Transcript Slide 1

Integrating use of plagiarism detection
software into institutional academic
misconduct policies.
Institutional policies and procedures for dealing with
plagiarism, ASKe, Oxford Brookes University, 4 June, 2009.
Gill Rowell, Academic Advisor,
PlagiarismAdvice.org
Today’s session
• Our background.
• Models of use and good practice in using TurnitinUK.
• Areas to consider when developing/reviewing
academic misconduct policy.
• Discussion.
About us.
• Set up in 2002 as Plagiarism Advisory Service by JISC
against a background of concern surrounding issues of
plagiarism and authenticity in student work.
• Since summer 2008 service has been self-sustaining and
managed by nLearning, a spin out company from
Northumbria University.
• Provide TurnitinUK software and advice to over 96% of
universities in the UK, along with colleges and schools in UK
and Europe.
• Emphasis on promoting and disseminating good practice.
• Key UK partners include universities, colleges and schools,
awarding and regulatory bodies such as Ofqual, plus JISC
and the Higher Education Academy.
PlagiarismAdvice.org
• Training & policy advice.
• JISCmail discussion lists.
• Resources from the academic
community.
• Biennial international
conference, next conference,
June 2010, Newcastle upon
Tyne.
• TurnitinUK.
• UK user group.
Generic penalty tariff.
• Based on AMBeR research which demonstrated a
lack of consistency in application of penalties across
institutions.
• Feasibility of developing a generic points-based tariff
for adoption by the sector.
• Consultation exercise to determine:
o Factors important when assigning a penalty.
o Degree of flexibility when assigning a
penalty.
• Thanks to everyone who has taken part in the
consultation exercise so far.
Why TurnitinUK?
Used by:
o
o
o
o
96% of UK Universities.
Further education colleges.
All Unitary Awarding Bodies via JCQ.
A growing number of secondary schools.
UK submissions to TurnitinUK
300000
250000
200000
150000
Submission Aug 06 - July 07
Submission Aug 07 - July 08
100000
50000
0
Submission Aug 08 - July 09
Models of TurnitinUK use
• Students submit their work to TurnitinUK (screen all).
• Tutors submit all students' work to TurnitinUK (screen all).
• Tutors submit work which looks suspect to TurnitinUK (suspicion triggered).
• Tutors submit a sample of papers to TurnitinUK as part of a QA process (sampling).
• Tutors submit work of specific groups of students whose work may be problematic
(profiling).
• Tutors make it clear to students that they have the option of using TurnitinUK to check
work (deterrent).
• Tutors demonstrate TurnitinUK to students in order to stimulate discussion about
academic integrity and attribution (formative demonstration).
• Tutors provide students with access to their Originality Reports, but offer no follow up
on interpreting the report or issues of academic integrity or attribution (formative
unsupported).
• Tutors provide students with access to their Originality Reports, and offer follow up on
interpreting the report and issues of academic integrity or attribution (formative
supported).
Suspicion triggered

?
Never ‘Profiling Searches’

Corrective Action
Why?
• Discriminatory
• Self perpetuating
• Assumption of guilt
Sampling

Corrective Action
Tutor screens all
Variation
Academic Conduct Officers screen
all scripts before marking.
For
Feedback on
analysis
•Speed
up punitive process
•Attempt to reduce tutor load
•Remove bias from marking
•Ensures adoption

