Eremenko T. POTENTIAL OF THE “FRAUD TRIANGLE” IN PREVENTING STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. LIFELONG EDUCATION: The 21st Century.
2024. № 3 (47). DOI: 10.15393/j5.art.2024.9685


Issue 3 (47)

Lifelong learning in the modern world: the research and design methodology
pdf-version

POTENTIAL OF THE “FRAUD TRIANGLE” IN PREVENTING STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

Eremenko Tatyana V.
Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Professor of the Department of Management
Ryazan State University named after S. A. Esenin
(Ryazan, Russian Federation)
t.eremenko58@mail.ru
Keywords:
fraud triangle
academic fraud triangle
factors of academic fraud
academic dishonesty
pedagogical means
students
universities
Russia.		 Abstract: the results of a study of the possibilities of the «academic fraud triangle» for identifying the most important means of pedagogical influence in the interests of effectively preventing students’ academic dishonesty are presented. The main method is the theoretical analysis of publications identified from open Russian and international scientific information resources. The article contains a detailed review of the literature on the research topic. It has been revealed that the concept of the «fraud triangle» has high potential for analyzing pedagogical problems in higher education, and all three sides of the triangle significantly influence students’ propensity to engage in dishonest academic behavior. Pedagogical means are identified and characterized to achieve the following goals: reducing pressure/incentive as a factor provoking academic dishonesty in students; to limit opportunities for academic fraud; to weaken students’ self-justification/rationalization arguments for their fraudulent actions. It is noted that the means of pedagogical influence aimed at preventing academic dishonesty of students are a combination of both active and proactive forms in all three sides of the «fraud triangle». A promising direction for further research based on the «fraud triangle» is to delve deeper into the role of the teacher in preventing all three factors of cheating.
Paper submitted on: 07/12/2024; Accepted on: 08/23/2024; Published online on: 09/26/2024.

