Most of the sample participants are female (70 %), the age of about three quarters (75.45 %) ranges from 18 to 22, about three quarters of the respondents are single (77.27 %) about two-thirds (67.27 %) of the respondents do not work.

2.2. Data collection tools

In addition to the form designed to collect demographic data, three scales were used in the study. The “Academic Dishonesty Scale” adapted into Turkish by Yam and Balcı Çelik [93], the “Academic Procrastination Behavior Scale” developed by Ocak and Bulut [94] and the “Time Management Scale” adapted into Turkish by Alay and Koçak [95] were used. The Academic Dishonesty Scale comprises 23 items across six factors, using a 5-point Likert scale. The response options for the items are as follows: “always” (5), “often” (4), “sometimes” (3), “rarely” (2), “never” (1). Therefore, a high score on this scale indicates a higher propensity for engaging in academic dishonesty. Yam and Balcı Çelik [93] stated that the reliability coefficients for each sub dimension of the scale are greater than 0.70 and within the accepted limits for the internal reliability of the scales. The academic procrastination behavior scale comprises 38 items across four factors using a 5-point Likert scale. Ocak and Bulut [94] stated that the reliability coefficients of the factors of the scale are within the accepted limits. The scale includes items that require reverse scoring. The Time Management Scale comprises 27 items across three factors using a 5-point Likert scale, and the total score of the scale varies between 5 and 135. Therefore, a high score indicates “better time management”. In the validity and reliability study conducted in Turkey, the scale's Cronbach's alpha coefficient was found to be 0.87 [95].

To enhance the transparency and replicability of this study, two sample items used for each scale are as follows: Academic Dishonesty Behavior Scale: “5. I try to copy from other students during the exam.“, “17. I write my name on an assignment prepared by my friends and submit it”; Academic Procrastination Behavior Scale: “4. I delay preparing for exams until the last day with unnecessary excuses”, “7. Even though the homework deadline is approaching, I don't feel like doing my homework”; Time Management Scale: “5. Do you make a list of the things you have to do every day?“, “8. Can you set a deadline for yourself to finish your studies?“.

In this study, the Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was used to assess the reliability of the scales. In addition, normality analysis was conducted to determine whether the data were normally distributed. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Cronbach's alpha values of the Scales and Normality Test Results.

Scales	Number of Items	Cronbach's Alpha	Normality Test
Scales	Number of Items	Cronbach's Alpha	Kurtosis	Skewness
Academic Dishonesty	23	0.77	1.85	1.34
Academic Procrastination Behavior	38	0.96	−0.74	0.37
Time Management	27	0.87	−0.07	−0.04

Open in a new tab

Table 2 demonstrates that the reliability coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) for all scales exceed 0.70, indicating acceptable internal consistency [96]. Upon examining the Kurtosis and Skewness values [97], the data were found to be normally distributed, justifying the use of parametric tests in the subsequent analyses.

2.3. Data collection and analysis

Data collection tools were distributed online to the participants through a Google Form. In the analysis of the data obtained from the students, descriptive statistics, independent sample t-test for RQ1, Pearson correlation analysis for RQ2, and stepwise regression analysis for RQ3 were used. SPSS software was used for all of these analyses.

2.4. Research ethics

The research described here received approval from the Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Isparta University of Applied Sciences. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the commencement of the study (Decision No. 149/01, dated May 08, 2023).

3. Findings

Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-test results based on demographic data.

To determine whether significant differences exist between the mean scores for academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination behavior, and time management skills among students based on gender, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The results are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Independent samples t-test results by gender.

Scales	Groups	N	Mean	SD	t	df	p
Academic Dishonesty	Female	154	1.19	0.17	1.34	218	0.180
Academic Dishonesty	Male	66	1.16	0.14	1.34	218	0.180
Academic Procrastination Behavior	Female	154	2.46	1.03	1.73	218	0.084
Academic Procrastination Behavior	Male	66	2.20	0.98	1.73	218	0.084
Time Management	Female	154	3.17	0.59	−2.14	218	0.034^a
Time Management	Male	66	3.36	0.56	−2.14	218	0.034^a

Open in a new tab

p < 0.05.

No statistically significant differences were identified between male and female students concerning academic dishonesty and academic procrastination behaviors (p > 0.05). However, as shown in Table 3, a statistically significant difference was observed in the time management mean scores between genders (p < 0.05). This result indicates that the time management mean scores for males are significantly higher than those for females.

Table 4 presents the results of the independent samples t-test conducted to determine whether significant differences exist between the mean scores of students’ academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination behavior, and time management across different age groups.

Table 4.

Independent samples t-test results by age.

Scales	Groups	N	Mean	SD	t	df	p
Academic Dishonesty	18–24 years old	166	1.19	0.16	0.36	218	0.718
Academic Dishonesty	25 years and older	54	1.18	0.16	0.36	218	0.718
Academic Procrastination Behavior	18–24 years old	166	2.50	1.03	3.27	218	0.001^a
Academic Procrastination Behavior	25 years and older	54	1.20	0.88	3.27	218	0.001^a
Time Management	18–24 years old	166	3.13	0.59	−4.09	218	0.000^b
Time Management	25 years and older	54	3.50	0.50	−4.09	218	0.000^b

Open in a new tab

p < 0.01.

p < 0.001.

There was no statistically significant difference observed between the 18–24 age group and the 25 and older age group in terms of academic dishonesty behaviors (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference was found in academic procrastination behaviors between the two age groups (p < 0.01), with the younger group (18–24 years old) exhibiting higher levels of procrastination compared to the older group (25 years and older). Additionally, Table 4 indicates a highly significant difference in time management skills between the age groups (p < 0.001). The younger age group demonstrated significantly lower time management skills compared to the older age group. These results imply that age is a significant factor influencing both academic procrastination behaviors and time management skills, with younger students tending to procrastinate more and showing improvement in time management as they age.

Table 5 presents the results of the independent samples t-test conducted to assess whether significant differences exist between the mean scores for students' academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination behavior, and time management skills based on marital status.

Table 5.

Independent samples t-test results according to marital status.

Scales	Groups	N	Mean	SD	t	df	p
Academic Dishonesty	Single	170	1.21	0.19	0.68	218	0.499
Academic Dishonesty	Married	50	1.19	0.20	0.68	218	0.499
Academic Procrastination Behavior	Single	170	2.49	0.98	1.81	218	0.072
Academic Procrastination Behavior	Married	50	2.19	1.14	1.81	218	0.072
Time Management	Single	170	3.18	0.60	−1.97	218	0.049^a
Time Management	Married	50	3.37	0.50	−1.97	218	0.049^a

Open in a new tab

p < 0.05.

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean scores of academic dishonesty and academic procrastination behaviors between single and married students (p > 0.05). These results suggest that marital status does not have a significant effect on academic dishonesty or procrastination behaviors among distance education students. However, a significant difference was observed in time management skills between the two groups (p < 0.05), with single students exhibiting lower mean scores in time management compared to married students, as shown in Table 5.

Table 6 presents the results of the independent samples t-test conducted to determine whether significant differences exist between the mean scores for students’ academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination behavior, and time management skills based on their employment status.

Table 6.

Independent samples t-test results according to employment status.

Scales	Groups	N	Mean	SD	t	df	p
Academic Dishonesty	Not working	148	1.19	0.15	0.51	218	0.612
Academic Dishonesty	Working	72	1.18	0.18	0.51	218	0.612
Academic Procrastination Behavior	Not working	148	2.47	0.99	1.63	218	0.104
Academic Procrastination Behavior	Working	72	2.22	1.06	1.63	218	0.104
Time Management	Not working	148	3.16	0.60	−2.63	218	0.009^a
Time Management	Working	72	3.38	0.54	−2.63	218	0.009^a

Open in a new tab

p < 0.01.

