1 / 20

Creating learning and unlearning opportunities from Turnitin in the process of academic writing

Creating learning and unlearning opportunities from Turnitin in the process of academic writing. Mary Davis Oxford Brookes University. Rationale for this study. Exploit existing technology Avoid “catch-and-punish” (Carroll 2005)

betty_james
Download Presentation

Creating learning and unlearning opportunities from Turnitin in the process of academic writing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Creating learning and unlearning opportunities from Turnitin in the process of academic writing Mary Davis Oxford Brookes University

  2. Rationale for this study • Exploit existing technology • Avoid “catch-and-punish” (Carroll 2005) • Use opportunity to learn academic conventions and unlearn old ones • Many studies (eg Barrett and Malcolm 2006) show student do not learn about plagiarism until it refers to their own work

  3. Developed by Dr John Barrie at the University of Berkeley, California in 1994. • Used by approximately 85 countries around the world. • Checks the originality of 40,000 student papers daily or 15 million annually. • Has a database of 8 billion web pages and over 10,000 periodicals. (iThenticate 2007) • Began in the UK in 2002. • 85% of UK universities now use it. (Joint Information Systems Committee’s Plagiarism Advisory Service 2007)

  4. Need for learning and unlearning • Current studies concur that plagiarism is growing enormously and there are more and more forms of it (Carroll and Appleton 2001, Hayes and Introna 2005). • Howard (2000) distinguishes 3 forms of plagiarism – 1. intent to cheat 2. not referencing because of not understanding conventions 3. “patch” writing • East (2002:3) says many international students “come from educational cultures where copying is an expected learning practice”. • Carroll and Appleton (2001) explain the task for international students as “setting aside previously successful strategies and learning new ones”.

  5. Setting • International students (80% East Asian) on Pre-Master’s diploma, IELTS 5.5-6.5 • Previous undergraduate experience in own countries • Extended Writing Project module with a mini-dissertation of 3,000 words • Process of first draft to final draft over 3-4 weeks, in 2006 and 2007

  6. Method • First drafts submitted by tutor to Turnitin • Originality reports generated with colour-coding <20 words=blue, 0-24% green, 25-49%=yellow, 50-74% orange, 75-100%= red • Tutorial feedback using report in open discussion about use of sources (without assessment, unlike Barrett and Malcolm 2006) • Final drafts submitted • Follow-up questionnaire and focus group • In-depth analysis of perceived improvements through using Turnitin in 4 key areas:

  7. Improvements Amount sources were used Accuracy and completeness of citation Appropriate paraphrasing Avoidance of plagiarism

  8. Amount sources were used • Overall similarity index – 59% ↓ • First draft <58%, final draft <30%, majority 10-20% • Most used source – 68% ↓ • First draft <31%, final draft <7% • “It helps a lot to avoid over-reliance… because it shows you the percentage, like this source is 5%, in colour”.

  9. Completeness and accuracy of citation • 53% in final draft had fewer incomplete or inaccurate citations • First draft <15, final draft <4 • “Sometimes we make a mistake and don’t use citation or not correctly… this way gives us a second chance” • “The software helped me to be more cautious about citation”

  10. Appropriate paraphrasing • 37% had less inappropriate paraphrasing in final draft • First draft <8, final draft <4 • “International students are not good at paraphrasing. So Turnitin is useful for students thinking about it.” • “It highlights some part of bad paraphrasing, then we can correct it”

  11. Avoidance of plagiarism • 91% ↓ incidence of plagiarism • First draft <32 sentences, final draft <4. • “The software shows your mistakes.. Then we can correct them. At the end, when we submit the final draft, we don’t want to fail.” • “I would like to use it again because sometimes we do plagiarism without noticing it.”

  12. Student A – First draft

  13. Student A – Final draft

  14. Student B – First draft

  15. Student B – Final draft

  16. Tutor guidance • https://submit.ac.uk/login_page.asp • “Does 25% mean my work is 25% plagiarism?” • “If I had my own access, I think I would spend a long time submitting again and again to get it right” • “I think it would be very helpful if students could use it. However, it may help students to do well-organized plagiarism.”

  17. Conclusions • Turnitin can be used as a tool in plagiarism education to help students learn about the amount to use sources, correct citation, appropriate paraphrasing and avoiding plagiarism. • It can help students unlearn previous conventions such as copying or reliance on other authors • It works effectively with tutor guidance

  18. Recommendations • Use Turnitin before assessment • Discuss use of sources openly • Tutor guidance is preferable • Scope for analysis of over-reliance on sources, citations, paraphrasing and avoidance of plagiarism • Further research including tutor evaluation of Turnitin

  19. Bibliography • Barrett, R. and Malcolm, J. (2006). Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment process. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2 (2), pp.38-45. • Carroll, J. (2005). “Deterring, detecting and dealing with plagiarism”, a brief paper for Brookes staff for Academic Integrity week, accessed 4/1/07 from http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/5_research/jude.htm • Carroll, J. and Appleton, J. (2001). ‘Plagiarism: A Good Practice Guide’, Oxford Brookes University Guide Series [on-line] Joint Information Systems Committee. Accessed on 10/1/2007 from http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/apppage.cgi?USERPAGE=6202 • East, J. (2005). Proper acknowledgement? Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 2 (3a) pp.1-11, accessed 14/9/2006 from http://jutlp.uow.edu.au/2005_v02_i03a/east005.html

  20. Bibliography • Hayes, N. and Introna, L.D. (2005). “Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: when plagiarism gets in the way of learning.” Ethics and Behaviour 15 (3) pp.213-231. • Howard, R.M. (2000). “Sexuality, textuality: the cultural work of plagiarism”. College English, Urbana. 62 (4) pp.473-491. • iThenticate (2007) accessed on 4/1/2007 from http://www.ithenticate.com/static/bios.html and http://www.ithenticate.com/static/features.html • JISC Plagiarism Advisory Service (2007) accessed on 4/1/2007 from http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/

More Related