The Multi-level Causal Factors Affect On Upper Secondary Students’ Academic Dishonesty at The Secondary Level in Eastern Area of Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purposes of this research were: 1) analyze the factors of upper secondary students’ academic dishonesty at the secondary level schools in eastern area of Thailand, 2) study the multi-level causal factors affecting on upper secondary students’ academic dishonesty at the secondary schools in eastern area, and 3) develop the multi-level causal factors in the structural equation model of upper secondary students’ academic dishonesty at the secondary school in eastern area of Thailand. The samples consisted of 1,399 administrators, teachers and students in 58 secondary schools in the eastern area of Thailand, gaining from two-stage random sampling. The research instruments were two rating scale questionnaires. The data were analyzed using single level confirmatory factor analysis, multi-level confirmatory factor analysis and multi-level structural equation model. The research results were;
- Validity of the purposed model on the upper secondary students’ academic dishonesty at the secondary schools in the eastern of Thailand fitted with the empirical data when considered with statistics including c2 = .005, df = 1, p = .945, c2/df = .005, RMSEA = .000, CFI = 1.000, TLI = 1.000, SRMRW = .000 and SRMRB = .002;
- The proposed multi-level model fitted with the empirical data considered by the statistics used to investigate the validity of the model including c2 = 122.144, df = 88, p = .009, c2/df = 1.388, RMSEA = .021, CFI = .991, TLI = 988, SRMRW = .033 and SRMRB = .057, in which the model could be explained as follows:
2.1 At the student level found that the students’ academic dishonesty received a negative influence from parenting in a family, learning achievement, and gender while receiving a positive influence from academic dishonesty motivation and age at a statistically significant level of .05.
2.2 At the school level found that the students’ academic dishonesty received a negative influence from course administration and positive influence from reducing opportunities for academic dishonesty at a statistically significant level of .05.
Article Details
References
2. สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการศึกษาแห่งชาติ. (2545). พระราชบัญญัติการศึกษาแห่งชาติ พ.ศ. 2542 และที่แก้ไขเพิ่มเติม (ฉบับที่ 2) พ.ศ.2545. กรุงเทพฯ : พริกหวานกราฟฟิค.
3. สำนักงานคณะกรรมการป้องกันและปราบปรามทุตริตแห่งชาติ. (2553). การทุจริตในรัฐวิสาหกิจ ปัญหาและแนวทางแก้ไข. กรุงเทพฯ : สำนักงานคณะกรรมการป้องกันและปราบปรามทุตริตแห่งชาติ.
4. สถาบันรามจิตติ. (2558). รายงานการศึกษาสภาวการณ์และขับเคลื่อนการพัฒนาคุณภาพชีวิตเด็กและเยาวชน ประจำปี 2556-2557. กรุงเทพฯ: สถาบันรามจิตติ.
5. อรนุช หงวนไธสง. (2550). การพัฒนาโมเดลเชิงสาเหตุของการทุจริตในการสอบของนักเรียนมัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย กรุงเทพมหานคร. วิทยานิพนธ์ครุศาสตรมหาบัณฑิต, สาขาวิชาการวัดและประเมินผลการศึกษา, คณะครุศาสตร์, จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย
6. Bellipanni, M. B. (2012). The Relationship between Teacher Classroom Practices and 21st Century Students' Academic Dishonesty at the Secondary Level. Mississippi: The University of Southern Mississippi.
7. Cochran, J. K. (2015). The Effects of Life Domains, Constraints, and Motivations on Academic Dishonesty: A Partial Test and Extension of Agnew’s General Theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
8. Geddes, K. A. (2011). Academic dishonesty among gifted and high-achieving students. Gifted Child Today.
9. Hensley, L. C., Kirkpatrick, K. M., & Burgoon, J. M. (2013). relation of gender, course enrollment, and grades to distinct forms of academic dishonesty. Teaching in Higher Education.
10. Kremmer, M. L., Brimble, M., & Stevenson-Clarke, P. (2007). Investigating the probability of student cheating: The relevance of student characteristics, assessment items, perceptions of prevalence and history of engagement. International Journal of Educational Integrity.
11. Madill, R. A., Gaia, A. C., & Qualls, R. C. (2007). The role of corporal punishment and family dynamics in college students’ academic integrity. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
12. McCabe, D. L. (2009). Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: An empirical investigation. Journal of Nursing Education.
13. Parameswaran, A. (2007). Student dishonesty and faculty responsibility. Teaching in Higher Education.
14. Schmelkin, L., Gilbert, K., & Silva, R. (2010). Multidimensional scaling of high school students'perceptions of academic dishonesty. The high school journal.
15. Singh P., & Thambusamy R. (2016). “To Cheat or Not To Cheat, That is the Question”: Undergraduates’ Moral Reasoning and Academic Dishonesty. 7th International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (InCULT 2014) Proceedings. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
16. Vessal, K. & Habibzadeh, F. (2007). Rules of the game of scientific writing: Fair play and plagiarism. Lancet.
17. Yekta, A. S., Lupton, R. A., & Maboudi, A. A. K. (2010). Attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies of the Iranian students in medical fields towards cheating and academic dishonesty. Journal of Paramedical Sciences.