This study found no statistically significant differences in academic dishonesty or academic procrastination behaviors between working and non-working students (p > 0.05). However, a significant difference in time management skills was observed between the two groups (p < 0.01), with working students demonstrating significantly higher time management skills compared to their non-working counterparts. These findings suggest that employment status plays a significant role in enhancing time management abilities, indicating that students who are employed tend to have better time management skills than those who are not employed.

3.1. The relationship between academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination and time management

Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted to determine the presence of significant relationships among students’ academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination behavior, and time management mean scores. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Pearson correlation analysis results.

	M	SD	Academic Dishonesty	Academic Procrastination Behavior	Time Management
Academic Dishonesty	1.18	0.16	1	0.49^a	−0.36∗∗
Academic Procrastination Behavior	2.38	1.02	0.49^a	1	−0.50∗∗
Time Management	3.23	0.58	−0.36∗∗	−0.50∗∗	1

Open in a new tab

p < 0.01.

The Pearson correlation analysis results reveal a positive correlation between academic dishonesty and academic procrastination behaviors (r = 0.49, p < 0.01). This suggests that students with higher scores in academic dishonesty also tend to exhibit higher scores in academic procrastination behavior. Additionally, a negative correlation was found between academic dishonesty and time management skills (r = −0.36, p < 0.01). This finding suggests that students with higher time management scores typically exhibit lower academic dishonesty scores. The relationships described here are of intermediate strength and statistically significant. The analysis also showed a stronger negative correlation between academic procrastination and time management (r = −0.50, p < 0.01). This finding suggests that students with higher time management skills tend to exhibit lower levels of academic procrastination. Compared with other analyzed relationships, this correlation is slightly stronger and remains statistically significant. These correlations indicate that time management significantly influences both academic dishonesty and procrastination behaviors. Specifically, it can be concluded that students who possess strong time management skills demonstrate lower instances of academic dishonesty and procrastination.

3.2. Regression analysis results for predicting academic dishonesty behavior

The results of the stepwise regression analysis, conducted to determine the extent and direction in which academic procrastination behavior and time management variables predict academic dishonesty behavior, are presented in Table 8.

Table 8.

Stepwise regression analysis results.

Variables	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	R	R Square	F	Sig.
Model 1	B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.	R	R Square	F	Sig.
(Constant)	1.00	0.02		41.76	0.000	0.49^a	0.24	69.43	0.000^a
Academic Procrastination Behavior	0.08	0.01	0.49	8.33	0.000	0.49^a	0.24	69.43	0.000^a
Excluded Variables			Beta In
Time Management			−0.15^a	−2.15	0.032
Age			0.09^a	1.42	0.157
Gender			−0.03^a	−0.57	0.571
Marital Status			0.01^a	0.24	0.813
Employment Status			0.02^a	0.33	0.739
Model 2
(Constant)	1.16	0.08		15.22	0.000	0.51^b	0.26	37.62	0.000^b
Academic Procrastination Behavior	0.07	0.01	0.42	6.21	0.000
Time Management	−0.04	0.02	−0.15	−2.15	0.032
Excluded Variables			Beta In
Age			0.11^b	1.88	0.062
Gender			−0.02^b	−0.36	0.719
Marital Status			0.03^b	0.42	0.675
Employment Status			0.04^b	0.65	0.520

Open in a new tab

Predictors: (Constant), Academic Procrastination Behavior.

Predictors: (Constant), Academic Procrastination Behavior, Time Management.

The stepwise regression analysis resulted in two different models being proposed. In the first model, academic procrastination behavior alone (β = 0.49; t = 8.33; p < 0.001) explains 24 % of the variation in the dependent variable of academic dishonesty behavior (R = 0.49; R² = 0.24; p < 0.001). In the second model, when time management is included, it contributes an additional 2 % to the explained variance, bringing the total variance explained to 26 % (R = 0.51; R² = 0.26; p < 0.001). In this model, academic procrastination behavior has a significant and positive effect on academic dishonesty (β = 0.42; t = 6.21; p < 0.001), while time management has a significant and negative effect (β = -0.15; t = −2.15; p < 0.05). Therefore, hypotheses H5 and H6 are accepted. The independent variables of age, gender, marital status, and employment status are excluded from both models. Consequently, hypotheses H1, H2, H3 and H4 were rejected.

4. Discussion

The findings indicate that the levels of students' academic dishonesty behaviors are low, whereas their academic procrastination behaviors and time management skills are at an intermediate level. The analysis of demographic variables revealed varied tendencies among academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination behavior, and time management.

In this study, no significant difference was found between demographic variables such as gender, age, marital status, and employment status, and academic dishonesty behaviors. Some previous studies have found that gender [38,98] and marital status [43] are not predictive factors for academic dishonesty. Other studies have shown that age [6,41] and marital status [14,42] are factors determining academic dishonesty. The strongest aspects of this study are that it was applied to students who were educated entirely through distance learning and that academic dishonesty was examined in detail in terms of different demographic variables.

The findings of the study showed that students in the younger age group (18–24 years old) tended to exhibit higher academic procrastination behavior. This finding is consistent with the results of studies by Khan et al. [57], Balkis and Duru [60], Nonis and Swift [63], and Cao [64]. When examining time management skills, it was found that students in the older age group had higher time management skills. These two findings of the study support each other. Academic procrastination behavior did not have a significant relationship with demographic variables such as gender, marital status, and employment status. However, it was determined that time management skills had a significant relationship with all the demographic variables investigated, including gender, age, marital status, and employment status. It was concluded that time management skills are significantly better among males, those aged 25 years and above, married students, and working students. These results show that distance education can positively support older individuals' life experiences and maturity, academic procrastination behaviors, and time management skills [84,85]. The increase in self-regulation skills that comes with age allows students to manage their academic responsibilities more effectively. This is an expected result, considering the necessity for married individuals to balance their family responsibilities and academic obligations [99]. Studies have shown that effective time management skills can increase job performance and academic success [86,87].

When the results of the study were examined, a positive relationship was found between academic dishonesty and procrastination. This finding is consistent with other studies in the literature and indicates that students are more prone to procrastination under academic pressure, which may increase their tendency toward dishonesty [25,69,70]. To comprehend the relationship between academic procrastination behavior and academic dishonesty, it is essential to consider psychological factors. The tendency of students to procrastinate on academic tasks is frequently linked to underlying reasons such as perfectionism and fear of failure [100]. These circumstances may stem from psychological factors such as anxiety and low self-esteem, which could compel students to resort to academic dishonesty [46]. Such psychological pressures may heighten the propensity of students to adopt unethical solutions, including dishonest behaviors. Particularly in distance education environments, where individual learning is emphasized and students bear significant responsibility for their own learning, it is essential that students possess the requisite skills to guide their learning processes. Lacking these skills, students may exhibit higher levels of academic procrastination behavior, which in turns lead to an increased tendency toward academic dishonesty.

The study found a negative relationship between academic dishonesty behavior and time management skills. Therefore, the findings indicate that students with effective time management skills have lower tendencies toward academic dishonesty. Studies on this subject show that students with effective time management skills exhibit less academic dishonesty [[88], [89], [90], [91],101], and therefore, individuals with good time management skills will demonstrate good academic success [72,75,102]. Beasley [103] reported that one in four students engaged in academic misconduct due to inadequate time management.

The study also found a strong negative relationship between academic procrastination and time management skills. The time pressure caused by procrastination may push students toward quick solutions within a limited time, thus making them prone to dishonesty [68]. Procrastination can also negatively affect self-esteem, reducing students' motivation to maintain academic integrity. Khiat [104] stated that students who use time management systems postpone their learning less during the study period than students who do not use them.

As a result of the stepwise regression analysis performed in this study, two models emerged. In the first model, only academic procrastination behavior predicted academic dishonesty behaviors significantly. Other variables, such as time management, age, gender, marital status, and employment status, did not have a significant effect on academic dishonesty. In the second model, academic procrastination and time management together predicted academic dishonesty behaviors. In both models, academic procrastination was found to be a significant predictor of academic dishonesty. The results of this study showed that 26 % of academic dishonesty behavior was explained by academic procrastination and time management skills.

5. Conclusions

In this study, the relationships between academic dishonesty behaviors, academic procrastination behavior, and time management skills of students in distance education were examined. It was observed that the demographic characteristics included in the research did not have a direct effect on academic dishonesty behavior. Instead, the concepts of academic procrastination and time management played a determining role in academic dishonesty. Students with a high tendency toward academic procrastination are more likely to exhibit academic dishonesty behavior. The findings of this study showed that effective time management and strategies to combat academic procrastination, especially in distance education, can help students maintain their academic integrity. These results provide valuable insights for educational institutions to develop supportive interventions and programs for students.

6. Suggestions

The findings of the study emphasize that educators and program designers should develop personalized interventions that consider the demographic diversity of students. In particular, time management and self-regulation strategies should be offered to older or married students. Educators should promote academic integrity by providing students with training in time management and techniques to combat academic procrastination. Additionally, students should be supported in achieving their goals through academic advising and mentoring programs. Future research should confirm these findings in different educational settings and further examine the effects of demographic and personality characteristics on these behaviors.

7. Limitations

This study has several important limitations. First, the study group was limited to only distance education associate degree students of a state university, which restricts the generalization of the findings to the broader student population or students at different academic levels. Academic dishonesty behavior may vary by educational level. It should be noted that master's degree students are less prone to behaviors of academic dishonesty compared to bachelor's degree students [105]. Although the response rate was at an acceptable level, the study could have benefited from a larger sample. Another limitation is that the research data are based on the self-reporting method, making self-reporting biases inevitable. Students may have reported lower levels of academic irregularity or academic procrastination due to social desirability bias. Finally, the cross-sectional design of the study limits the ability to draw clear conclusions on the causality aspects of the relationships between variables. This highlights the need for longitudinal and experimental studies to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of the proposed relationships. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings and used as a guide in planning future research.

Ethical consent

The research described herein received approval from the ethical committee of the university where the study was conducted. All participants provided informed consent to participate in the study.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data availability statement

Data associated with this study have not been deposited into any publicly available repository. Data will be made available on request.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Emine Aruğaslan: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

