1. LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit 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

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. LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit Our plagiarism policy

4. Plagiarism Policy Educate to avoid first, detect and punish second LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit Up Front Briefing Formative Experience Whole Group Submission Procedures for Dealing with Alleged Plagiarism Educational Use of Turnitin

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

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. LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit Findings perceptions and values

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

11. Findings – What do STAFF VALUE? LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit Value Turnitin for detection Value Turnitin 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

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

13. Findings – What do STUDENTS VALUE? LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit Value Turnitin for detection Value Turnitin for education Value standards and rigour in Policy Value education in Policy student s Two camps: 1.Catch and punish cheats 2.Help me with my work

14. LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit 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 for everyone: standards/detection education/avoidance LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit Experience of Turnitin

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 ongoing educational use … LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

17. Findings – Use of Turnitin LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit 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 …

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

19. Findings – Impact LTEU Learning 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 ongoing educational use from students (although level hard to gauge) Students want help interpreting originality reports. Concerns over ‘common language’.

20. LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit 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 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 LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

22. 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 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] http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/Dealing-with-plagiarism-in-the-digital-age 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]http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/614 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]http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/conference/previous-plagiarism- conferences/4th-plagiarism-conference-2010 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] http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/613 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] http://www.plagiarismadvice.org/conference/previous-plagiarism-conferences/4th- plagiarism-conference-2010 LTEU Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit

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

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