Quick summary: A study of 301 undergraduates found that those who perceived their teachers as strict reported more plagiarism and fabrication in written coursework, though this association does not show that firm teaching causes dishonesty. When firmness turns into control it can frustrate students’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, so that producing their own work no longer feels worthwhile and cheating becomes a more tempting response. Teachers can retain clear standards, boundaries and consequences while making small changes that support agency, recognise progress and help students experience authority as something that enables learning rather than something they merely have to survive.
A recent study of 301 undergraduates found that students who perceived their teachers as strict reported more plagiarism and fabrication in written coursework. This does not mean that strict teaching causes dishonesty, or that firm teaching is harmful. Teachers need boundaries, high expectations and clear standards of academic integrity. The more uncomfortable question is what happens when firmness becomes control.
Self-determination theory offers a useful way of thinking about this. Students are more likely to engage when three psychological needs are supported: autonomy, competence and relatedness. In simple terms, they need some sense of choice and control, confidence that they can succeed and a feeling that they are respected and connected. When these needs are repeatedly frustrated, students may comply without truly engaging.
This matters because plagiarism is a behaviour, not an explanation. Asking how to stop students cheating is necessary, but it leaves another question: why has a student reached the point where producing their own work no longer feels worthwhile?
Consider a student who works hard but repeatedly receives low marks. They see classmates achieving higher grades and begin to question whether their effort makes any difference. Eventually, they copy someone else’s work. The immediate outcome may be a better grade, but the longer-term message can be more damaging: perhaps effort does not change outcomes; perhaps they are not capable of succeeding; perhaps there is little point investing in their own learning.
This is where the classroom environment matters. A prescribed curriculum does not mean students have to experience learning as something simply being done to them. There can still be opportunities to discuss ideas rather than simply copy from the board, connect learning with students’ interests, work collaboratively and show understanding in different ways. Students can be asked what they think, given meaningful choices where possible and helped to understand why a task matters.
None of this means giving up authority. A teacher can be clear, consistent and firm while communicating respect. Firm boundaries may work very well for some students. The difficulty comes when control becomes the main experience of learning and differences in motivation, confidence and need are overlooked.
This also matters when we think about teacher burnout. Teachers work under intense pressure, with prescribed curricula, accountability demands and limited control over the conditions in which they teach. Highly directive teaching can sometimes become a practical survival strategy. Telling teachers simply to make lessons more student-led risks adding another demand to an already demanding job.
Small changes can be more realistic. Explaining the purpose of a task, noticing effort or improvement, inviting contribution and allowing genuine choice can support agency without requiring a complete lesson redesign. Improvement will not look the same for every student. For one, it may mean moving from a four to a five, even if that remains below the class average. Recognising progress communicates that learning is about more than who achieves the highest grade. When a student crosses a boundary, accountability can remain firm while the relationship is repaired. Repair is where respect becomes visible.
Academic integrity still requires clear rules and appropriate consequences. However, punishment can address the behaviour without addressing what may sit underneath it. A student may need both accountability and support to rebuild confidence, understand the work and reconnect with learning.
The question is not whether schools should be strict. It is whether students experience authority as something that helps them learn or something they must survive. Academic integrity is more than preventing plagiarism. It is about creating learning environments in which students have reasons to value their own work, confidence that they can produce it and a sense that they belong in the process of learning.
Dr Sasha Hall is an HCPC- registered senior educational psychologist.