Against
• Removes tutor from process
• Ignores use as T&L tool
• Ignores feedback opportunity
Good practice in using TurnitinUK.
• Emphasis on prevention rather than detection.
• Used formatively allows for reflection and self
diagnosis.
• Initiates a dialogue with students:
•
Need for attribution of sources.
•
Information on the web does belong to someone!
•
Appropriate use of good quality sources.
•
Overreliance on electronic sources.
Student views
“The software helped me to be more cautious about citation’; ‘for me, I will
never ever forget about efficient citations according to my first experience
of Turnitin’; sometimes we make a mistake and don’t use citation or not
correctly...this way gives us a second chance’.” (Davis, 2007)
“Students write draft essays, which are then submitted to the detection
service with the output report returned to individuals and then discussed
in class sessions. This has addressed a key problem that students find
difficulty in expressing their own understanding without relying too
heavily on the sources they use, since the detection service highlights
potential plagiarism problems in such over-reliance.” (McDowell, 2006)
Why integrate guidance on TurnitinUK
use?
• Prevent ad hoc use, achieve balance between
unnecessary bureaucracy and fairness.
• Ensure consistency in approach.
o “The lack of consistency means that we are vulnerable
when pursuing a case of plagiarism and of course it is not
fair to the students if they have differing experiences.”
(O’Neill, 2009)
• Offer guidance in interpreting Originality Report:
o “making sure academics research their allegations
thoroughly before embarking upon a disciplinary process
rather than seeing a 60% match and not investigating the
nature of the matches.” (Bentley, 2007)
Guidance on use at institution.
• Provide protocols for both summative and formative use
where appropriate.
o Model(s) of use adopted by institution, with pros
and cons, for example, whole group submission to
prevent a student from being unfairly singled out.
• Specify in which situations use is mandatory, for example
for all postgraduate dissertations.
• Be clear where discretion in use is permitted, for example
where this may be determined by the module/programme in
question.
• Any specific conditions of use:
o “access to the software will only be granted on
receipt and approval of a plan to detail how the
software will be used”. (Cambridge University)
Guidance on formative use
• Policies
stressed the role of TurnitinUK in the assessment
process as an educational tool:
o “We recognise that the educational desirability that
all of our students should enjoy the opportunity to
self-submit their work to Turnitin (before submitting
for assessment). We also recognise that Turnitin
Originality Reports will sometimes assist in the
identification of plagiarised work submitted for
assessment.” (UEL)
• Provision of general awareness resources, chance to
review an Originality Report in class, and/or to submit a piece
of their own work with appropriate guidance from tutor on
interpreting report.
Guidance for staff
• Training in correctly interpreting Originality Report is essential:
o “Any programme wishing to use Turnitin must contact the
LTEU in the first instance to arrange training in the use of
the system” (Canterbury Christ Church Unversity)
• Originality Report must not be used in isolation.
• Guidance on dealing with view requests from other institutions.
Guidance for students
• Contractual requirement of use of TurnitinUK.
• Students are informed of use at induction.
• Wording is added to enrolment agreement.
o Students expectations should be set.
o Reinforce the need for honesty and integrity.
o Citation and study skills resource/lessons provided.
• Students
are at a minimum shown TurnitinUK.
• Ideally TurnitinUK is used formatively.
A note on Data Protection...
• Contract applies to use of all TurnitinUK features, including
GradeMark, Peer Review etc.
• Your institution is Data Controller.
• iParadigms, developers of TurnitinUK, are Data Processors.
• Work can be removed from the database at the request of the
institution at any time.
Other areas to consider.
• Avoid isolated use of TurnitinUK as the only indicator of
potential plagiarism:
o “An Originality report should never be advanced as the
sole reason for suspecting that a piece of work is
plagiarised, because the judgement as to whether work
is plagiarised must always be an academic judgement.”
(UEL)
o Jude’s model of “tipping the balance”.
o “Balance of probabilities” model in law.
o Balance of probabilities favoured over “beyond
reasonable doubt”.
• Reinforces need for other supporting guidance, and
holistic approach.
Also give thought to...
• Providing guidance to tutors on thresholds for similarity index in
Originality Report.
• Policy on sharing papers with other institutions if matching text
is identified.
• Whether work should be marked prior to viewing TurnitinUK
report.
Conclusions
• Explicit guidance ensures consistency and provides a clear
message to students.
• Clear protocols for use whether summative or formative.
• Clear communication with students on use and active
engagement with software.
• Training for staff on interpreting report to prevent unjustified
accusations.
• Holistic approach is, as ever, key!
Thanks to:
Jude Carroll.
Toby Grainger, University of East London.
Madeline McKerchar, Cambridge University.
Jane O’Neill, University of Leeds.
Simon Starr, Canterbury Christ Church University.
Resources, tutorials and guides on
plagiarism and TurnitinUK
As discussed in the session, here are some links to some existing
resources on plagiarism in general and TurnitinUK which have been
developed by the community:
• Developing assessment strategies which encourage original student work:
an online guide
I collated a range of resources in this guide, see in particular general resources
for students in section 1, and also section 7 on using TurnitinUK formatively.
• Academic integrity: using Turnitin
http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/ai/staff/usingturnitin.html (Accessed: 30 January 2009).
The University of Kent site includes guidelines on using TurnitinUK and on
interpreting the Originality Report.
• York St John University TurnitinUK support website
http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/learnteach/turnitinUK/index.html (Accessed: 30 January
2009).
This comprehensive guide to using the software includes video resources and
FAQs for both staff and students.
Thank you for listening!
[email protected]
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bentley, S. (2007) ‘Students’ DIY Turnitin’, Plagiarism discussion list, 8 June [Online]. Available e-mail:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/plagiarism.
Canterbury Christ Church University: policy on plagiarism (no date), Canterbury Christ Church University.
Davis, M. (2007) ‘The Role of Turnitin within the formative process of academic writing’, Brookes eJournal of
Learning and Teaching, 2 (2), p.3. [Online]. Available at:
http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/the_role_of_turnitin_within_the_formative_process_of_academic_writing/.
(Accessed: 2 June 2009).
McDowell, L. et al. (2006)
Assessment for learning: current practice exemplars from the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in
Assessment for Learning [Online]
Available at: http://northumbria.ac.uk/static/5007/cetlpdf/exemplars.pdf (Accessed: 2 June 2009).
O’Neilll, J. (2009) Email to Gill Rowell, 11 May.
Policy on the use of Turntin within UEL (2008), University of East London.
Policy on the use of TurnitinUK originality checking software (2008), University of Cambridge.