The present study investigated the dishonest academic behaviours of Australian university students (N = 954) and their relationships with demographic factors, academic policy advised to students, academic self-efficacy, and academic orientation. It was hypothesised that higher levels of dishonesty would be associated with low learning-orientation, high grade-orientation, low academic self-efficacy and nonreceipt of information about the rules of cheating and plagiarism. Descriptive analyses revealed high levels of three types of self-reported academic dishonesty: cheating, plagiarism and falsification. Regression analyses revealed demographic variables, academic orientation and academic self-efficacy to have differential predictive value for the three types of dishonesty, underlining the argument that it is misleading to measure academic dishonesty as a unidimensional construct. The results are discussed in terms of implications for strategic interventions and university policy formulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marsden et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: