Justifying academic dishonesty: A survey of Canadian university students

Abstract

Academic dishonesty is a growing problem in the higher education sector. Using a sample of 321 undergraduate students at a medium-sized Canadian university, this paper explores the respondents' acceptability of the various reasons for engagement in academically dishonest behaviour. The findings revealed that respondents displayed moderately negative attitudes toward academic dishonesty and that the top three circumstances under which academically dishonest behavior would be considered acceptable were pressure to maintain a scholarship, pressure from parents to perform well, and heavy academic work load. Multiple ordinary least-squares regression analysis revealed that male respondents and those who reported a higher family income, enrolled in more classes, witnessed academic misconduct more frequently, expressed dissatisfaction with academic performance, indicated dissatisfaction with school life, placed less emphasis on intrinsic motivation to pursue higher education, and adopted a surface approach to learning were found to be associated with a greater likelihood of accepting the various justifications for academic dishonesty. The results of this investigation may be utilized by university administrators, academic advisors, and academic counselors to aid in the design of support services and interventions (e.g., explicit guidelines and practical teaching/learning resources) that will serve to prevent academic misconduct and to promote academic integrity.

Psychometric Properties of Academic Dishonesty Tendency Scale for Graduate Students and Investigating Academic Dishonesty Tendency Levels with CHAID Analysis

“…Taşgın et al (2019) also found that the mean scores taken from the subscale of Dishonesty Tendency at Studies as Homework, Project, etc.-common and from the whole scale by the male students are higher than those of the female students. Similar studies have also revealed that male students have a higher tendency to cheat than female students (Adıbatmaz & Kurnaz, 2017;Akbaşlı et al, 2019;Akdağ & Güneş, 2002;Bateman & Valentine, 2010;Burns, et al, 1998;Chow et al, 2021;Coate & Frey, 2000;Dağaşan et al, 2017;Demir & Arcagök, 2013;Eminoğlu-Küçüktepe & Küçüktepe, 2012;Eriksson & McGee, 2015;Ersoy & Özden, 2011;Hadjar, 2019;Hensley et al, 2013;Kadı et al, 2016;Kaymakcan, 2002;Kocaman-Karoğlu & Bakar-Çörez, 2020;Koç, 2018;Lin & Wen, 2007;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;Nonis & Swift, 1998;Ömür et al, 2014;Öztürk-Başpınar & Çakıroğlu, 2019;Özyurt & Eren, 2014;Pino & Smith, 2003;Roig & Caso, 2005;Şenel et al, 2020;Uçak & Ünal, 2015;Underwood & Szabo, 2003;Whitley, 1998;Whitley et al, 1999;Yang et al, 2017;Yangın & Kahyaoğlu, 2009;Yeşilyaprak & Öztürk, 1996). The findings reported in some other studies in the literature are different from this finding of the current study.…”

“…The second is to investigate the variables that best explain the academic dishonesty tendency levels of the students who continue their graduate education by using the CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) analysis method. When the literature is examined (Adıbatmaz & Kurnaz, 2017;Akbaşlı et al, 2019;Akdağ & Güneş, 2002;Ayoub/Al-Salim & Aladwan, 2021;Barın et al, 2018;Bateman & Valentine, 2010;Belet-Boyacı et al, 2017;Brown, Bourke-Taylor et al, 2019;Brown, Isbel et al, 2020;Burns, et al, 1998;Chow et al, 2021;Coate & Frey, 2000;Çenberci, 2018;Çetin, 2007;Dağaşan et al, 2017;Dam, 2013;Demir & Arcagök, 2013;Duran, 2020;Eminoğlu-Küçüktepe & Küçüktepe, 2012;Eriksson & McGee, 2015;Ersoy & Özden, 2011;Gümüşgül et al, 2013;Hadjar, 2019;Hensley et al, 2013;Kadı et al, 2016;Kaymakcan, 2002;Keçeci et al, 2011;Kıral & Saracaloğlu, 2018;Kocaman-Karoğlu & Bakar-Çörez, 2020;Koç, 2018;Korn & Davidovitch, 2016;Lin & Wen, 2007;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;Nonis & Swift, 1998;Novianti, 2022;Ömür et al, 2014;Öztürk-Başpınar & Çakıroğlu, 2019;Özyurt & Eren, 2014;…”

Implementation of Honesty Canteen Program as Character Education Strategy in Elementary Schools

“…Furthermore, the low honesty values in the school environment cannot be separated from the role played by educators and school staff in shaping students' characters as exemplars of honesty values (Chiang et al, 2022;Chow et al, 2021;Dyer et al, 2020). This involves a number of teaching practices that can be adopted, including integrating honesty values into the curriculum and learning materials, such as presenting examples of honesty through stories, films, and relevant readings (Chiang et al, 2022).…”