Is using ChatGPT for homework cheating?

Numbers match the citations in the article. A working link isn't proof that a page supports a claim; check the quoted passage and date.

1. 1

   Academic misconduct and artificial intelligence use by medical students, interns and PhD students in Ukraine: a cross-sectional study.

   BMC medical education (Lymar et al.)Published Oct 27, 2025Checked Oct 10, 2026

   “AI was primarily employed for information searches (70%), while a smaller proportion admitted using it for academic dishonesty, such as writing essays (14%) or submitting pre-written assignments (9%). Nearly half (51%) of participants reported having cheated on tests previously. Opinions on AI's impact on academic integrity were divided, with 36% considering AI use as misconduct, 26% perceiving it as acceptable, and 38% undecided. Most participants viewed AI as beneficial for learning and work, with 37% indicating they would continue using AI professionally. Perceived AI's advantages included time efficiency, enhanced learning, and accessibility, while concerns were raised about errors, lack of critical thinking, over-dependence, and ethical risks.ConclusionThese results highlight the widespread adoption of AI among medical students, interns, and PhD candidates for academic purposes, with both notable advantages and significant ethical and practical concerns. Considering the prevalent use of AI for academic work among medical students, interns and PhD students in Ukraine, national rules are needed to define which uses of AI constitute academic dishonesty and academic misconduct.”

2. 2

   Is use of ChatGPT cheating? Students of health professions perceptions

   Medical Teacher (Kazley et al.)Published Aug 4, 2024Checked Oct 10, 2026

   “Nearly 400 students from twelve academic programs including health and rehabilitation science, occupational therapy, physical therapy, physician assistant studies, speech-language pathology, health administration and health informatics, undergraduate healthcare studies, nurse anesthesiology, and cardiovascular perfusion. The majority of students identify the threat of generative AI to graded assignments such as tests and papers, but many believe it is acceptable to use these tools to learn and study outside of graded assignments. Generative AI tools provide new options for students to study and learn. Graduate students in the health professions are currently using generative AI applications but are not universally aware or in agreement of how its use threatens academic integrity. Faculty should provide specific guidance on how generative AI applications may be used.”

3. 3

   Generative AI and College Students: Use and Perceptions

   Teaching of Psychology (Golding et al.)Published Sep 19, 2024Checked Oct 10, 2026

   “Most students were familiar with these applications, yet less than half had used them in college, primarily to receive help with assignments. Those not using these applications gave “getting caught” and “cheating” as responses for not using them. Finally, most students perceived using these applications as cheating. Students were familiar with these applications and were most likely to use them in humanities courses. Furthermore, these applications were used most often in writing tasks. Teaching Implications The increased use of these applications has led to educators debating whether these applications should be incorporated into the college classroom. Do these applications have pedological value or are they just another means for cheating?”

4. 4

   Perception of ChatGPT Usage for Homework Assignments: Students’ and Professors’ Perspectives

   IAFOR Journal of Education (Krečar et al.)Published Aug 30, 2024Checked Oct 10, 2026

   “In Study 2, twelve faculty members were tested on their accuracy of distinguishing between original students’ papers and ChatGPT-generated papers. For this purpose, 25 different versions of papers for 8 different courses were prepared. The results of the students’ survey showed that most students still do not use ChatGPT regularly and have neutral attitudes about its usefulness, ease of use, risks, and intentions for future use. In addition, they were moderately concerned about ethical issues around its usage. Differences across gender and field of study were found. Professors, on the other hand, reported having average self-efficacy in appraising authorship, which is in line with their low average accuracy of 53%. Accuracy in distinguishing was lowest when ChatGPT was instructed to write a paper as a student. These results strongly suggest the necessity for clear guidelines, plagiarism detection tools, and educational initiatives to promote ethical use of AI technology.”

5. 5

   Perceived factors associated with self-reported AI-assisted academic cheating among undergraduate students: Evidence from ethical ambiguity, technological affordances, institutional gaps, academic pressure, and peer comparison.

   PloS one (Nguyen & Duong)Published Sep 28, 2026Checked Oct 10, 2026

   “The results supported a three-factor structure consisting of AI-Assisted Academic Cheating Behaviors (AICB), Ethical Ambiguity, Technological Affordances, and Institutional Gaps (ETIG), and Academic Pressure and Peer Comparison (APPC). In the structural model, ETIG was positively associated with AICB (β = 0.228, p < 0.001), whereas APPC showed a small negative association (β = -0.148, p = 0.022). Gender was also positively associated with AICB (β = 0.142, p < 0.001), with male students tending to report higher AICB scores than female students. Student seniority was not significantly associated with AICB (β = 0.018, p = 0.622). Field of study was positively associated with AICB (β = 0.104, p = 0.008), with non-STEM students tending to report higher AICB scores than STEM students. The model accounted for approximately 5% of the variance in AICB, indicating modest explanatory power. Overall, the findings suggest that unclear boundaries around acceptable AI use, ease of access to AI tools and difficulty detecting AI-generated work, gaps in institutional guidance, and academic pressure and peer comparison may warrant further examination in relation to AI-assisted academic cheating.”

6. 6

   Chat or cheat? Academic dishonesty, risk perceptions, and ChatGPT usage in higher education students

   Social Psychology of Education (Ortiz-Bonnín & Blahopoulou)Published May 28, 2025Checked Oct 10, 2026

   “On the other side several risks are associated with the usage of ChatGPT, including the generation of inaccurate information, and the facilitation of academic dishonesty like cheating and plagiarism. This study examines how students’ Perception of Academic Dishonesty (PAD) and their perception of the risks associated with using ChatGPT, are linked to a reduced use frequency and intention to use this AI tool. A sample of 468 undergraduate students answered an online survey. Our findings indicate a negative and significant relationship between perceived risk, and both use frequency and intention to use ChatGPT in the future. Additionally, perceived risk mediates the relationship between PAD and ChatGPT usage patterns. This is the first study to demonstrate that students with high PAD present higher levels of awareness of the risks associated with using ChatGPT, which is associated with lower frequency of use and intention to use this AI tool in higher education. These results highlight the importance of integrating such technologies into the university, while carefully considering ethical issues and students’ perceptions of risk.”

7. 7

   Instructors’ and learners’ perspectives on using ChatGPT in English as a foreign language courses and its effect on academic integrity

   Computer Assisted Language Learning (Almanea)Published Oct 4, 2024Checked Oct 10, 2026

   “This mixed-methods study explored the perspectives of university instructors and learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) regarding ChatGPT’s effectiveness for EFL learning and its implications for academic integrity. Twenty-four instructors and 135 learners engaged with ChatGPT for one trimester. After a training session, instructors incorporated ChatGPT into their teaching. At the trimester’s end, questionnaires were distributed to gather participants’ opinions on their experience with ChatGPT. Instructors also provided open-ended responses and participated in semistructured interviews. Instructors and learners both had positive attitudes about artificial intelligence (AI) use in EFL learning, especially for written work. Learners acknowledged, however, that they might conceal their ChatGPT use from instructors; many said they would have ChatGPT complete their homework, if possible. Customizing responses within a word limit and generating multiple answers to similar prompts were identified as ChatGPT capabilities that could lead to misuse. This study’s practical implications, along with solutions for reducing the risk of AI-facilitated plagiarism, are discussed.”