Abstract
ABSTRACTPurpose. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between student engagement and academic dishonesty among traditional-age, undergraduate students at private, not-for-profit, four-year colleges and universities in Southern California. This quantitative study examined the level of engagement in their classes and in their school reported by students and the level of reported participation in academic dishonesty. Additional descriptive demographics examined included domestic vs. international status, class size, honor code, and hours worked.
Methodology. This study examined the relationship between the levels of engagement in their classes and campus and their reported level of participation in academically dishonest behavior among various demographic groups of students. (N=834) traditional-age undergraduate students were sampled from five four-year, not-for-profit universities in Southern California.
Findings. Descriptive statistics found that 98% of students surveyed participate in classes with fewer than 50 students and that more than 80% of students work 20 hours or less per week. Thirty-three percent of students were unable to say whether their school had an honor code. Overall, students reported themselves to be on the high side of student engagement and the low side of experience with academic dishonesty. Correlational analysis found little to no relationships between most all variable combinations.
Conclusions. Examination of the descriptive statistics in relation to each of the main variables- academic dishonesty and student engagement- found that none of the specific descriptors had much relationship to the variables.
Recommendations. Results of the study point to several areas for future research. Among them, current assessment of academic dishonesty should be undertaken considering the rapid development and easy access of artificial intelligence. Because of the long lockdown period due to the COVID-19 pandemic it is possible that levels of student engagement may have suffered. If so, strategies for re-engagement should be examined. Finally, surveying faculty and students through one instrument with common language surrounding academic dishonesty would help to understand the difference between how much cheating faculty and students each claim takes place.