Problem: Research (Demirel et al., 2016; Guerrero-Dib et. al., 2020) has shown the development of moral reasoning begins at a young age and schools can play in integral role in students' development of moral principles. Yet, students of all ages engage in academic dishonesty (Stephens & Wangaard, 2013; Stoesz & Yudintseva, 2018; Tyler, 2015; Wangaard & Stephens, 2011). Much has been studied regarding academic dishonesty within secondary and post-secondary schooling; however, a scarcity of research exists discussing academic dishonesty "within" the elementary classroom. Procedures: This phenomenological study addressed the scarcity of existent literature by identifying the ways elementary teachers in Iowa define and experience academic dishonesty and was guided by a central question (Creswell & Poth, 2018): In what ways do elementary teachers define and experience academic dishonesty in their classrooms? Data collection methods included the use of a narrative survey, a document analysis of public documents and participant logs, and semi-structured interviews with seven elementary teachers. The data were coded using a two-step coding process (Glaser, 1978, as cited in Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) to reveal four key themes. Goodness and trustworthiness (Merriam, 2002) was ensured through processes such as member checks; triangulation of the data; researcher reflexivity; and the use of rich, thick description. Findings: Data analysis revealed similarities, differences, challenges, and successes regarding the ways elementary teachers define and experience academic dishonesty. Theme one discusses the way elementary teachers characterize and experience academic dishonesty through concepts of ownership of ideas, words, and effort. The theme of emotions revealed teachers experience academic dishonesty through a lens colored by prior emotional experiences with academic dishonesty, and they strive to protect students from experiencing similar negative emotions. The theme of inconsistency related to teachers' varied experiences with training, inconsistencies in support, inconsistencies in personal definitions, and inconsistencies in district expectations. A final theme revealed the environment, interest of teachers, and stated learning goals of multiple threads of academic instruction all contribute to a great deal of opportunity to address academic dishonesty at the elementary level. Conclusions: The findings presented in this study add to the qualitative literature regarding academic dishonesty in the early grades. Elementary teachers reported observing and addressing academic dishonesty frequently, and conveyed a sense that, most of the time, they define and experience academic dishonesty in isolation which may contribute to some of the inconsistencies between what they believe about academic dishonesty and the lived experiences they described. Recommendations: As a result of this study, I recommend districts provide more explicit training in best practices for fostering positive Social-Emotional Learning. Teachers should also be presented with opportunities for training explicitly related to academic dishonesty in teacher preparatory programs and as professional development. In addition, districts and individual teachers should work to develop and clearly communicate explicit, written academic dishonesty policies for their districts and classrooms. Finally, schools should prioritize time for teachers to collaborate with other support staff. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]