1.Bachore M.M. Academic dishonesty/corruption in the period of technology: its implication for quality of education. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2014;2(11):1060–1064. doi: 10.12691/education-2-11-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Sabrina F., Azad S., Sohail S., Thakur S. Ensuring academic integrity in online assessments: a literature review and recommendations. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2022;12(1):60–70. [Google Scholar]
3.Theart C.J., Smit I. The status of academic integrity amongst nursing students at a nursing education institution in the Western Cape. Curationis. 2012;35(1):1–8. doi: 10.4102/curationis.v35i1.27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.McGee P. Supporting academic honesty in online courses. J. Educ. Online10. 2013;(1):1–31. [Google Scholar]
5.Rodchua S., Yaiadom-Boakye G., Woolsey R. Student verification system for online assessments: bolstering quality and integrity of distance learning. J. Ind. Technol. 2011;27(3) [Google Scholar]
6.Jensen L.A., Arnett J.J., Feldman S.S., Cauffman E. It's wrong, but everybody does it: academic dishonesty among high school and college students, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2002;27(2):209–228. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1088. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7.Dejene W. Academic cheating in Ethiopian secondary schools. Prevalence, perceived severity, and justifications, Cogent Educ. 2021;8(1) doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1866803. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Yu H., Glanzer P.L., Johnson B.R. Examining the relationship between student attitude and academic cheating. Ethics Behav. 2021;31(7):475–487. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2020.1817746. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Malgwi C.A., Rakovski C.C. Combating academic fraud: are students reticent about uncovering the covert? J. Acad. Ethics. 2009;7:207–221. [Google Scholar]
10.Grimes P.W. Dishonesty in academics and business: a cross-cultural evaluation of student attitudes. J. Bus. Ethics. 2004;49:273–290. [Google Scholar]
11.Rakovski C.C., Levy E.S. Academic dishonesty: perceptions of business students. Coll. Student J. 2007;41(2):466–482. [Google Scholar]
12.Stuber-McEwen D., Wiseley P., Hoggatt S. Point, click, and cheat: frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online J. Dist. Learn. Adm. 2009;12(3):1–10. [Google Scholar]
13.Peled Y., Eshet Y., Barczyk C., Grinautski K. Predictors of academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Comput. Educ. 2019;131:49–59. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Lanier M.M. Academic integrity and distance learning. J. Crim. Justice Educ. JCJE. 2006;17(2):244–261. doi: 10.1080/10511250600866166. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Zhao L., Zheng Y., Mao H., Zheng J., Compton B.J., Fu G., Lee K. Using environmental nudges to reduce academic cheating in young children. Dev. Sci. 2021;24(5) doi: 10.1111/desc.13108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Balbuena S.E., Lamela R.A. Prevalence, motives, and views of academic dishonesty in higher education. Online Submiss. 2015;3(2):69–75. [Google Scholar]
17.Orosz G., Farkas D., Roland-Lévy C. Are competition and extrinsic motivation reliable predictors of academic cheating? Front. Psychol. 2013;4:87. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Whitley B.E. Factors associated with cheating among college students: a review. Res. High. Educ. 1998;39(3):235–274. [Google Scholar]
19.Olafson L., Schraw G., Kehrwald N. Academic dishonesty: behaviors, sanctions, and retention of adjudicated college students. J. Coll. Student Dev. 2014;55(7):661–674. doi: 10.1353/csd.2014.0066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Reisenwitz T.H. Examining the necessity of proctoring online exams. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract. 2020;20(1):118–124. [Google Scholar]
21.Migut G., Koelma D., Snoek C.G., Brouwer N. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2018. Cheat me not: automated proctoring of digital exams on bring-your-own-device; p. 388. 388. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Vazquez J.J., Chiang E.P., Sarmiento-Barbieri I. Can we stay one step ahead of cheaters? A field experiment in proctoring online open book exams. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2021;90 doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101653. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23.Hernandez-de-Menendez M., Morales-Menendez R., Escobar C.A., Arinez J. Biometric applications in education. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2021;15:365–380. [Google Scholar]
24.Sukmandhani A.A., Sutedja I. 2019 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) IEEE; 2019. Face recognition method for online exams; pp. 175–179. [Google Scholar]
25.Liesera N., Wijaya A., Natalia J., Hutapea B. Role of procrastination for academic dishonesty among undergraduate students. Int. Conf. Educ. Res. Innov. 2015:28–32. [Google Scholar]
26.Burke M.M., Bristor J. Academic integrity policies: has your institution implemented an effective policy? Account. Educators' J. 2016;26 [Google Scholar]
27.Parnther C. Academic misconduct in higher education: a comprehensive review. J. High. Educ. Policy Leadersh. Stud. 2020;1(1):25–45. doi: 10.29252/johepal.1.1.25. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Scanlan C.L. Strategies to promote a climate of academic integrity and minimize student cheating and plagiarism. J. Allied Health. 2006;35(3):179–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Manly T.S., Leonard L.N., Riemenschneider C.K. Academic integrity in the information age: virtues of respect and responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics. 2015;127:579–590. [Google Scholar]
30.Sabli N., Rahim N.M., Dangi M.R.M., Hamid N.A., Adnan M.F., Wahab R.A., Haron N.H. Erosion of academic integrity in higher education system: symbolization of dishonesty. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia. 2016;41(1):53–64. [Google Scholar]
31.Espanola R.P., Ouano J.A. Understanding motivation loss and behavioral disengagement of tertiary students in flexible learning: a self-determination theory perspective. Malays. J. Learn. Instr. 2024;21(1):217–247. doi: 10.32890/mjli2024.21.1.8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Yazici S., Yildiz Durak H., Aksu Dünya B., Şentürk B. Online versus face‐to‐face cheating: the prevalence of cheating behaviours during the pandemic compared to the pre‐pandemic among Turkish university students. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2023;39(1):231–254. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12743. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Cheng Y.C., Hung F.C., Hsu H.M. The relationship between academic dishonesty, ethical attitude and ethical climate: the evidence from Taiwan. Sustainability. 2021;13(21) doi: 10.3390/su132111615. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Hensley L.C., Kirkpatrick K.M., Burgoon J.M. Relation of gender, course enrollment, and grades to distinct forms of academic dishonesty. Teach. High. Educ. 2013;18(8):895–907. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827641. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Witmer H., Johansson J. Disciplinary action for academic dishonesty: does the student's gender matter? Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2015;11:1–10. [Google Scholar]
36.Brand R.J., Markey C.M., Mills A., Hodges S.D. Sex differences in self-reported infidelity and its correlates. Sex. Roles. 2007;57:101–109. [Google Scholar]
37.Leming J.S. Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal-external scale under high and low risk conditions. J. Educ. Res. 1980;74(2):83–87. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1980.10885288. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
38.Shah A., Monahan M. Does gender impact cheating: an empirical study of online classes. AIMS Int. J. Manag. 2022;16(2):67–78. doi: 10.26573/2021.16.2.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
39.Tayfun A., Aysen E., Silik C.E. Akademik sahtekârlık ile ilgili öğrenci eğilimlerinin belirlenmesi: turizm fakültesi örneği. J. Tour. Gastron. Stud. 2020;8(4):2621–2638. doi: 10.21325/jotags.2020.730. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
40.Ward D.A., Beck W.L. Gender and dishonesty. J. Soc. Psychol. 1990;130(3):333–339. [Google Scholar]
41.Hasri A., Supar R., Azman N.D.N., Sharip H., Yamin L.S.M. Students' attitudes and behavior towards academic dishonesty during online learning. SAVE Proc. 2022;82(1):36. doi: 10.26466/opus.873374. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
42.Korn L., Davidovitch N. The profile of academic offenders: features of students who admit to academic dishonesty. Med. Sci. Mon. Int. Med. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 2016;22:3043. doi: 10.12659/MSM.898810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Ladera-Castañeda M., León-Málaga F., Espinoza-Olórtegui M., Nicho-Valladares M., Cervantes-Ganoza L., Verástegui-Sandoval A., Cayo-Rojas C.F. Factors associated with the perception of university professors about academic dishonesty in dental students from two Peruvian universities: analysis under multivariable regression model. BMC Med. Educ. 2023;23(1):297. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04281-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Akbay S., Gizir C. Cincinnata göre üniversite öğrencilerinde akademik erteleme davranışı: akademik güdülenme, akademik özyeterlik ve akademik yükleme stillerinin rolü, Mersin Univ. J. Fac. Educ. 2010;6(1):60–78. [Google Scholar]
45.Chow H.P. Procrastination among undergraduate students: effects of emotional intelligence, school life, self-evaluation, and self-efficacy, Alta. J. Educ. Res. 2011;57(2):234–240. doi: 10.11575/ajer.v57i2.55479. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
46.Saplavska J., Jerkunkova A. 17th International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development. 2018. Academic procrastination and anxiety among students; pp. 23–25. [Google Scholar]
47.Steel P. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol. Bull. 2007;133(1):65. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Klingsieck K.B., Fries S., Horz C., Hofer M. Procrastination in a distance university setting. Dist. Educ. 2012;33(3):295–310. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.723165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
49.Hayat A.A., Jahanian M., Bazrafcan L., Shokrpour N. Prevalence of academic procrastination among medical students and its relationship with their academic achievement. Shiraz E-Med. J. 2020;21(7) doi: 10.5812/semj.96049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
50.Kuftyak E. Procrastination, stress and academic performance in students. Arpha Proc. 2022;5:965–974. [Google Scholar]
51.Ucar H., Bozkurt A., Zawacki-Richter O. Academic procrastination and performance in distance education: a causal-comparative study in an online learning environment. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 2021;22(4):13–23. doi: 10.17718/tojde.1002726. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
52.Chavez-Fernandez S., Haro-Rodriguez Y.M., Machaca-Calcina L.G., Rengifo C.E.A. Emotional intelligence and academic procrastination in university students in Peru. Cienc. Psicol. 2024;18(1) doi: 10.22235/cp.v18i1.3333. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
53.Cheng S.L., Xie K. Why college students procrastinate in online courses: a self-regulated learning perspective. Internet High Educ. 2021;50 doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100807. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
54.Genç Kumtepe E., Toprak E., Öztürk A., Tuna Büyükköse G., Kılınç H., Aydın Menderis M. Açiköğr. Uygul. Araştırmalar Derg. 2019;5(3):41–80. [Google Scholar]