References

  1. Tickner P., Button M. Deconstructing the origins of Cressey’s Fraud Triangle. Journal of Financial Crime. 2021. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 722‒731. DOI: 10.1108/JFC-10-2020-0204
  2. Murphy P. R., Dacin M. T. Psychological Pathways to Fraud: Understanding and Preventing Fraud in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011. No. 101 (4). P. 601–618. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-011-0741-0
  3. Bermus A. G. Academic fraud and imitation in higher education as an ontological challenge to education in the 21st century. Nepreryvnoe obrazovanie: XXI vek [Lifelong Education: The 21st Century]. 2023. No. 1 (41). DOI: 10.15393/j5.art.2023.8244 (In Russ.)
  4. Emelyanova I. N., Teplyakova O. A., Teplyakov D. O. Imitation practices at a Russian university: forms, causes and consequences.  Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz [University Management: Practice and Analysis]. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 111–124. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2024.01.008 (In Russ.)
  5. Cheating and Plagiarism: Students’ Attitudes and Teachers’ Reactions. Moscow, 2022. 40 p. (In Russ.)
  6. Maloshonok N. G. How perceptions of academic integrity in the university environment relate to student engagement: Opportunities for conceptualization and empirical study [Electronic resource]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Education Issues]. 2016. No. 1. Electron. dan. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kak-vospriyatie-akademicheskoy-chestnosti-sredy-universiteta-vzaimosvyazano-so-studencheskoy-vovlechennostyu-vozmozhnosti (date of acсess 29.06.2024). (In Russ.)
  7. Shmeleva E. D. Plagiarism and cheating in Russian universities: the role of the educational environment and individual student characteristics [Electronic resource]. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Education Issues]. 2016. No. 1. Electron. dan. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kak-vospriyatie-akademicheskoy-chestnosti-sredy-universiteta-vzaimosvyazano-so-studencheskoy-vovlechennostyu-vozmozhnosti (date of acсess 29.06.2024). (In Russ.)
  8. Altukhova N. V., Nalichaeva S. A., Mogila N. A. Identification by the auditor of risks of internal corporate fraud: economic and psychological aspects. Finansovyj menedzhment [Financial Management]. 2022. No. 6. P. 97‒109 (In Russ.).
  9. Morozova E. S. Assessing the risk of fraud in the audit process. Nauka XXI veka: aktual'nye napravleniya razvitiya [Science of the 21st Century: Current Directions of Development]. 2020. No. 1-1. P. 461‒465 (In Russ.).
  10. Makarenko S. A., Filippova V. V. Corporate fraud as a threat to a company's economic security. Ekonomika i predprinimatel'stvo [Economics and Entrepreneurship]. 2020. No. 11 (124). P. 763‒767. DOI: 10.34925/EIP.2020.124.11.149 (In Russ.)
  11. Afanasyev S. V. Genesis of fraud: why people deceive banks and how to reduce the risks of financial fraud. Upravlenie finansovymi riskami [Financial Risk Management]. 2017. No. 3. P. 202‒214 (In Russ.)
  12. Konoplyannik T. M., Sergushenkova V. Yu. The impact of digitalization on the control of economic crimes. Problemy sovremennoj ekonomiki [Problems of Modern Economics]. 2020. No. 2 (74). P. 50‒52 (In Russ.)
  13.  Marshall L. L., Varnon A. W.  Attack on Academic Dishonesty: What ‘Lies’ Ahead? Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education. 2017. Vol. 13. Is. 2. P. 31‒40.
  14. Ramadhan A. P., Ruhiyat E. Kecurangan Akademik: Fraud Diamond, Perilaku Tidak Jujur, Dan Persepsi Mahasiswa. JABI (Jurnal Akuntansi Berkelanjutan Indonesia). 2020. No. 3 (1). P. 13‒25. DOI: 10.32493/jabi.v3i1.y2020.p13-25
  15. Oktarina D. Analisis Perspektif Fraud Pentagon pada Terjadinya Kecurangan Akademik Mahasiswa Akuntansi. EKONIKA Jurnal Ekonomi Universitas Kadiri. 2021. No. 6 (2). P. 227‒252. DOI: 10.30737/ekonika.v6i2.1450
  16. Bicer A. A. An Empirical Analysis on Students’ Cheating Behavior and Personality Traits in the Context of Fraud Triangle Factors. Contemporary Issues in Audit Management and Forensic Accounting. 2020. Vol. 102. P. 1–10. DOI: 10.1108/s1569-375920200000102004
  17. Heriyati D., Ekasari W. F. A study on academic dishonesty and moral reasoning. International Journal of Education. 2020. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 56‒62. DOI: 10.17509/ije.v12i2.18653
  18. Malgwi C. A., Rakovski C. C. Combating academic fraud: are students reticent about uncovering the covert? Journal of Academic Ethics. 2009. No. 7. P. 207‒221. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-009-9081-4
  19. Alshurafat H. [et al.]. Factors affecting accounting students’ misuse of chatgpt: an application of the fraud triangle theory. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. 2024. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 274‒288. DOI: 10.1108/JFRA-04-2023-0182
  20. Eremenko T. V., Fulin V. A. Areas of increased ethical tension in students’ work with information: a case analysis based on the «academic fraud triangle». Kniga. Kul'tura. Obrazovanie. Innovacii: Pyatyj Mezhdunarodnyj professional'nyj forum «Krym-2019» [Book. Culture. Education. Innovation: Proceedings of the V International Forum «Crimea-2019», June 08–16, 2019]. Sudak, 2020. P. 97‒101. DOI: 10.33186/978-5-85638-223-4-2020-97‒101 (In Russ.)
  21. Muhammad K., Ghani E. K., Rossli M. A. H. Determinants of academic fraud in higher education institutions: A fraud triangle perspective. Psychology and Education. 2021. Vol. 58. No. 2. P. 3879‒3892. DOI: 10.17762/pae.v58i2.2653
  22. Juliardi D. [et al.]. The Fraud triangle, misuse of information technology and student integrity toward the academic cheating of UM student during the pandemic Covid-19. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478). 2021. Vol. 10. No. 6. P. 329‒339. DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v10i6.134
  23. Amigud A., Lancaster T. 246 Reasons to Cheat: An Analysis of Students’ Reasons for Seeking to Outsource Academic Work. Computers and Education. 2019. No. 134 (January). P. 98–107. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.017
  24. Savich D. E., Feshchenko N. V. «Uneducable» students as a problem of the quality of Russian education. Nauchno-tekhnicheskoe i ekonomicheskoe sotrudnichestvo stran ATR v XXI veke [Scientific, Technical and Economic Cooperation of Asia-Pacific Countries in the 21st Century]. 2017. Vol. 1. P. 348‒351 (In Russ.)
  25. Baranova I. M., Pugin V. B. Modern problems of higher education: massification, heterogeneity, learning disabilities. Diskussiya [Discussion]. 2017. No. 10 (84). P. 74‒79 (In Russ.)
  26. Boyle D. M., Boyle J. F., Carpenter B. W. Accounting Student Academic Dishonesty: What Accounting Faculty and Administrators Believe. Accounting Educators’ Journal. 2017. No. 26 (2006). P. 39–61
  27. Eremenko T. V. Pedagogical tools for preventing academic dishonesty of students (analysis of research by Russian authors). Vestnik Vyatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of Vyatka State University]. 2024. No. 1 (151). (In Russ.)
  28. Bierstaker J. [et al.]. Academic Fraud and Remote Evaluation of Accounting Students: An Application of the Fraud Triangle. Journal of Business Ethics. 2024. March. P. 1‒23. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-024-05628-9
  29. Eaton S. E., Guglielmin M., Otoo B. K. Plagiarism: Moving from Punitive to Proactive Approaches. Selected Proceedings of the IDEAS Conference 2017: Leading Educational Change. Calgary: University of Calgary, 2017. P. 28–36.

Displays: 143; Downloads: 137;

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15393/j5.art.2024.9685