1 / 25

Efficacy of Turnitin in Support of an Institutional Plagiarism Policy

Efficacy of Turnitin in Support of an Institutional Plagiarism Policy Institution-wide Research at Canterbury Christ Church University 2010/11 Simon Starr Learning Technologist. LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit. Outline. About our plagiarism policy A case for research Findings

brigit
Download Presentation

Efficacy of Turnitin in Support of an Institutional Plagiarism Policy

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. Efficacy of Turnitin in Support of an Institutional Plagiarism Policy Institution-wide Research atCanterbury Christ Church University 2010/11 Simon Starr Learning Technologist LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  2. Outline About our plagiarism policy A case for research Findings perceptions and values efficacy of Turnitin Conclusions and recommendations Questions & discussion LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  3. Our plagiarism policy

  4. Plagiarism Policy • Educate to avoidfirst, detect and punish second LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  5. About the research

  6. A case for research • Turnitin in Plagiarism Policy 2007/8; but no internal evaluation • Not much external institutional-level research: • lack of “investigation of the impact of these tools [such as Turnitin] on staff teaching practices” (Badge, 2009) • focus on individual programmes (Davis & Carroll, 2009; McCarthy & Rogerson, 2009; Wiggins, 2010; Flynn, 2010) • Research aims: across the institution: • gauge understanding and perceptions of policy • establish how Turnitin is used • assess impact of Turnitin; efficacy in support of the policy LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  7. Method • Method • Staff surveys and interviews • Student surveys and extended e-mail questionnaires • Turnitin submission stats • Learning technology team records • Interviews • Surveys LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  8. Limitations • Limitations: • low response rates(62 teaching staff=12%, 367 students=2%) • small interview samples (26 teaching staff=5%, 34 students=0.2%) • Correlating students with programmes(survey didn’t ask programme, only Faculty; interviews had multiple students per programmes, also joint hons) LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  9. Findings perceptions and values

  10. Findings – What do STAFF PERCEIVE? • Perceive Policy = education • Confuse policy with procedures for dealing with plagiarism. • Understanding through Turnitin advice and guidance? • staff • PerceiveTurnitin = detection • PerceiveTurnitin = education • Perceive Policy = standards and rigour LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  11. Findings – What do STAFF VALUE? • Valueeducation in Policy Perceive and value educational aspect of policy. Value Turnitin for both help educating students as well at cutting ‘leg work’ in detection • staff • ValueTurnitin for detection • ValueTurnitin for education • Valuestandards and rigour in Policy LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  12. Findings – What do STUDENTS PERCEIVE? • Perceive Policy = education • PerceiveTurnitin = detection • PerceiveTurnitin = education • students • educational approach perceived more: • - L4 • - after using Turnitin • Perceive Policy = standards and rigour LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  13. Findings – What do STUDENTS VALUE? • Valueeducation in Policy Two camps: Catch and punish cheats Help me with my work • ValueTurnitin for detection • ValueTurnitin for education • students • Valuestandards and rigour in Policy LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  14. Findings efficacy of Turnitin in support of the policy

  15. Findings – Range of Use and Satisfaction • More widely used than we thought • third of students representing 40+ programmes • used on a least one programme in most departments • High staff and student satisfaction • Non-users willing to adopt • Why so little negativity? • Perhaps because something foreveryone: • standards/detection • education/avoidance • Experience of Turnitin LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  16. Findings – Use of Turnitin • Policy’s minimum requirements for use of Turnitin being met • Turnitin appears to contribute to detection in significant minority of plagiarism cases • Find also significant ongoingeducational use … LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  17. Findings – Use of Turnitin • Planning for more … • Strategies for Using Turnitin • (as proportion of programmes analysed) • Note: % programmes approximated. Survey did not ask programme. Interviews include joint hons students. • survey: 54/166 see final OR for final submission; unclear on drafts • interviews: students on at least 7/18 programmes see final OR; submit drafts for at least 3/18 programmes • supported by staff interviews LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  18. Findings – Impact Clear impact on education to avoid plagiarism, also some on referencing and writing generally … • Perceptions of Impact of Turnitin • (note student based on interviews – small sample) LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  19. Findings – Impact Demand also for more ongoingeducationaluse from students (although level hard to gauge) • “It has been fine to use and pretty clear in its use. In our first year we were are able to send drafts for originalty [sic] reports, however I believe our second and third years we are not allowed. It would be nice to continue to be able to do so as it was useful learning aid and would continue to be so in the future.” • “It would be helpful if we actually got to see the reports that are run on our submitted work. Then it will actually be a learning experience as opposed to a hoop we have to jump through.” • “It will help me to learn more about the style of writing, how to reference properly and to avoid using too many quotations; so I believe it will improve my work.” Students want help interpreting originality reports. Concerns over ‘common language’. LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  20. Conclusions and Recommendations

  21. Conclusions • We conclude: • Policy and Turnitin about education as well as detection generally understood • but students lack awareness of educate-first • Turnitin effectivein supporting policy • demonstrable impact on educating to avoid • does aid detection, procedures for dealing with plagiarism • high staff/student satisfaction • demand for more ongoing educational use • Students want help interpreting originality reports • Note limitations: survey response rates/ interview sample sizes LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  22. Recommendations • We recommended: • policy reviewed with a view to extendinguse of Turnitin • awareness raising of educational potential of Turnitin • enhanced guidance on interpreting originality reports • Progress: • Revised plagiarism policy agreed in principle by Academic Board: • Turnitin for all coursework levels 4-7 • opportunity to self-check a draft every time • feedback/guidance on originality reports at early stages LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  23. References • Badge, J. (2009). ‘Dealing with plagiarism in the digital age’. Available at http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/Dealing-with-plagiarism-in-the-digital-age [Accessed: 16 May 2011] • Davis, M., Carroll, J. (2009) ‘Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a role for text-matching software?’ International Journal for Educational Integrity 5(2) pp 58–70. Available at http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/614 [Accessed: 16 May 2011] • Flynn, S. (2010) ‘Using Turnitin with large classes to support student writing’ Paper presented to the Fourth International Plagiarism Conference, Northumbria University. Available at: http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/conference/previous-plagiarism-conferences/4th-plagiarism-conference-2010 [Accessed: 16 May 2011] • McCarthy, G., Rogerson, A. (2009) ‘Links are not enough: Using originality reports to improve academic standards, compliance and learning outcomes among postgraduate students’ International Journal for Educational Integrity 5(2) pp 47–57. Available at http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/613 [Accessed: 16 May 2011] • Wiggins, C. (2010) ‘Turning Points: Building a framework for active student engagement and learning with Turnitin’ Paper presented to the Fourth International Plagiarism Conference, Northumbria University. Available at: http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/conference/previous-plagiarism-conferences/4th-plagiarism-conference-2010 [Accessed: 16 May 2011] LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

  24. Questions? Starr, S., Graham-Matheson, L. (2011) ‘Efficacy of Turnitin in Support of an Institutional Plagiarism Policy’ Available at: plagiarismadvice.org simon.starr@canterbury.ac.uk

  25. Questions for further research Q. What is the actual demand for ongoing educational use of Turnitin? Q. Does ongoing educational use have any more impact than the required initial formative experience by itself? Q. Why are numbers of plagiarism panels increasing if we think this research shows Turnitin helps reduce plagiarism? LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

More Related