55.Cerezo R., Esteban M., Sánchez-Santillán M., Núñez J.C. Procrastinating behavior in computer-based learning environments to predict performance: a case study in Moodle. Front. Psychol. 2017;8:1403. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Ucar H. Uzaktan eğitimde akademik erteleme davranışını ve akademik erteleyicileri anlamak, Açiköğr. Uygul. Araştırmalar Derg. 2020;6(3):40–55. [Google Scholar]
57.Khan M.J., Arif H., Noor S.S., Muneer S. Academic procrastination among male and female university and college students, FWU J. Soc. Sci. 2014;8(2):65–70. [Google Scholar]
58.Mandap C.M. Examining the differences in procrastination tendencies among university students. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2016;4(4):431–436. [Google Scholar]
59.Parantika I.W.A., Suniasih N.W., Kristiantari M.R. Differences in academic procrastination attitude between fifth grade male and female students. J. Psychol. Instr. 2020;4(1):10–15. doi: 10.23887/jpai.v4i1.24451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
60.Balkis M., Duru E. Prevalence of academic procrastination behavior among pre-service teachers, and its relationship with demographics and individual preferences. J. Theor. Pract. Educ. 2009;5(1) [Google Scholar]
61.Lu D., He Y., Tan Y. Gender, socioeconomic status, cultural differences, education, family size and procrastination: a sociodemographic meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2022;12 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Başpınar N.Ö. Üniversite öğrencilerinin genel erteleme davranışları ile akademik erteleme davranışları arasındaki ilişki, Electron. Turk. Stud. 2020;15(2) [Google Scholar]
63.Nonis S., Swift C.O. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. J. Educ. Bus. 2001;77(2):69–77. doi: 10.1080/08832320109599052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
64.Cao L. Differences in procrastination and motivation between undergraduate and graduate students. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2012;12(2):39–64. [Google Scholar]
65.Arıbaş A.N. The relationship of time management and academic procrastination: a case of university students, Selçuk Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Inst. 2021;(46):214–224. doi: 10.52642/susbed.909737. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
66.Yulianto A., Dahriyanto L.F., Wijayanti R., Adininggar P. 1st Progress in Social Science Humanities and Education Research Symposium. 2019. The effect of fraud pentagon and academic procrastination dimensions towards academic dishonesty of students of social science in senior high school of Semarang; pp. 1158–1169. [Google Scholar]
67.Oktaria D., Azzahra S.S., Angraini D.I. The relationship of academic procrastination and academic dishonesty in undergraduate medical students. J. Educ. Kedokteran Indones. 2021;10(3):207–214. doi: 10.22146/jpki.63137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
68.Usman O., Izzati N.N. The effect of procrastination, academic pressure, and locus of control toward academic dishonesty behavior. SSRN Product & Services. 2020:1–17. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3647199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
69.Herdiana H., Zamalb S.N. Is academic dishonesty related to academic procrastination in student college, Education. Educ. Sustain. Soc. 2021;4(2):62–65. doi: 10.26480/ess.02.2021.62.65. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
70.Amirrudin A.H., Ibrahim S., Salehuddin N., Abd Rashid I.M. Peer influence, procrastination and educational anxiety contribute to academic dishonesty in Malaysian university students. Asian J. Res. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2022;4(2):91–97. [Google Scholar]
71.Claessens B.J., Van Eerde W., Rutte C.G., Roe R.A. A review of the time management literature. Person. Rev. 2007;36(2):255–276. [Google Scholar]
72.Adams R.V., Blair E. Impact of time management behaviors on undergraduate engineering students' performance. Sage Open. 2019;9(1) doi: 10.1177/2158244018824506. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
73.Rimadana M.R., Kusumawardani S.S., Santosa P.I., Erwianda M.S.F. 2019 International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems. IEEE; 2019. Predicting student academic performance using machine learning and time management skill data; pp. 511–515. [Google Scholar]
74.Ahmad S., Batool A., Choudhry A.H. Path relationship of time management and academic achievement of students in distance learning institutions. Pak. J. Distance Online Learn. 2019;5(2):191–208. [Google Scholar]
75.Nasrullah S., Khan M.S. The impact of time management on the students' academic achievements. J. Lit. Lang. Linguist. 2015;11:66–71. [Google Scholar]
76.Kulusakli E. Exploring self regulated online learning skills of EFL learners in distance education. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 2022;23(1):86–96. doi: 10.17718/tojde.1050356. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
77.Doherty W. An analysis of multiple factors affecting retention in web-based community college courses. Internet High Educ. 2006;9(4):245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
78.Sultana N., Shakur N. Gender based comparative study of time management skills at university level. Int. Res. J. Educ. Innov. 2022;3(1):190–199. doi: 10.53575/irjei.v3.01.18(22)190-199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
79.Ustun U.D., Ersoy A., Berk A. An investigation on time management and communication skills of physical education and sport students, Sport Soc. Int. J. Phys. Educ. Special Issue. 2017:20–24. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3647199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
80.Bhattacharya R., Tipu M.N.A., Sarker B., Durud M.S. Exploring the interrelation between time management and academic achievement among university students, Asian Res. J. Arts Soc. Sci. 2022;17(2):28–37. doi: 10.9734/arjass/2022/v17i230302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
81.Karakose T. The relationship between medical students' time management skills and academic achievement. Stud. Ethno-Med. 2015;9(1):19–24. doi: 10.1080/09735070.2015.11905418. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
82.Kaya H., Kaya N., Palloş A.Ö., Küçük L. Assessing time-management skills in terms of age, gender, and anxiety levels: a study on nursing and midwifery students in Turkey, Nurse Educ. In Pract. 2012;12(5):284–288. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2012.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83.Powell J.W., Pharris L.J., Hardy M.M. A comparison of time management skills among accounting, business, and information systems students by age and gender, Issues Inf. Off. Syst. 2020;21(3):1–10. doi: 10.48009/3_iis_2020_1-10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
84.Imlach A.R., Ward D.D., Stuart K.E., Summers M.J., Valenzuela M.J., King A.E., Vickers J.C. Age is no barrier: predictors of academic success in older learners. npj Sci. Learn. 2017;2(1):13. doi: 10.1038/s41539-017-0014-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85.Stagman D. University of Central Florida; Orlando: 2011. Comparison of Traditional and Nontraditional College Students' Stress and its Relationship to Their Time Management and Overall Psychological Adjustment (Undergraduate) [Google Scholar]
86.Adebisi J.F. Time management practices and its effect on business performance, Can. Soc. Sci. 2013;9(1):165. doi: 10.3968/j.css.1923669720130901.2419. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
87.Aeon B., Faber A., Panaccio A. Does time management work? A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(1) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88.Orhan F., Günay A. Üniversite öğrencilerinin internet tabanlı akademik usulsüzlük nedenlerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi, Ege Eğit. Derg. 2014;15(1):176–190. doi: 10.12984/eed.41835. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
89.Demirkıran M. Sağlık yöneticisi adaylarının görüşlerine göre akademik etik dışı davranışların nedenleri. OPUS Int. J. Soc. Res. 2021;18:1394–1414. doi: 10.26466/opus.873374. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
90.Kapoor H., Inamdar V., Kaufman J.C. I didn't have time! A qualitative exploration of misbehaviors in academic contexts. J. Acad. Ethics. 2022;20:191–208. doi: 10.1007/s10805-021-09407-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
91.Khasseh A.A., Rostaee S., Soheili F., Shahbazi M. The relationship between multiple variables (social desirability, mental norms, academic self-efficacy, plagiarism knowledge, purpose, pressure, time management, risk) and the possibility of plagiarism among students. Acad. Librariansh. Inf. Res. 2020;54(2):31–50. doi: 10.22059/jlib.2021.310913.1522. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
92.Büyüköztürk S., Kılıç Çakmak E., Akgün O.E., Karadeniz S., Demirel F. Pegem Akademi; Ankara: 2013. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. [Google Scholar]
93.Yam F.C., Balcı Çelik S. Akademik sahtekârlık ölçeği’nin türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlilik çalışması, MANAS Sos. Araştırmalar Derg. 2021;10(1):70–81. doi: 10.33206/mjss.747547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
94.Ocak G., Bulut R. Akademik erteleme davranışı ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlilik çalışması. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Res. 2015;1(2):709–726. [Google Scholar]
95.Alay S., Koçak S. Zaman yönetimi anketi: geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik, hacet. Univ. Eğit. Fak. Derg. 2002;22(22):9–13. [Google Scholar]
96.Büyüköztürk Ş. Veri analizi el kitabı (9. Baskı), Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. 2008 [Google Scholar]
97.George D., Mallery P. Pearson Education, Inc.; Boston: 2003. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 11.0 Update. [Google Scholar]
98.Orok E., Adeniyi F., Williams T., Dosunmu O., Ikpe F., Orakwe C., Kukoyi O. Causes and mitigation of academic dishonesty among healthcare students in a Nigerian university. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2023;19(1):13. [Google Scholar]
99.Tahira S.S., Khan E.A., Arif M.I. Problems and challenges faced by married students to continue their study at university level. Ann. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2023;4(4):405–411. doi: 10.35484/ahss.2023(4-IV)39. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
100.Kağan M., Çakır O., İlhan T., Kandemir M. The explanation of the academic procrastination behaviour of university students with perfectionism, obsessive–compulsive and five factor personality traits. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010;2(2):2121–2125. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.292. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
101.Kıral B., Saracaloğlu S. Akademik sahtekârlık eğilimi ile olumsuz değerlendirilme korkusu arasındaki ilişki. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Univ. Eğit. Fak. Derg. 2018;15(1):323–359. [Google Scholar]
102.Durmaz M., Hüseyinli T., Güçlü C. Zaman yönetimi becerileri ile akademik başarı arasındaki ilişki. İnsan Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Derg. 2016;5(7):2291–2303. doi: 10.15869/itobiad.260266. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
103.Beasley E.M. Students reported for cheating explain what they think would have stopped them. Ethics Behav. 2014;24(3):229–252. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.845533. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
104.Khiat H. Using automated time management enablers to improve self-regulated learning, Act. Learn. High Educ. 2022;23(1):3–15. doi: 10.1177/1469787419866304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
105.Thorne-Figueroa J.M. Walden University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2010. The Relationship between Personality Types A and B and Academic Dishonesty of Undergraduate and Graduate Students. Doctoral Dissertation. (UMI Number: 3427801) [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data associated with this study have not been deposited into any publicly available repository. Data will be made available on request.

