LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Efficacy of Turnitin in Support of an Institutional Plagiarism Policy

Institution-wide Research atCanterbury Christ Church University 2010/11

Simon StarrLearning Technologist

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Outline

About our plagiarism policyA case for researchFindings

perceptions and valuesefficacy of Turnitin

Conclusions and recommendationsQuestions & discussion

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Our plagiarism policy

Plagiarism Policy

Educate to avoid first, detect and punish second

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Up Front Briefing Formative Experience

Whole Group Submission Procedures for Dealing with Alleged

Plagiarism

Educational Use of Turnitin

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

About the research

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 policyLTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Method

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Students (n=367)

Teaching Staff (n=62)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Non-userUse Turnitin

Surveys

Students

(n=34)

Teaching St

aff (n=15)

Non-teach

ing Staff (n

=9)05

101520253035

Non-userUse Turnitin

Interviews

Method• Staff surveys and interviews• Student surveys and extended e-mail questionnaires• Turnitin submission stats• Learning technology team records

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)

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Findingsperceptions and values

Findings – What do STAFF PERCEIVE?

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

PerceiveTurnitin = detection

PerceiveTurnitin = education

Perceive Policy = standards and rigour

Perceive Policy = education

staff

Confuse policy with procedures for dealing with plagiarism.

Understanding through Turnitin advice and guidance?

Findings – What do STAFF VALUE?

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Value Turnitin for detection

ValueTurnitin for education

Value standards and rigour in Policy

Value education in Policy

staff

Perceive and value educational aspect of policy.

Value Turnitin for both help educating students as well at cutting ‘leg work’ in detection

Findings – What do STUDENTS PERCEIVE?

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

PerceiveTurnitin = detection

PerceiveTurnitin = education

Perceive Policy = standards and rigour

Perceive Policy = education

students

educational approach perceived more:

- L4- after using Turnitin

Findings – What do STUDENTS VALUE?

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Value Turnitin for detection

ValueTurnitin for education

Value standards and rigour in Policy

Value education in Policy

students

Two camps:1. Catch and punish

cheats2. Help me with my

work

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Findingsefficacy of Turnitin in support of the policy

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

departmentsHigh staff and student satisfactionNon-users willing to adopt

Why so little negativity?Perhaps because something for

everyone:• standards/detection• education/avoidance

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Positive/v. pos-itive

Indifferent Negative/v. negative

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

StaffStudents

Experience of Turnitin

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 ongoing educational use …

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Findings – Use of Turnitin

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

minimum: initial formative experienceongoing: view own original-ity reportsongoing: self-check a draft

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

Planning for more …

Findings – Impact

Clear impact on education to avoid plagiarism, also some on referencing and writing generally …

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

helped avoid plagiaris

ing

improve

d referencin

g

improve

d writi

ng generally0.00%

10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%

StudentsStaff

Perceptions of Impact of Turnitin(note student based on interviews – small sample)

Findings – Impact

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

“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.”

Demand also for more ongoingeducational use from students (although level hard to gauge)

Students want help interpreting originality reports.

Concerns over ‘common language’.

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

We conclude:• Policy and Turnitin about education as well as detection

generally understood• but students lack awareness of educate-first

• Turnitin effective in 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

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

Recommendations

We recommended:• policy reviewed with a view to extending use 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

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

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

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

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

Questions?

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?

LTEULearning and Teaching Enhancement Unit