STUDENT CHEATING: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 1
Student Cheating: Systems Analysis
School of Education, Liberty University
Author Note
The Production Cycle
To eradicate the pervasive issue of cheating at our school, we must analyze this behavior
through the lens of systems theory. This theory revealed that student cheating is a broader
organizational dynamic rather than isolated incidents. During the production cycle, our school
admits students with diverse academic backgrounds, socio-emotional needs, and varying levels
of academic preparedness (input). These students are processed through instruction,
assessment, and support services (throughput) to graduate individuals who are college and
career-ready
(output).
STUDENT CHEATING: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 2
Over the years, there has been a rise in academic dishonesty, which suggests a breakdown in
this cycle, particularly during the throughput phase. One could suggest that the instructional
practices may not be engaging or differentiated enough to meet students where they are, and
assessments may emphasize performance over mastery. Thus, leaving students to feel they are
unequipped to achieve by legitimate means and are compelled to find ways to take shortcuts,
such as cheating. Allen and Kizilcec (2024) argue that cheating emerges from systemic pressures
and institutional barriers, not just individual choices, reinforcing the need to examine
throughput processes critically.
Negative Feedback, Entropy, and Equifinality
The feedback provided through subsystems such as teachers, students, and guidance counselors
has revealed that cheating is driven by pressure to achieve high grades, and/or a lack of
confidence in their own academic abilities. This negative feedback prompted leadership to take
corrective action. In response, the school redesigned assessments to rid academic dishonesty by
incorporating more open-ended and process-based assessments. Another was to implement a
25% penalty for students caught cheating, signaling a firm stance on academic integrity.
These actions represent efforts to reverse entropy, restoring order and trust in the system. At
the same time, the school began exploring equifinality—alternative paths to achieving
educational goals. For instance, teachers began offering multiple formats for demonstrating
learning, such as oral presentations and performance tasks. Incorporating these approaches
takes into consideration the diverse ways students learn and demonstrate their understanding
of the content under study.
Environmental Scanning
Our school understands the need to actively scan the social and technological environments to
ascertain the nature of academic dishonesty. Socially, students face increasing pressure from
families, peers, and societal expectations to succeed academically. Technologically, access to AI
tools and group chats has made cheating more accessible and harder to detect. To mitigate this
problem, our administration has adopted a policy around the use of technology and cheating as
STUDENT CHEATING: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 3
well as embedding digital literacy into its curriculum. Teachers are explaining how to use
technology ethically and responsibly. We monitor trends in educational technology to stay
ahead of potential risks and opportunities. This environmental scanning enables our school to
remain proactive, adjusting policies and practices to uphold academic integrity in a rapidly
changing world.
References
Allen, S. E., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2024). A systemic model of academic (mis)conduct to curb cheating
in higher education. Higher Education, 87, 1529–
1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01077-x
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Ramberg, J., & Modin, B. (2019). School effectiveness and student cheating: Do students’
grades and moral standards matter for this relationship? Social Psychology of Education,
22, 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09486-6