[bib1] 1.Bachore M.M. Academic dishonesty/corruption in the period of technology: its implication for quality of education. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2014;2(11):1060–1064. doi: 10.12691/education-2-11-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib2] 2.Sabrina F., Azad S., Sohail S., Thakur S. Ensuring academic integrity in online assessments: a literature review and recommendations. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2022;12(1):60–70. [Google Scholar]

[bib3] 3.Theart C.J., Smit I. The status of academic integrity amongst nursing students at a nursing education institution in the Western Cape. Curationis. 2012;35(1):1–8. doi: 10.4102/curationis.v35i1.27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib4] 4.McGee P. Supporting academic honesty in online courses. J. Educ. Online10. 2013;(1):1–31. [Google Scholar]

[bib5] 5.Rodchua S., Yaiadom-Boakye G., Woolsey R. Student verification system for online assessments: bolstering quality and integrity of distance learning. J. Ind. Technol. 2011;27(3) [Google Scholar]

[bib6] 6.Jensen L.A., Arnett J.J., Feldman S.S., Cauffman E. It's wrong, but everybody does it: academic dishonesty among high school and college students, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2002;27(2):209–228. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1088. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib7] 7.Dejene W. Academic cheating in Ethiopian secondary schools. Prevalence, perceived severity, and justifications, Cogent Educ. 2021;8(1) doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1866803. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib8] 8.Yu H., Glanzer P.L., Johnson B.R. Examining the relationship between student attitude and academic cheating. Ethics Behav. 2021;31(7):475–487. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2020.1817746. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib9] 9.Malgwi C.A., Rakovski C.C. Combating academic fraud: are students reticent about uncovering the covert? J. Acad. Ethics. 2009;7:207–221. [Google Scholar]

[bib10] 10.Grimes P.W. Dishonesty in academics and business: a cross-cultural evaluation of student attitudes. J. Bus. Ethics. 2004;49:273–290. [Google Scholar]

[bib11] 11.Rakovski C.C., Levy E.S. Academic dishonesty: perceptions of business students. Coll. Student J. 2007;41(2):466–482. [Google Scholar]

[bib12] 12.Stuber-McEwen D., Wiseley P., Hoggatt S. Point, click, and cheat: frequency and type of academic dishonesty in the virtual classroom. Online J. Dist. Learn. Adm. 2009;12(3):1–10. [Google Scholar]

[bib13] 13.Peled Y., Eshet Y., Barczyk C., Grinautski K. Predictors of academic dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Comput. Educ. 2019;131:49–59. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib14] 14.Lanier M.M. Academic integrity and distance learning. J. Crim. Justice Educ. JCJE. 2006;17(2):244–261. doi: 10.1080/10511250600866166. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib15] 15.Zhao L., Zheng Y., Mao H., Zheng J., Compton B.J., Fu G., Lee K. Using environmental nudges to reduce academic cheating in young children. Dev. Sci. 2021;24(5) doi: 10.1111/desc.13108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib16] 16.Balbuena S.E., Lamela R.A. Prevalence, motives, and views of academic dishonesty in higher education. Online Submiss. 2015;3(2):69–75. [Google Scholar]

[bib17] 17.Orosz G., Farkas D., Roland-Lévy C. Are competition and extrinsic motivation reliable predictors of academic cheating? Front. Psychol. 2013;4:87. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib18] 18.Whitley B.E. Factors associated with cheating among college students: a review. Res. High. Educ. 1998;39(3):235–274. [Google Scholar]

[bib19] 19.Olafson L., Schraw G., Kehrwald N. Academic dishonesty: behaviors, sanctions, and retention of adjudicated college students. J. Coll. Student Dev. 2014;55(7):661–674. doi: 10.1353/csd.2014.0066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib20] 20.Reisenwitz T.H. Examining the necessity of proctoring online exams. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract. 2020;20(1):118–124. [Google Scholar]

[bib21] 21.Migut G., Koelma D., Snoek C.G., Brouwer N. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2018. Cheat me not: automated proctoring of digital exams on bring-your-own-device; p. 388. 388. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib22] 22.Vazquez J.J., Chiang E.P., Sarmiento-Barbieri I. Can we stay one step ahead of cheaters? A field experiment in proctoring online open book exams. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2021;90 doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101653. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib23] 23.Hernandez-de-Menendez M., Morales-Menendez R., Escobar C.A., Arinez J. Biometric applications in education. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 2021;15:365–380. [Google Scholar]

[bib24] 24.Sukmandhani A.A., Sutedja I. 2019 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech) IEEE; 2019. Face recognition method for online exams; pp. 175–179. [Google Scholar]

[bib25] 25.Liesera N., Wijaya A., Natalia J., Hutapea B. Role of procrastination for academic dishonesty among undergraduate students. Int. Conf. Educ. Res. Innov. 2015:28–32. [Google Scholar]

[bib26] 26.Burke M.M., Bristor J. Academic integrity policies: has your institution implemented an effective policy? Account. Educators' J. 2016;26 [Google Scholar]

[bib27] 27.Parnther C. Academic misconduct in higher education: a comprehensive review. J. High. Educ. Policy Leadersh. Stud. 2020;1(1):25–45. doi: 10.29252/johepal.1.1.25. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib28] 28.Scanlan C.L. Strategies to promote a climate of academic integrity and minimize student cheating and plagiarism. J. Allied Health. 2006;35(3):179–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib29] 29.Manly T.S., Leonard L.N., Riemenschneider C.K. Academic integrity in the information age: virtues of respect and responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics. 2015;127:579–590. [Google Scholar]

[bib30] 30.Sabli N., Rahim N.M., Dangi M.R.M., Hamid N.A., Adnan M.F., Wahab R.A., Haron N.H. Erosion of academic integrity in higher education system: symbolization of dishonesty. Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia. 2016;41(1):53–64. [Google Scholar]

[bib31] 31.Espanola R.P., Ouano J.A. Understanding motivation loss and behavioral disengagement of tertiary students in flexible learning: a self-determination theory perspective. Malays. J. Learn. Instr. 2024;21(1):217–247. doi: 10.32890/mjli2024.21.1.8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib32] 32.Yazici S., Yildiz Durak H., Aksu Dünya B., Şentürk B. Online versus face‐to‐face cheating: the prevalence of cheating behaviours during the pandemic compared to the pre‐pandemic among Turkish university students. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2023;39(1):231–254. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12743. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib33] 33.Cheng Y.C., Hung F.C., Hsu H.M. The relationship between academic dishonesty, ethical attitude and ethical climate: the evidence from Taiwan. Sustainability. 2021;13(21) doi: 10.3390/su132111615. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib34] 34.Hensley L.C., Kirkpatrick K.M., Burgoon J.M. Relation of gender, course enrollment, and grades to distinct forms of academic dishonesty. Teach. High. Educ. 2013;18(8):895–907. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827641. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib35] 35.Witmer H., Johansson J. Disciplinary action for academic dishonesty: does the student's gender matter? Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2015;11:1–10. [Google Scholar]

[bib36] 36.Brand R.J., Markey C.M., Mills A., Hodges S.D. Sex differences in self-reported infidelity and its correlates. Sex. Roles. 2007;57:101–109. [Google Scholar]

[bib37] 37.Leming J.S. Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal-external scale under high and low risk conditions. J. Educ. Res. 1980;74(2):83–87. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1980.10885288. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib38] 38.Shah A., Monahan M. Does gender impact cheating: an empirical study of online classes. AIMS Int. J. Manag. 2022;16(2):67–78. doi: 10.26573/2021.16.2.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib39] 39.Tayfun A., Aysen E., Silik C.E. Akademik sahtekârlık ile ilgili öğrenci eğilimlerinin belirlenmesi: turizm fakültesi örneği. J. Tour. Gastron. Stud. 2020;8(4):2621–2638. doi: 10.21325/jotags.2020.730. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib40] 40.Ward D.A., Beck W.L. Gender and dishonesty. J. Soc. Psychol. 1990;130(3):333–339. [Google Scholar]

[bib41] 41.Hasri A., Supar R., Azman N.D.N., Sharip H., Yamin L.S.M. Students' attitudes and behavior towards academic dishonesty during online learning. SAVE Proc. 2022;82(1):36. doi: 10.26466/opus.873374. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib42] 42.Korn L., Davidovitch N. The profile of academic offenders: features of students who admit to academic dishonesty. Med. Sci. Mon. Int. Med. J. Exp. Clin. Res. 2016;22:3043. doi: 10.12659/MSM.898810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib43] 43.Ladera-Castañeda M., León-Málaga F., Espinoza-Olórtegui M., Nicho-Valladares M., Cervantes-Ganoza L., Verástegui-Sandoval A., Cayo-Rojas C.F. Factors associated with the perception of university professors about academic dishonesty in dental students from two Peruvian universities: analysis under multivariable regression model. BMC Med. Educ. 2023;23(1):297. doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04281-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib44] 44.Akbay S., Gizir C. Cincinnata göre üniversite öğrencilerinde akademik erteleme davranışı: akademik güdülenme, akademik özyeterlik ve akademik yükleme stillerinin rolü, Mersin Univ. J. Fac. Educ. 2010;6(1):60–78. [Google Scholar]

[bib45] 45.Chow H.P. Procrastination among undergraduate students: effects of emotional intelligence, school life, self-evaluation, and self-efficacy, Alta. J. Educ. Res. 2011;57(2):234–240. doi: 10.11575/ajer.v57i2.55479. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib46] 46.Saplavska J., Jerkunkova A. 17th International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development. 2018. Academic procrastination and anxiety among students; pp. 23–25. [Google Scholar]

[bib47] 47.Steel P. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol. Bull. 2007;133(1):65. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib48] 48.Klingsieck K.B., Fries S., Horz C., Hofer M. Procrastination in a distance university setting. Dist. Educ. 2012;33(3):295–310. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2012.723165. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib49] 49.Hayat A.A., Jahanian M., Bazrafcan L., Shokrpour N. Prevalence of academic procrastination among medical students and its relationship with their academic achievement. Shiraz E-Med. J. 2020;21(7) doi: 10.5812/semj.96049. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib50] 50.Kuftyak E. Procrastination, stress and academic performance in students. Arpha Proc. 2022;5:965–974. [Google Scholar]

[bib51] 51.Ucar H., Bozkurt A., Zawacki-Richter O. Academic procrastination and performance in distance education: a causal-comparative study in an online learning environment. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 2021;22(4):13–23. doi: 10.17718/tojde.1002726. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib52] 52.Chavez-Fernandez S., Haro-Rodriguez Y.M., Machaca-Calcina L.G., Rengifo C.E.A. Emotional intelligence and academic procrastination in university students in Peru. Cienc. Psicol. 2024;18(1) doi: 10.22235/cp.v18i1.3333. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib53] 53.Cheng S.L., Xie K. Why college students procrastinate in online courses: a self-regulated learning perspective. Internet High Educ. 2021;50 doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100807. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib54] 54.Genç Kumtepe E., Toprak E., Öztürk A., Tuna Büyükköse G., Kılınç H., Aydın Menderis M. Açiköğr. Uygul. Araştırmalar Derg. 2019;5(3):41–80. [Google Scholar]

[bib55] 55.Cerezo R., Esteban M., Sánchez-Santillán M., Núñez J.C. Procrastinating behavior in computer-based learning environments to predict performance: a case study in Moodle. Front. Psychol. 2017;8:1403. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib56] 56.Ucar H. Uzaktan eğitimde akademik erteleme davranışını ve akademik erteleyicileri anlamak, Açiköğr. Uygul. Araştırmalar Derg. 2020;6(3):40–55. [Google Scholar]

[bib57] 57.Khan M.J., Arif H., Noor S.S., Muneer S. Academic procrastination among male and female university and college students, FWU J. Soc. Sci. 2014;8(2):65–70. [Google Scholar]

[bib58] 58.Mandap C.M. Examining the differences in procrastination tendencies among university students. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2016;4(4):431–436. [Google Scholar]

[bib59] 59.Parantika I.W.A., Suniasih N.W., Kristiantari M.R. Differences in academic procrastination attitude between fifth grade male and female students. J. Psychol. Instr. 2020;4(1):10–15. doi: 10.23887/jpai.v4i1.24451. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib60] 60.Balkis M., Duru E. Prevalence of academic procrastination behavior among pre-service teachers, and its relationship with demographics and individual preferences. J. Theor. Pract. Educ. 2009;5(1) [Google Scholar]

[bib61] 61.Lu D., He Y., Tan Y. Gender, socioeconomic status, cultural differences, education, family size and procrastination: a sociodemographic meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2022;12 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib62] 62.Başpınar N.Ö. Üniversite öğrencilerinin genel erteleme davranışları ile akademik erteleme davranışları arasındaki ilişki, Electron. Turk. Stud. 2020;15(2) [Google Scholar]

[bib63] 63.Nonis S., Swift C.O. An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: a multicampus investigation. J. Educ. Bus. 2001;77(2):69–77. doi: 10.1080/08832320109599052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib64] 64.Cao L. Differences in procrastination and motivation between undergraduate and graduate students. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2012;12(2):39–64. [Google Scholar]

[bib65] 65.Arıbaş A.N. The relationship of time management and academic procrastination: a case of university students, Selçuk Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Inst. 2021;(46):214–224. doi: 10.52642/susbed.909737. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib83] 66.Yulianto A., Dahriyanto L.F., Wijayanti R., Adininggar P. 1st Progress in Social Science Humanities and Education Research Symposium. 2019. The effect of fraud pentagon and academic procrastination dimensions towards academic dishonesty of students of social science in senior high school of Semarang; pp. 1158–1169. [Google Scholar]

[bib84] 67.Oktaria D., Azzahra S.S., Angraini D.I. The relationship of academic procrastination and academic dishonesty in undergraduate medical students. J. Educ. Kedokteran Indones. 2021;10(3):207–214. doi: 10.22146/jpki.63137. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib85] 68.Usman O., Izzati N.N. The effect of procrastination, academic pressure, and locus of control toward academic dishonesty behavior. SSRN Product & Services. 2020:1–17. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3647199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib86] 69.Herdiana H., Zamalb S.N. Is academic dishonesty related to academic procrastination in student college, Education. Educ. Sustain. Soc. 2021;4(2):62–65. doi: 10.26480/ess.02.2021.62.65. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib87] 70.Amirrudin A.H., Ibrahim S., Salehuddin N., Abd Rashid I.M. Peer influence, procrastination and educational anxiety contribute to academic dishonesty in Malaysian university students. Asian J. Res. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2022;4(2):91–97. [Google Scholar]

[bib66] 71.Claessens B.J., Van Eerde W., Rutte C.G., Roe R.A. A review of the time management literature. Person. Rev. 2007;36(2):255–276. [Google Scholar]

[bib67] 72.Adams R.V., Blair E. Impact of time management behaviors on undergraduate engineering students' performance. Sage Open. 2019;9(1) doi: 10.1177/2158244018824506. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib68] 73.Rimadana M.R., Kusumawardani S.S., Santosa P.I., Erwianda M.S.F. 2019 International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems. IEEE; 2019. Predicting student academic performance using machine learning and time management skill data; pp. 511–515. [Google Scholar]

[bib69] 74.Ahmad S., Batool A., Choudhry A.H. Path relationship of time management and academic achievement of students in distance learning institutions. Pak. J. Distance Online Learn. 2019;5(2):191–208. [Google Scholar]

[bib70] 75.Nasrullah S., Khan M.S. The impact of time management on the students' academic achievements. J. Lit. Lang. Linguist. 2015;11:66–71. [Google Scholar]

[bib71] 76.Kulusakli E. Exploring self regulated online learning skills of EFL learners in distance education. Turk. Online J. Dist. Educ. 2022;23(1):86–96. doi: 10.17718/tojde.1050356. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib72] 77.Doherty W. An analysis of multiple factors affecting retention in web-based community college courses. Internet High Educ. 2006;9(4):245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib73] 78.Sultana N., Shakur N. Gender based comparative study of time management skills at university level. Int. Res. J. Educ. Innov. 2022;3(1):190–199. doi: 10.53575/irjei.v3.01.18(22)190-199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib74] 79.Ustun U.D., Ersoy A., Berk A. An investigation on time management and communication skills of physical education and sport students, Sport Soc. Int. J. Phys. Educ. Special Issue. 2017:20–24. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3647199. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib75] 80.Bhattacharya R., Tipu M.N.A., Sarker B., Durud M.S. Exploring the interrelation between time management and academic achievement among university students, Asian Res. J. Arts Soc. Sci. 2022;17(2):28–37. doi: 10.9734/arjass/2022/v17i230302. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib76] 81.Karakose T. The relationship between medical students' time management skills and academic achievement. Stud. Ethno-Med. 2015;9(1):19–24. doi: 10.1080/09735070.2015.11905418. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib77] 82.Kaya H., Kaya N., Palloş A.Ö., Küçük L. Assessing time-management skills in terms of age, gender, and anxiety levels: a study on nursing and midwifery students in Turkey, Nurse Educ. In Pract. 2012;12(5):284–288. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2012.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib78] 83.Powell J.W., Pharris L.J., Hardy M.M. A comparison of time management skills among accounting, business, and information systems students by age and gender, Issues Inf. Off. Syst. 2020;21(3):1–10. doi: 10.48009/3_iis_2020_1-10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib79] 84.Imlach A.R., Ward D.D., Stuart K.E., Summers M.J., Valenzuela M.J., King A.E., Vickers J.C. Age is no barrier: predictors of academic success in older learners. npj Sci. Learn. 2017;2(1):13. doi: 10.1038/s41539-017-0014-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib80] 85.Stagman D. University of Central Florida; Orlando: 2011. Comparison of Traditional and Nontraditional College Students' Stress and its Relationship to Their Time Management and Overall Psychological Adjustment (Undergraduate) [Google Scholar]

[bib81] 86.Adebisi J.F. Time management practices and its effect on business performance, Can. Soc. Sci. 2013;9(1):165. doi: 10.3968/j.css.1923669720130901.2419. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib82] 87.Aeon B., Faber A., Panaccio A. Does time management work? A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(1) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[bib88] 88.Orhan F., Günay A. Üniversite öğrencilerinin internet tabanlı akademik usulsüzlük nedenlerinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi, Ege Eğit. Derg. 2014;15(1):176–190. doi: 10.12984/eed.41835. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib89] 89.Demirkıran M. Sağlık yöneticisi adaylarının görüşlerine göre akademik etik dışı davranışların nedenleri. OPUS Int. J. Soc. Res. 2021;18:1394–1414. doi: 10.26466/opus.873374. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib90] 90.Kapoor H., Inamdar V., Kaufman J.C. I didn't have time! A qualitative exploration of misbehaviors in academic contexts. J. Acad. Ethics. 2022;20:191–208. doi: 10.1007/s10805-021-09407-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib91] 91.Khasseh A.A., Rostaee S., Soheili F., Shahbazi M. The relationship between multiple variables (social desirability, mental norms, academic self-efficacy, plagiarism knowledge, purpose, pressure, time management, risk) and the possibility of plagiarism among students. Acad. Librariansh. Inf. Res. 2020;54(2):31–50. doi: 10.22059/jlib.2021.310913.1522. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib92] 92.Büyüköztürk S., Kılıç Çakmak E., Akgün O.E., Karadeniz S., Demirel F. Pegem Akademi; Ankara: 2013. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. [Google Scholar]

[bib93] 93.Yam F.C., Balcı Çelik S. Akademik sahtekârlık ölçeği’nin türkçeye uyarlanması: geçerlik ve güvenirlilik çalışması, MANAS Sos. Araştırmalar Derg. 2021;10(1):70–81. doi: 10.33206/mjss.747547. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib94] 94.Ocak G., Bulut R. Akademik erteleme davranışı ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlilik çalışması. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. Res. 2015;1(2):709–726. [Google Scholar]

[bib95] 95.Alay S., Koçak S. Zaman yönetimi anketi: geçerlilik ve güvenirlilik, hacet. Univ. Eğit. Fak. Derg. 2002;22(22):9–13. [Google Scholar]

[bib96] 96.Büyüköztürk Ş. Veri analizi el kitabı (9. Baskı), Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık. 2008 [Google Scholar]

[bib97] 97.George D., Mallery P. Pearson Education, Inc.; Boston: 2003. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference 11.0 Update. [Google Scholar]

[bib98] 98.Orok E., Adeniyi F., Williams T., Dosunmu O., Ikpe F., Orakwe C., Kukoyi O. Causes and mitigation of academic dishonesty among healthcare students in a Nigerian university. Int. J. Educ. Integr. 2023;19(1):13. [Google Scholar]

[bib99] 99.Tahira S.S., Khan E.A., Arif M.I. Problems and challenges faced by married students to continue their study at university level. Ann. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2023;4(4):405–411. doi: 10.35484/ahss.2023(4-IV)39. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib100] 100.Kağan M., Çakır O., İlhan T., Kandemir M. The explanation of the academic procrastination behaviour of university students with perfectionism, obsessive–compulsive and five factor personality traits. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010;2(2):2121–2125. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.292. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib101] 101.Kıral B., Saracaloğlu S. Akademik sahtekârlık eğilimi ile olumsuz değerlendirilme korkusu arasındaki ilişki. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Univ. Eğit. Fak. Derg. 2018;15(1):323–359. [Google Scholar]

[bib102] 102.Durmaz M., Hüseyinli T., Güçlü C. Zaman yönetimi becerileri ile akademik başarı arasındaki ilişki. İnsan Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Derg. 2016;5(7):2291–2303. doi: 10.15869/itobiad.260266. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib103] 103.Beasley E.M. Students reported for cheating explain what they think would have stopped them. Ethics Behav. 2014;24(3):229–252. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.845533. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib104] 104.Khiat H. Using automated time management enablers to improve self-regulated learning, Act. Learn. High Educ. 2022;23(1):3–15. doi: 10.1177/1469787419866304. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[bib105] 105.Thorne-Figueroa J.M. Walden University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2010. The Relationship between Personality Types A and B and Academic Dishonesty of Undergraduate and Graduate Students. Doctoral Dissertation. (UMI Number: 3427801) [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Examining the relationship of academic dishonesty with academic procrastination, and time management in distance education

Emine Aruğaslan

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Theoretical background

1.1.1. Academic integrity and academic dishonesty

1.2. Academic dishonesty in terms of demographic variables

H1

H2

H3

H4

1.3. Academic procrastination behaviors

1.4. Academic procrastination behavior in terms of demographic variables

1.5. Academic procrastination and academic dishonesty

H5

1.6. Time management

1.7. Time management skills in terms of demographic variables

1.8. Time management skills and academic dishonesty behavior

H6

1.9. Research questions

Fig. 1.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Table 1.

2.2. Data collection tools

Table 2.

2.3. Data collection and analysis

2.4. Research ethics

3. Findings

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

3.1. The relationship between academic dishonesty behavior, academic procrastination and time management

Table 7.

3.2. Regression analysis results for predicting academic dishonesty behavior

Table 8.

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

6. Suggestions

7. Limitations

Ethical consent

Funding

Data availability statement

Additional information

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of competing interest

References

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases