ArticlePDF Available

Plagiarism: Shall we turn to Turnitin?


Abstract and Figures

This article explores the use of one of the most popular Plagiarism Detection Software (PDS), Turnitin, to address the problem of plagiarism in the academe, specifically in the context of a private university in the Philippines. To investigate the possible benefits and limitations of the PDS as well as the students' attitudes towards the software, this paper used the argumentative essays (checked via Turnitin) of 31 students in two introductory ESL writing classes along with their responses to two sets of self-reflection surveys. The results of the study reaffirmed certain laudable benefits claimed by Turnitin, while these also revealed a few limitations in the software's promise of detecting plagiarism, especially in the common instances of misuse of the PDS and blurred lines between the concepts of originality and plagiarism. The use of Turnitin was found to engender conflicting attitudes among the students towards avoiding this academic offense. Hence, this paper strongly recommends the careful guidance of stakeholders (teachers and students alike) in the proper use of the promising PDS as well as the re-evaluation of the plagiarism policy or approach of the institution in order to "educate-to-avoid" instead of promoting "detect-to-punish" measures (Starr & Graham-Matheson, 2011b, p. 5) in upholding academic integrity.
Content may be subject to copyright.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Plagiarism: Shall We Turn to Turnitin?
Edwina R. Bensal (, Edna S. Miraflores
( and Neslie Carol C. Tan (
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
This article explores the use of one of the most popular Plagiarism Detection Software
(PDS), Turnitin, to address the problem of plagiarism in the academe, specifically in the
context of a private university in the Philippines. To investigate the possible benefits and
limitations of the PDS as well as the students’ attitudes towards the software, this paper
used the argumentative essays (checked via Turnitin) of 31 students in two introductory
ESL writing classes along with their responses to two sets of self-reflection surveys. The
results of the study reaffirmed certain laudable benefits claimed by Turnitin, while these
also revealed a few limitations in the software’s promise of detecting plagiarism,
especially in the common instances of misuse of the PDS and blurred lines between the
concepts of originality and plagiarism. The use of Turnitin was found to engender
conflicting attitudes among the students towards avoiding this academic offense. Hence,
this paper strongly recommends the careful guidance of stakeholders (teachers and
students alike) in the proper use of the promising PDS as well as the re-evaluation of the
plagiarism policy or approach of the institution in order to “educate-to-avoid” instead of
promoting “detect-to-punish” measures (Starr & Graham-Matheson, 2011b, p. 5) in
upholding academic integrity.
Keywords: Turnitin, plagiarism, plagiarism detection software, originality, academic
Plagiarism is an act of accidental, reckless or deliberate imitation or use of somebody else's
work for one's benefits without proper acknowledgment of the original author (Kennedy,
2006; Logue, 2003; Moore, 2000). Because copying somebody's work may always be an
easier and a convenient option, plagiarism is becoming more rampant in almost all institutions
especially in the academe. Weber-Wulff (2008, cited in Vergano, 2011) firmly stated in his
study that "plagiarism is a social problem, we need better education on how to properly write
and research” (para. 3).
Having said this, it is true that the detection of plagiarism is one of the challenges teachers
face in a writing class. Prior to the innovations of Plagiarism Detection Software (PDS),
teachers tended to rely more on note cards (submitted or prepared by students), perform
manual cross-checking of students’ works side by side against references, depend on the their
familiarity of the students’ writing styles and/or execute internet search (via Google or other
search engines) to find the sources of suspected plagiarized passages. The process is
subjective, unsystematic, and also quite tedious. This problem is compounded in the context
of English writing course catering to ESL learners. These students’ linguistic competence
may exhibit near native ability. Thus, it makes the detection of plagiarism in their written
outputs more difficult for teachers.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Fortunately, the advent of technology has led to the development of software systems that
help teachers detect plagiarism (Weber-Wulff, 2010). These PDS are indeed welcome
innovation especially for the ESL writing course teachers who have long struggled with
detecting plagiarism in the students’ output. Smarty (2008) listed the top five online
plagiarism prevention software: Copyscape, Doc Cop, Plagiarism Detect, Reprint Writers’
Tool and Copyright spot. Aside from these software, there are about 49 online services that
are available for teachers to check their students' works (Vergano, 2011). With these
increasing number of PDS, there have been some scholars like Bull, Colins, Coughlin and
Sharp (2000), Carroll and Appleton (2001), and Chester (2001) who have studied the use of
these systems for teachers and students. Martin (2005) stated that these PDS have become
very useful tools in the academe to lessen instances of plagiarism.
What Is It?
Among these PDS, Turnitin claims to be “the leading academic plagiarism detector utilized
by teachers and students to avoid plagiarism and ensure academic integrity” (,
2011, para.1). To support this claim, Turnitin boasts of having ten thousand institutions in
126 countries and over a million teachers around the world who are actively using its software
(, 2011). Additionally, it has received much accolades from various studies:
Scaife (2007) presented in his study that Turnitin ranked first out of the eleven PDS that he
evaluated; Starr and Graham-Matheson (2011a, para. 10) claimed that Turnitin “includes an
excellent analysis of survey statistics”; also, Martin (2005) stated that Turnitin “performed
flawlessly and met all expectations” (p. 151). In fact, Turnitin is endorsed as “the global
leader in plagiarism prevention” designed mainly for instructors across all disciplines that
require written work (iParadigms LLC, 2013) as it offers three main tools: OriginalityCheck
which ascertains original work by comparing submitted works against the documents in the
vast repository of the PDS, GradeMark which enhances feedback through online grading with
the use of standard and customized marks, and PeerMark which allows greater student
engagement and collaboration via structured and anonymous peer evaluation process. But for
the purposes of this current study, the focus shall only be on the OriginalityCheck tool.
How Does It Work?
To use the Turnitin software, teachers will have to request for an individual account through
their university’s library or any other office designated to manage the Turnitin subscription.
After logging in to the main website,, the teachers are now ready to
create their own individual class accounts in their own instructor homepages. The class
accounts can then be created using the “Add Class” option featured in the instructor
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Figure 1. Instructor homepage
From the class homepage, the teachers can then create assignments using the “Add
Assignment” option.
Figure 2. Class homepage
In this section, the teachers enter an assignment title, (i.e., “Argumentative Paper”) and
indicate the start and due dates for the assignment. The teacher may also assign a description
for each assignment.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Figure 3. Update paper assignment page
It is in this section that one may adjust the settings for the Originality Report by clicking first
the Optional settings button. Then the adjustment options will appear that include the
following: excluding bibliographic materials or quoted materials or even small matches from
Similarity Index for all papers; allowing students to see Originality Reports; submitting
papers to varied storage locations (usually the standard paper repository); and choosing search
options (e.g., student paper repository, current and archived internet, and/or periodicals,
journals, & publications).
Figure 4. Assignment optional settings
After the assignment settings are fixed, the teachers can now proceed to the individual
uploading of student papers. This includes a simple 3-step process: first, fill-in the basic
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
details of the submission (e.g., submission method, author type, author name, and submission
title) as well as attaching the document.
Figure 5. Submit paper step 1: File upload page
Second, Turnitin will generate a preview of the paper for confirmation, then one may click the
submit button at the bottom part.
Figure 6. Submit paper step 2: Preview paper page
Lastly, the software will display the submitted paper title, author, and ID number, and present
two options: go to inbox or submit another paper.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Figure 7. Submit paper step 3: Successful submission page
All the successfully submitted papers will be listed in the inbox that features the names, titles,
similarity index, paper ID numbers, and date of submission.
Figure 8. Assignment inbox
The teachers can now review the students’ work individually by clicking on a particular
student’s work. The student’s paper can be viewed on the left side of the screen and the
matched sources are presented on the right side of the screen. Both document and list of
matched sources are color-coded, thus facilitating easy tracing of non-original works that are
similar to the files in the Turnitin database.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Figure 9. Document viewer with match overview
The Similarity Index rating is indicated in the box displayed at the upper right corner of the
document viewer. This rating is important because it shows how much of the student’s paper
content matches with the documents in the database of Turnitin. The matched items give the
teachers a clue which part of the paper may have been plagiarized. This feature therefore
eliminates the need to execute Internet search (i.e., Google) and manually cross-check
passages against generated references. However, high Similarity Index does not automatically
translate to a plagiarized paper. The exact sources that the document matched with must be
scrutinized for they may include the student’s own draft submitted prior to the final paper.
Additionally, to avoid making a sweeping judgment by outrightly saying the paper is
plagiarized due to its high similarity rating, teachers may use the Filters & Settings option to
screen and/or limit the bibliographic, quoted or small match sizes.
Figure 10. Document viewer with filters & settings options
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Technically, students may create their own Turnitin accounts to upload and check their own
papers. However, due to time constraints the researchers managed the entire process – from
creating the account to sending the generated Originality Report via email. To learn more
about the process, features and exact functions of this software, the readers may visit this
What Do Studies Say?
Even though some studies (e.g., Martin, 2005; Scaife, 2007; Starr & Graham-Matheson,
2011a) describedTurnitin as a “perfect” tool, other research investigations presented a more
realistic assessment of the PDS by acknowledging both its advantages and disadvantages
(Arnott, 2009; Chew & Price, 2010; Davis & Carroll, 2009; Koshy, 2009). They recognized
that saving time, deterring plagiarism, and promoting ethical writing are three of the many
advantages of Turnitin. Badge and Scott (2009), Jocoy and DiBiase (2006) and Williams
(2007) emphasized that by using Turnitin, teachers could save time cross-referencing their
students’ works with the cited and uncited parts of their papers. Students likewise became
more careful in writing citations and were discouraged to just simply copy-and-paste
information knowing that teachers use Turnitin.
However, some drawbacks of the use of Turnitin include the limited sources, distrust issue
and expensive cost. Teachers cannot solely rely on Turnitin because of the limited sources
that it has (Locke, 2002). Some parts of the students’ works may not be highlighted as
plagiarized because their sources may not have been digitalized yet. Noteworthily, Skinner
(2010) pointed out in his paper that tables, figures and images were not recognized by
Turnitin. Another disadvantage is that some students may be given an impression that
teachers do not trust them and that there was already a presumption that they would cheat or
copy some parts without proper citation (York University, 2012). Lastly, unlike other PDS
that are readily available online, Turntitin is quite an expensive software because its license
needs to be renewed annually. Hafner (2001) cited in her article that Turnitin can cost about
$2000 for colleges to avail its services.
Perhaps this may be one of the reasons why in the Philippines, there are only ten high schools
and five universities that have already availed of this PDS (, 2011). Among these
five universities is De La Salle University (DLSU), Manila. Despite the cost entailed in
subscribing to Turnitin, DLSU has been availing of this PDS since 2010. This subscription is
in line with the university’s thrust to promote academic honesty and integrity by providing
opportunities for teaching and learning proper citation.
In the pursuit to determine if Turnitin can be a useful tool in upholding academic integrity in
the written outputs of college students, this paper addressed the following research questions:
1. How does Turnitin address the persistent problem of plagiarism in an introductory
ESL writing class?
2. What are the possible limitations of Turnitin as a plagiarism detection software?
3. How does Turnitin affect students’ attitudes towards plagiarism and towards the
Turnitin software?
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
The study used both soft and hard copies of the students’ Argumentative Essay drafts. The
Argumentative Essay was chosen in particular since this essay requires gathering of sources
to support claims. The integration of sources usually poses a challenge on the students’
summarizing, paraphrasing, and documenting skills. The softcopy was for checking via
Turnitin software for possible plagiarized content and the hardcopy was for the professor’s
manual checking. Two self-reflection surveys filled out by the students were also used for the
The originality rating generated by the Turnitin software on the students’ draft, the revised
essay as well as responses from the two self-reflection surveys were the bases of the analysis
of the results for this study. The first self-reflection survey was given after the first drafts
were submitted, while the second self-reflection survey was distributed right after the
submission of the final paper.
The participants were 31 students from two English 1 (ENGLCOM – English
Communication) classes in DLSU. This course is a general education course that aims to
develop the academic reading and writing competencies of freshman students in the
university. Each class had an average of 20 students and had a mix of male and female
students from different colleges. However, 9 students were not able to comply with the
requirements (e.g., very late submission, incomplete forms, and other forms of non-
compliance), so their works were not included in this study.
The students were instructed to submit online their Argumentative essay drafts to be checked
via Turnitin software for possible plagiarized content. Simultaneously, they submitted a hard
copy of the same draft to their professor for checking. While waiting for the Originality
Report from Turnitin, the students accomplished the first self-reflection survey on the
difficulties they had encountered and the documentation strategies they had applied in writing
their drafts. The students were informed via email of the originality rating of their drafts as
generated by the Turnitin software. Likewise the professor returned the hardcopy drafts with
general comments, emphasizing the students’ use of quality sources (or lack thereof), and
their proper integration and documentation within the draft. The students then revised their
works and submitted them to their professor. After this, they answered the second self-
reflection by reflecting on their awareness of the plagiarism checker software as well as their
own plagiarism tendencies. They also assessed their revision strategies and evaluated the
general usefulness of the software in alerting them of plagiarism in their writing tasks.
Analysis Procedure
To answer the first question of whether Turnitin addresses the problem of plagiarism in an
introductory ESL writing class, the results from the originality rating generated by the
Turnitin software were compared with and analyzed vis-a-vis the professor’s general
comments on the students’ drafts. The students’ responses in their first self-reflection survey
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
(about the difficulties encountered and the documentation strategies used in writing their
drafts) then served as further qualitative reinforcements to the researchers’ analyses.
To answer the second and third questions about the possible limitations of Turnitin as a PDS
and how it affected the students’ attitudes towards plagiarism and the software, respectively,
the results from the Originality Report generated by the Turnitin software were analyzed and
data from the second self-reflection survey were noted. This was done to find out how the
students assessed the usefulness and effectiveness of Turnitin. The second reflection survey
also gave insights on how the students assessed their own writing and revision strategies after
receiving the Originality Report and teacher feedback. It also gave an assessment of the
software’s general usefulness in alerting students of plagiarism in their writing.
Addressing the Persistent Problem of Plagiarism in an Introductory English Writing
Subjecting the students’ argumentative essay draft for checking via Turnitin clearly gave the
students feedback about the content of their essay. The students were alerted on the sections
where they were not mindful about acknowledging the source of their information. This, in
turn, made the students more vigilant about acknowledging sources. These findings were
validated by some students’ comments:
S1: It will give discipline to students to not copy their work which would make
them competitive.
S2: It helps us practice academic honesty
S25: They get to correct their essays before they turn it [sic] in to their professors.
Likewise, this awareness compelled the students to revise their essays more thoroughly and
responsibly in order to reduce or eliminate plagiarism. This has similar feedback with Zeman,
Steen, and Zeman’s (2011) study. Some of the students’ comments that this study received
S7: It helps students improve and see their mistakes. It not only saves time, but it
can point out certain texts wherein there is plagiarism.
S13: It helps the students be more careful in documenting sources.
S22: They will be disciplined enough to do their work properly.
The students’ attempts at eliminating plagiarism were basically focused on the proper citation
of sources and the paraphrasing or summarizing of sources. Apparently, these for them, are
what constitute plagiarism. Thus, the students resorted to ways through which they could
avoid it.
S7: cited sources; paraphrased some texts; used in-text citations and direct quotes
while acknowledging the source
S13: cited as much sources as I could; formulated my own ideas and wordings
before looking for sources
S16: looked for more sources; used in-text citations
S17: outlined based on schema; looked for sources
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
S18: reread everything; recheck the source to see if I've forgotten to cite some
S24: teacher consultations; correct mistakes one by one
S29: I made sure I understood the texts; interpret them without using the same
words; cited the source
For the teachers, having the students’ drafts subjected to Turnitin checking facilitated the
detection of possible plagiarized sections in the students’ drafts. Likewise, Turnitin also
validated teacher’s feedback by enabling the students to trace original source documents. This
process helped the students view the teacher’s feedback about their essay as probably more
objective, thus validating the following teacher’s (T) comments:
T to S1: He did not follow APA format in his reference list and in-text citation;
the sources he has in his in-text citation are not in his reference list; he
mentioned facts/ideas/claims without citation.
T to S2: Almost 100% of his work is QUOTED.
T to S4: Spelling of the authors’ names and years do not tally; he mentioned
facts/ideas/claims without citation;
T to S5: He did not provide a reference list; he only cited two sources in his
essay; three paragraphs should be cited or else credibility of the
discussion is questionable.
T to S10: He did not follow APA format in his reference list; the sources he has
in his in-text citation are entirely different from his reference list.
Through the preliminary use of Turnitin in an introductory ESL writing class, the students
became more aware of the value of proper acknowledgment and citation. Additionally,
students could easily identify which parts of the essay should be revised. Meanwhile, the
teacher was made aware of problem areas that need to be addressed in a writing class so that
the students could be helped in their efforts to avoid plagiarism.
Possible Limitations as a PDS
Despite all the commendable efforts of this software in addressing plagiarism in an
introductory ESL writing class, it also poses a number of limitations. The first weakness
noted is the inability of the software to check citation formats (e.g., APA, MLA, IEEE, and
other citation styles). The second weakness is its inability to challenge students to provide
sources for ideas or claims that need proof to be considered credible. Turnitin basically just
finds passages that match the files in their database. When comparing the software feedback
and the teacher’s feedback of the argumentative essay drafts as in the case of S23 (see
Figures 11 and 12 below) one may easily identify comments from the teacher that were not
asked or questioned by the software.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Figure 11. Sample Turnitin feedback Figure 12. Sample teacher feedback
The Turnitin Originality Report on the left side merely highlighted one passage that is similar
to one of the documents in its repository. Meanwhile, the teacher’s comments on the right
side challenged the inaccurate and inconsistent documentation (parenthetical citations) of the
student as well as prompted proper citations for claims that were not merely “stock
knowledge” material. This latter limitation thus reaffirms the idea that the software is just a
tool (Wright, Owens, & Nigel, 2008), but the teacher is still very much at the helm of the
writing class since the former is not programmed to “think” in as sophisticated a manner as a
real writing teacher. Hence, the teacher must still carefully screen and evaluate the drafts
guided by the alerts raised by the software. Even students recognize the need for teachers to
monitor the results generated by Turnitin. One student (S28) remarked: “The teacher should
also read it personally so that it wouldn’t be unfair for the student who worked hard on it.”
This reminder is also emphasized in the James, McInnis, and Devlin (2002) survey on the
effectiveness of the various popular PDS used in various universities.
A third limitation of the software is technically not its own weakness per se, but the lack of
proper training of its users. There have been criticisms on the “flawed” detection of
plagiarism (mostly overdoing it) by Turnitin that were confirmed in the initial phases of this
study. James et al. (2002), in their evaluation of various PDS, warn to users carefully check
the report generated in Turnitin since “the software detects correctly-cited material as well as
plagiarised material” (p. 3). This observation was echoed by a number of students in this
study. One student evaluated the software thus:
S4: It's useful for both students and teachers. But it's not all that effective
sometimes because it flagged my direct quotations as plagiarized material
and sometimes it's better to proofread the work to effectively know if it's
Another study by Koshy (2009) likewise revealed common cases of miscommunication in the
implementation of Turnitin by students of a Western University in the Middle East. A number
of negative comments from students were received claiming that the matched texts reported
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
by the software were their own or that the generated websites and other sources were not even
familiar to the students. These are familiar comments that also appeared in the surveys given
to the respondents in this study.
However, it must be realized that these complaints are only some examples of probable
misuse of Turnitinnot necessarily the limitations of the software itself. The misuse of this
software has also plagued the initial phases of this research, whereby the teacher-researchers
overlooked certain options available in the software upon checking the student drafts. A
number of entries resulted in questionably high text matching rates (implying very low level
of originality).
Conversely, upon proper exploration and application of the Filter & Settings option offered
by the software (filtering out quoted, bibliographic, and small match sizes), the researchers
were able to discover the more accurate ratings: the drafts with 99% or 98% Similarity Index
ratings went down significantly to more realistic and reasonable 5% or even lower similarity
ratings. These filter options could have likewise been explored by previous studies that had
raised these seeming “glitches” in the Turnitin software.
These cases highlight the need for thorough teacher (and even student) orientation and
training to properly maximize the benefits that this software can offer. Otherwise, it may only
cause anxiety and even confusion among the students, as manifested in one strongly-worded
evaluation of the software:
S21: It was not helpful at all. I was dismayed with the result of the software. How
come all of my words was [sic] highlighted. It was impossible. I even add
some of my experiences before and it was still plagiarized.
Also, these cases and complaints may have only arisen because of the students’ confusion
about the concepts of originality and plagiarism – the fourth limitation of Turnitin realized in
this study. In his 2009 study on the miscommunications as obstacles to the effective
implementation of Turnitin in a Western University in the Middle East, Koshy already
exposed the wrong notion of the students: they equated text matching as the same as
plagiarism. With this misconception, students’ efforts turned towards measures of preventing
text matching through tricky and flawed means such as literal paraphrasing and poor
summarizing, instead of concentrating on the real message they are trying to convey while
maintaining true academic honesty and integrity.
This same confusion appeared in the comments of the students included in this study. Upon
receiving a high percentage in the Similarity Index of the Originality Report, one student
(S20) wrote: “I really had no intention of plagiarizing; I got low percentage of plagiarism.” In
this case, it is quite clear that in the student’s mind, Similarity Index or text matching is the
same as plagiarism.
In line with this limitation, Arnott (2009) also had the same misconception as he enumerated
the advantages and disadvantages of Turnitin in his online article. Moreover, some teachers
who already used Turnitin posted on the the same sentiment or notion. One of
them wrote that “it red flags anything that’s directly quoted even those passages that are
corrected [sic] cited” (Mrerick, 2008, Msg 2).
However, it must be realized that in the Training page (both for the students as well as the
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
instructors) of (iParadigms LLC, 2012), it is clearly explained how the
Originality Report and Similarity Index work:
The Originality Report icon shows a percentage and a corresponding color indicating
on an index where this percentage falls in terms of matching content. This percentage
is the Similarity Index. The higher the percentage, the greater the amount of text in
the submission that came up as matching against information in Turnitin’s
repositories. The percentage range runs from 0% to 100%. The percentage is
generated by the amount of similar or matching text compared to the number of
words in the submission in total. (para. 2)
It further cautioned:
These indices in no way reflect Turnitin’s assessment of whether a paper contains
plagiarized material or improperly used material. The Originality Report provides
instructors with a tool to more easily locate matching or similar text within the text of
a submitted work. The determination and adjudication of proper citation and
plagiarism are left solely to the instructor and institution to which the work was
submitted. Any questions regarding the definition of plagiarism used at your
institution should be directed to the instructor of the class or an appropriate
institutional staff member. (para. 3)
This warning specifically delineates the ideas of similarity or originality versus plagiarism.
These are not to be treated interchangeably, and careful scrutiny and guidance from the
instructor are advised.
Unfortunately, armed with the wrong perception of how the Originality Report works, most of
the students in this study, like those in Koshy’s (2009) study, scrambled to avoid producing
texts similar to any text from the database as much as possible. Their revision efforts (and
their reflections about it) born out of this misguided notion of plagiarism were thus the
S2: I no longer saw block quotations in my paper and also only a few words are
only quoted directly.
S3: I don’t know if the summarized version I did still has the same idea as how it
was supposed to be.
S14: I have paraphrased many times; one thing I am worried about is maybe there
are also some others who has [sic] the same thought as I have.
S26: I'm not completely sure if I should still paraphrase the parts that involves [sic]
It may be noticed in the above students’ comments that their efforts were geared towards
avoiding any form of similarity with source texts to the point of doubting whether their
resulting summarized version still presented the idea they were supposed to present.
There was one student who took the initiative to clarify the blurring concepts of plagiarism
and the similarity index presented by the Originality Report:
S21: As I searched in the internet about the similarity index, it doesn't determine
plagiarize and this got me at ease.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
It is fortunate for this lone student that he was enlightened with regard to the distinction of the
said concepts, but generally, this confusion on the concepts of plagiarism and originality
affected students’ attitudes toward plagiarism as well as the software itself.
Affecting Students’ Attitudes towards Plagiarism and the Software
Having the student drafts checked by Turnitin may have engendered conflicting perceptions
and attitudes with regard to plagiarism and the software itself. On the one hand, the majority
of the students have shared their appreciation for the software, positing that it helped promote
discipline and a sense of professionalism. Some of their favorable qualitative assessments of
the software are as follows:
S1: It will give discipline to students to not copy their work which would make
them competitive.
S2: It helps us practice academic honesty.
S3: It helps them know if they have the same idea with another person, so that
he/she can cite that source.
S9: It would act as failsafe software to warn them of accidental plagiarism.
S15: They can avoid unintentional plagiarism or citing errors.
S19: Students will have a better understanding of what plagiarism is.
S27: Students can benefit by checking their papers before submitting it. Not only
will they be confident of their work, [but] they will also learn how to write
Clearly, these statements show confidence in the software as well as honest appreciation for
the benefits it was able to offer them as students and writers.
On the other hand, some students seemed to have grown more confused with regard to the
concept of plagiarism. This confusion is manifested in their lack of confidence in their
revision efforts. Despite their enumerated strategies (e.g. researching for more sources,
paraphrasing and/or summarizing further, and correcting citation formats), quite a number of
students still expressed anxiety over their final output:
S27: I am never confident with my work; there might be paragraphs which [sic] I
think I have properly paraphrased, yet are still considered plagiarized, just
like when I first submitted my draft.
Some students even grew a little skeptical about the usefulness of the software:
S13: I do not find these softwares [sic] 100% reliable. In my case, some of my
wordings were similar to other writers; however, this does not mean I have
copied ideas from other writers.
S23: It depends but maybe not to argumentative essays because there are a lot of
technical terms in such essays because sources come from organizations and
experts. Changing their statement sometimes destroy it even more.
Others also may have grown wary of the software as shown in how a student questioned the
concept of originality:
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
S23: To say that my paper exhibits originality sounds kinda [sic] odd to
me because ideas move around and about, nobody knows where it
originally came from.
Herein lies perhaps the most problematic aspect of the Turnitin software – it claims to detect
plagiarism, but it does so by rating the originality of a paper (or the rate by which one’s paper
is similar to another existing work in the vast database of Turnitin). It therefore raised some
confusion among the students if the concepts of originality and plagiarism are the same. This
confusion may have led to misguided revision efforts explained earlier: focusing on the
techniques of rephrasing to evade high percentages of Similarity Index ratings more than
trying to explain the real concepts in their paper guided by a real sense of academic integrity.
Again, the importance of proper execution and thorough explanation of the use and the role of
Turnitin software in the writing process cannot be overemphasized. Otherwise, there is a risk
that teachers may “introduce a culture of conflict and generate complaints” (Frazer, Allan, &
Roberts, 2004, p. 7). Students may develop a sense of fear of and anxiety over plagiarism
without understanding what it really means. Turnitin, instead of becoming part of an effective
educate-to-avoid” approach to promote academic honesty, may be construed as a fearsome
“detect-and-punish” approach to plagiarism. These two approaches were distinguished by
Starr and Graham-Matheson (2011b, p. 5) in their evaluation of this PDS in Canterbury Christ
Church University. This perceived policing role of Turnitin was made more obvious in the
students’ responses on how they thought the PDS benefited the teachers:
S3: Teachers will know if the student just copy pasted their work.
S11: It helps them catch students blatantly copying others' work.
S25: They get to identify who are the intellectual thieves.
S29: Teacher will instantly find out plagiarized work.
S30: Teachers can easily detect if a student committed plagiarism and it will make
their jobs easier.
Another misconception noted by the researchers was some students’ idea that teachers use the
software to evade work:
S8: It saves the teacher the trouble of checking the papers of the students, so it
also saves the teacher more time for other matters.
S10: To make their work easy and to help them check the paper of his/her students
S19: The teacher no longer need [sic] to give a lot of effort in checking papers.
This misconception creates the illusion of lazy teachers using the software to avoid having to
check papers, whereas the reality is that having the papers coursed through the software is
actually an extra (albeit proactive) work/step in the list of the teacher’s tasks in checking
student papers.
With all these conflicting student perceptions on the use of Turnitin, a student carefully
concludes the value of the Turnitin software:
S28: It can validate the originality of a student's work, but it is not good to
rely on it completely [emphasis added].
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
The general attitude towards Turnitin is conflicted: it is a good tool to alert teachers and
students to any form of plagiarism (by investigating the highlighted similarities with other
texts), but it may be deemed to have been a bit overzealous in its “policing” efforts.
Therefore, it has inadvertently promoted a wary attitude towards plagiarism among the
students as manifested in their revision efforts and survey responses.
Overall, using Turnitin was a good strategy since it promoted vigilance among the students
and facilitated the checking/detection process, but at the same time, the confusion it generated
may have been a drawback. Perhaps a clearer explanation is needed to clarify what the
Originality Report ratings meant and implied about their writings, and a coherent synthesis
discussion after the whole writing process could also benefit the students.
As suggested by previous studies (James et al., 2002; Koshy, 2009; McAvinia, 2006),
plagiarism detection software, such as Turnitin, serve to help minimize instances of
plagiarism and inculcate a sense of vigilance among students and teachers alike in upholding
academic integrity. This belief is confirmed in this study whereby benefits like increased
awareness on plagiarism and originality as well as greater care in integrating various
researched material were realized by the students. Further, this software facilitated the
previously tedious process of detecting plagiarism in ESL writing classes. The Originality
Reports also serve to support the cautionary comments of the teachers in student drafts,
thereby strengthening the teacher’s credibility.
Based on the results of this study, however, it cannot claim that plagiarism was totally
eliminated. Understandably, ENGLCOM is an introductory ESL class whereby the students
are just being oriented on the rudiments of academic writing. Although the university
considers plagiarism as a major offense, the teachers of this course exercise maximum
tolerance in dealing with plagiarism. The students are not meted out with an automatic failure
in the course or any disciplinary actions. Instead the students are given ample feedback,
warning, and chances for revision of their problematic output.
Turnitin is obviously not yet perfect software because of the limitations that were mentioned
earlier in this paper. First, it is unable to detect improperly cited text and to countercheck
sources mentioned in the in-text citation with the reference list. Second, it also cannot
highlight pieces of information that need citations. Third, its complex program/system often
lends itself to some forms of misuse from its users. And lastly, its very nature of “detecting
plagiarism” by reporting the level of similarity of a text with its vast database often creates
some form of confusion on concepts of similarity/originality versus plagiarism. This
confusion often leads students to resort to misguided tactics in evading high percentages in
the similarity index, instead of paying greater concern over clarity in writing while
maintaining academic honesty. These limitations should not be neglected because Turnitin
has all the potentials to perfectly aid the teachers to tap the confidence and competence of
every student writer in the ESL writing class.
Therefore, special attention must be paid in monitoring such software. There are a few caveats
that may serve as recommendations for the proper use of Turnitin. First, Turnitin merely
presents the percentage of similarity of a document to other existing works in its repertoire.
Hence, “manual checking and human judgment are still needed” (James et al., 2002, p. 1) and
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
teachers are “to support writing, and offer formative feedback, rather than focusing purely on
plagiarism detection” (Flynn, 2010, p. 23). This distinction must be clear to users of the PDS.
As Starr and Graham-Matheson’s review (2011b) has recommended and this study now
reaffirms, there must be proper training of teachers and concerned staff in analyzing and
interpreting Turnitin Originality Reports in order to more competently guide students in their
writing process, specifically in terms of avoiding plagiarism. Aside from this formal training,
academics must also take the initiative to carefully read the provisions and guidelines
presented and clearly explained in the Turnitin website to avoid misuse of the software (e.g.
overlooking certain filter options and other settings) (Koshy, 2009). Furthermore, teachers’
computer literacy and “technological competence” should be considered because “good
software is not linear in nature… users need to… explore it in some depth” (Burston, 2003,
p.35). As Ramanair and Sagat (2007) put it, it is important to consider teachers’ positive
attitude and upgraded knowledge in technology to better facilitate innovations.
These measures are important in avoiding “a culture of conflict” as Frazer et al. (2004)
cautioned before. This warning leads now to the second point of consideration: the plagiarism
policy or approach of the institution. As previously raised by Koshy (2009) and Starr and
Graham-Matheson (2011b), this study likewise encourages the review of an institution’s
plagiarism policy in order to correctly situate the use of Turnitin. Ideally, this PDS (and other
PDS for that matter) must be used to educate-to-avoid plagiarism, and not to strive for detect-
and-punish tactic which does not serve to promote a healthy learning environment nor a
positive outlook and attitude towards developing academic honesty and integrity. The policy
of the institution may then inform the proper training of its teachers and other concerned
academic staff. With the collaborative effort of all the stakeholders, Turnitin can be packaged
and marketed as a positive educational tool. As an extension, it also offers teachers a good
opportunity to expose themselves to a computer application software that could compel them
to “improve their personal level of computer literacy and competency and gain online
experience contextually relevant to their teaching situations” (Son, Robb, & Charismiadji,
2011, p. 34).
The third recommendation is closely tied to the first two points presented. This study firmly
agrees with McAvinia’s (2006) proposal to adopt an “inclusive approach” (p. 3) in the use of
Turnitin whereby students are part of the whole process of orientation and application of the
software and they are allowed opportunities to check their works whether or not it is used or
required by their subject professors. This recommendation may be a good measure in
addressing student misconception and anxiety over the use of PDS such as Turnitin as it
democratizes the use of the software and opens it for student exploration and learning process.
In this manner, it may likewise complement the educate-to-avoid policy on plagiarism,
especially in introductory ESL writing classes where students are just in the initial stages of
learning the conventions of academic research writing as well as just developing a true sense
of academic integrity. By adopting this inclusive approach, students may perceive Turnitin
less of a threat to their writing process and more of a useful research writing aide.
The fourth recommendation is concerned with the research methodology. This study did not
perform a quantitative comparative analysis of draft versus final essays. Rather this study
conducted a descriptive analysis on how the software addressed the problem of plagiarism in
the writing process, its limitations, and the students’ attitudes towards plagiarism. Future
studies may perform a quantitative analysis comparing draft against final outputs for more
concrete measures of plagiarism.
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
As can be noted in the list of recommendations, this study recognizes the merits and the limits
of Turnitin. If all stakeholders are properly trained, the works are correctly assessed and the
whole process is appropriately implemented, this PDS could be a potent part of the cyber
educational change (Johnson, 1999). It allows everyone (teachers, academic staff, and even
students) a deeper understanding of the nature of an online learning environment in relation to
responsible writing practices. Ultimately, Turnitin can and should be used to promote real
academic integrity.
Arnott, L. (2009, May 19). The advantages and disadvantages of [Web log
comment]. Retrieved from
Badge, J., & Scott, J. (2009). Dealing with plagiarism in the digital age. Literature Review:
Independently Published Studies on Turnitin Services. Retrieved from
Bull, J., Colins, C., Coughlin, E., & Sharp, D. (2000). Technical review of plagiarism
detection software report. Retrieved from
Burston, J. (2003, September). Software selection: A primer on sources and evaluation.
CALICO Journal, 21(1), 29-40.
Carroll, J., & Appleton, J. (2001). Plagiarism: A good practice guide. UK: JISC. Retrieved
Chester, G. (2001). Pilot of free-text plagiarism detection software: A report prepared for the
joint information systems committee. Retrieved from
Chew, E., & Price, T. (2010, June). Turn it in or turn it off? A pilot project for Turnitin and
grademark experience. Paper presented at the Fourth International Plagiarism
Conference: Towards an Authentic Future, Northumbria University, City Campus
East. Retrieved from
Davis, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Formative feedback within plagiarism education: Is there a
role for text-matching software? International Journal for Education Integrity, 5(2),
Flynn, S. (2010, June). Using Turnitin with large classes to support student writing. Paper
presented at the Fourth International Plagiarism Conference: Towards an Authentic
Future, Northumbria University, City Campus East. Retrieved from
Frazer, J., Allan, G., & Roberts, R. (2004). Implementing turnitin/originality verification
software at RMIT University in the context of academic integrity. Retrieved from
Hafner, K. (2001, June 28). Lessons in the school of cut and paste. The New York Times. G1.
Retrieved from
iParadigms LLC. (2012). Instructor training: About originality check. Retrieved from
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
iParadigms LLC. (2013). Product FAQs. Retrieved from
James, R., McInnis, C., & Devlin, M. (2002). Plagiarism detection software: How effective is
it?. Assessing Learning in Australian Universities. Retrieved from
Jocoy, C.L., & DiBiase, D. (2006). Plagiarism by adult learners online: A case study in
detection and remediation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 7(1). Retrieved from
Johnson, M. (1999, September). CALL and teacher education: Issues in course design. CALL-
EJ Online, 1(2). Retrieved from
Kennedy, R. (2006). Digital plagiarism: The role of society and technology. Orange: A
Student Journal of Technical Communication, 5(1). Retrieved from
Koshy, S. (2009, June). A case of miscommunication? Obstacles to the effective
implementation of a plagiarism detection system in a multicultural university.
Working Paper Series. University of Wollongong in Dubai (UOWD). Retrieved from
Locke, C.S. (Ed.). (2002, February). Faculty use service to thwart plagiarism.
Academic Integrity Matters, 8(1). Retrieved from
Logue, R. (2003). Plagiarism: The internet makes it easy. Nursing Standard, 18(5), 40-43.
Martin, D. F. (2005, February). Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism.
Journal of Education for Business, 80(3), 149-152.
McAvinia, C. (2006, October). Turnitin plagiarism prevention software: Pilot evaluation
report summary. Quality Promotion Office. Nui Maynooth. Retrieved from
Moore, P. (2000). What is plagiarism? Retrieved from http://supply-
Mrerick. (2008, January 4). Plagiarism. Experiences with Turnitin [Msg 2]. Message posted
Ramanair, J., & Sagat, G. (2007, January). Multimedia technology: Teachers’ knowledge and
attitudes. CALL-EJ Online, 8(2). Retrieved
Scaife, B. (2007). IT consultancy plagiarism detection software report for JISC advisory
service. Retrieved from
Skinner, J. (2010, June). A retrospective analysis of the use of “Turnitin” on coursework
archives in a UK medical school. Paper presented at the Fourth International
Plagiarism Conference: Towards an Authentic Future, Northumbria University, City
Campus East. Retrieved from
Smarty, A. (2008, October 27). Top online plagiarism checkers – protect your content. Search
Engine Journal. Retrieved from
Son, J.-B., Robb, T., & Charismiadji, I. (2011). Computer literacy and competency: A survey
of Indonesian teachers of English as a foreign language. CALL-EJ, 12(1), 26-42.
Retrieved from
Starr, S., & Graham-Matheson, L. (2011a). Efficacy of Turnitin in support of an institutional
plagiarism policy. Retrieved
CALL-EJ, 14(2), 2-22
Starr, S., & Graham-Matheson, L. (2011b). Turnitin evaluation 2010-11: Final report for LTC
Trinity 2010/11. Retrieved from
FinalReport.pdf (2011, June). Turnitin. [Powerpoint slides]. De La Salle University, Manila.
Turnitin Seminar.
Vergano, D. (2011, January 8). Plagiarism-detection software earns middling grades. USA
Today. Retrieved from
Williams, M. (2007). Turnitin implementation trial. White Paper the Effectiveness of Turnitin.
Retrieved from
Weber-Wulff, D. (2010, June). Test cases for plagiarism detection software. Paper presented
at Fourth International Plagiarism Conference: Towards an Authentic Future,
Northumbria University, City Campus East. Retrieved from
Wright, D., Owens, A., & Nigel, D. (2008, June). Making the case for multiple submissions to
Turnitin. Paper presented at the Third International Plagiarism Conference,
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England. Retrieved from
York University. (2012, September 7). Concerns expressed about the use of Turnitin.
Retrieved from
Zeman, L.D., Steen, J. A., & Zeman, N. M. (2011). Originality detection software in a
graduate policy course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31(4), 431-441.
... Also, Bentley (2016) provided a card game to help reduce students' plagiarism anxiety, and he emphasized that "examiner reviews the report and makes decisions [and] not the software" (slide 16). To assist both the teachers' and students' needs, Bensal et al. (2013) wrote one of the comprehensive studies on the use of Turnitin in checking students' essays and emphasized the importance of "careful guidance of stakeholders (teachers and students alike)" (p. 2), since Plagiarism Detection Software (PDS) like Turnitin can terrify the learners (Khoza, 2015). Trudo (2015) wrote a series of blog posts on plagiarism ...
Late submission, sloppy works, and plagiarized papers are the common hurdles encountered by most English writing teachers. However, there seem to be limited studies addressing these three problems. Therefore, this study utilizes the positive reinforcements by Sharot’s (2011) Optimism Bias (OB), and negative reinforcement through Enactive Learning (EL) (Bandura, 1986, as cited in Feist et al., 2018). Following that, the researchers explore the effects of these reinforcements to the 213 Filipino college students’ academic writing proficiency, their perceptions on these approaches, and the best approach to use in teaching academic writing. This study used analysis of variance (ANOVA) in testing the significant difference among the reinforcements applied such as OB, EL, and combined OB/EL on students’ academic writing proficiency. Specifically, the Tukey Post-Hoc Test presents that there is significant difference between EL and combined OB/EL, OB and EL, but not between OB and combined OB/EL. Moreover, the descriptive statistics reveal that the different reinforcements are manifested and motivating based on students’ perceptions. The results show that the combined OB and EL reinforcements best helped students’ performance and behavior in their academic writing class. Thereby, this paper introduces the potential impact of the Diametric Motivational Approach to college students’ academic writing proficiency.
... It is true that the detection of plagiarism is one of the challenges teachers face. Prior to the innovations of Plagiarism Detection Software (PDS), teachers tended to rely more on note cards (submitted or prepared by students), perform manual cross-checking of students' works side by side against references, depend on the their familiarity of the students' writing styles and/or execute internet search (via Google or other search engines) to find the sources of suspected plagiarized passages (Bensal and Miraflores, 2013). The process is subjective, unmethodical, and monotonous. ...
Full-text available
Most common plagiarism detection software packages currently available operate via an external analysis, by establishing a comparison between the suspect text(s) and the known originals, in order to determine the degree of similarity between the texts. This procedure, which is used by most detection systems including Turnitin works by scanning the texts and applying computational string-matching techniques. Scholars have worked extensively on the assessment of Turnitin by acknowledging both its merits and demerits but only a few approached it from a linguistic perspective. Therefore, this study evaluated the linguistic aspects covered by Turnitin. This study is premised on Hasan’s Codal variation theory. The target population for this study is the Master of Art students of the Department of English, University of Ibadan. The participants include 5 students who took Stylistics and 20 students who took African Prose Fiction, as the courses aim to develop advanced competence in academic writing in students. The two courses were chosen to represent both the Language and Literature specializations in the Department. Five Stylistics individual assignment soft copies were retrieved from students who took the course and five group assignment soft copies from students who took African Prose Fiction. The essays sent by the participants were checked via Turnitin software for possible plagiarized content. The originality rating generated by the Turnitin software on the students’ assignments is the basis for the analysis in this study. It has become evident, from the research data, that despite all the commendable efforts of Turnitin software in addressing plagiarism, it also poses a number of limitations. The first weakness noted is the inability of the software to check citation formats (e.g., APA, MLA, IEEE, and other citation styles). The second weakness is its inability to challenge students to provide sources for ideas or claims that need proof to be considered credible. Turnitin is only able to identify language in the form of sequential words or strings that match against its database through its use of algorithms, however plagiarism in the sense of the use of another’s ideas without citation, is not measured or evaluated. The software is also found inaccurate because of unreliable filter function and missing filters. There are popular ways of cheating Turnitin, though, it has grown smarter in 2019 and it analyses the content of the sentence. Using synonyms remains the main way of tricking Turnitin. A student has to substitute words of the original text with more or less intensive synonyms. A student has to be a really good writer to keep the original meaning of the text. Also, Turnitin employs algorithms that don’t detect paraphrasing when it is done professionally. Plagiarism-detection tools have the potential to streamline the process, but they will not serve as foolproof substitutes for human intervention and interpretation. It is recommended that academics review Turnitin reports to determine if plagiarism has actually occurred, because Turnitin does not differentiate between correctly cited references and unacknowledged copying. Keywords: Plagiarism Detection; Turnitin; False positives; Matching strings; Linguistic evaluation. Word count: 472
... However, allowing the use of either could severely distort the authenticity of the students" language in the DT essay. Besides, Chinese students tend to have frequent problems with plagiarism (James et al., 2019) and the capability of detection service such as Turnitin to identify it remains somewhat limited (Bensal et al., 2013), Hence, I ensured that students would not use electronic devices so as to avoid them copying text produced by native speakers or using automated translations of their own ideas (originally conceived in Chinese). The DT took place in a controlled environment allowing only limited access to excerpts from authentic materials as a substitute for an online search for academic source texts and the use of paper dictionaries as opposed to digital software. ...
Full-text available
This article documents the academic writing course design process for advanced Chinese learners aiming to pursue postgraduate degrees in business-related fields at their respective target universities in the UK. Four holders of BA degrees in the social sciences from second tier universities in Beijing were tested, surveyed and observed in detail to design a non-terminal twenty-hour pre-sessional writing course (ten two-hour sessions) to assist in their preparation for postgraduate study. All students held offers from Russell Group universities in the UK and had covered the IELTS requirement (6.5-7.0) for admission there prior to signing up for the EAP course discussed in this paper. The aim of the course is to enhance the students' academic skills and improve their performance in the following year when they attend UK universities. The course design process is informed by two sets of principles, incorporating both a top-down and a bottom-up perspective. The former is framed within an understanding of EAP as academic, rather than language training. The latter is based on needs analysis of student-specific weaknesses explored through the use of a questionnaire, a diagnostic writing test and in-class observations. Both perspectives feed into the course goals and objectives which serve as a basis for the course rationale. Aiming to bridge the gap between Chinese undergraduate and UK postgraduate study, the course combines textbooks with authentic materials and formative with summative assessment. Reflections on major constraints and limitations are provided throughout the process. This documented case of academic writing course design aims to reveal challenges faced by EAP practitioners working with UK and Chinese institutions, and to present a middle ground approach to resolving tensions between top-down and bottom-up pressures in the context of course design for advanced Chinese graduates.
... In the academe, it is highly challenging to identify whether a person has committed plagiarism without using a plagiarism detector. Because of this problem, various software and website developers have created plagiarism detectors that evaluate whether a person has plagiarized from various sources (Bensal, Miraflores, & Tan, 2013). One of these plagiarism detectors is the Grammarly. ...
Full-text available
Plagiarism is an academic crime of pilfering the ideas of others without appropriate credit. This study aims to identify the dominant type of plagiarism and determine the percentage of plagiarism committed by the CMU undergraduate students using Grammarly, find the reasons why students plagiarize, and examine the effects of the Plagiarism Intervention Program. The study employed content analysis, interview, and focus group discussion to substantiate the results. The analysis of the 328 samples shows that copying without citation is the dominant type of plagiarism, followed by unintentional plagiarism, patchwork plagiarism, and copying with citation. Furthermore, the overall mean percentage of plagiarism is 8.28%. Moreover, 15 out of 328 samples do not show any plagiarism. The students plagiarize because of time constraints, lack of knowledge, and confidence in not getting caught. With the Plagiarism Intervention Program, the incidence of plagiarism was eradicated after the second phase. With the implications of the study, I propose the application of the Plagiarism Intervention Program in the writing courses to eliminate the incidence of plagiarism.
... In the academic community, it is highly challenging to identify whether a person has committed plagiarism without using a plagiarism detector. Because of this problem, various software and website developers have created plagiarism detectors that evaluate whether a person has plagiarized from different websites (Bensal, Miraflores, & Tan, 2013). One of these plagiarism detectors is the Grammarly. ...
Full-text available
Plagiarism is an academic crime of pilfering the ideas of others without appropriate credit. This study aims to identify the dominant type of plagiarism and percentage of plagiarism committed by the CMU undergraduate students in writing their theses using the Grammarly. The study employed content analysis and stratified random sampling. The analysis of the 328 theses shows that copying without citation is the dominant type of plagiarism, followed by unintentional plagiarism, patchwork plagiarism, and copying with citation. Furthermore, the overall mean percentage of plagiarism is 7.58%. Moreover, 15 out of 328 theses do not show any plagiarism and have a 0% plagiarism percentage. The study concludes that most of the students copied some information from various references and did not acknowledge the source of information, and the majority of the CMU undergraduate students plagiarized some ideas in writing their theses.
... While there seems to be many studies conducted on Turnitin, these studies recommend further investigation in order to "understand how to use the self-service approach more effectively to improve referencing and citation, and narrow the gap between learner expectations and university /school standards" (Kiriakidis, 2013;Rolfe, 2011 :701). Other studies recommend an investigation that aims to understand how to use technology is to avoid plagiarism, by educating to avoid, instead of detecting to punish (Bensal, Miraflores & Tan, 2014;Le, Carbone, Sheard, Schuhmacher, De Raadt & Johnson, 2013). Therefore, the recommendations of the aforementioned studies should be able to help teachers become aware of and avoid the major weaknesses posed by Turnitin. ...
Full-text available
This article presents a qualitative critical action research of six Grade 12 high school teachers who used Turnitin as part of their assessment processes. Turnitin submissions, one-on-one semi-structured interviews, observation and reflective activities were used for data production/generation. This article concluded that although Turnitin did not help teachers to prevent all learner acts of plagiarism, it did scare the learners away from any obvious act of plagiarism. Teachers and learners became aware of technology as the ‘servant’, not the ‘master’. Grounded analysis was used to generate two themes for this study. This study tried to explore the teachers’ reflections of Turnitin used in assessing their learners’ work. Purposive sampling was used in selecting the only six Grade 12 teachers who used Turnitin at a school in Durban. This article consequently recommends the use of ‘Assessment, Educating to avoid and Turnitin’ framework in any integration of hard-ware/soft-ware (HW/SW) resources. © 2015, Foundation for Education Science and Technology. All rights reserved.
Full-text available
Text-matching software has been used widely in higher education to reduce student plagiarism and support the development of students’ writing skills. This scoping review provides insights into the extant literature relating to commercial text-matching software (TMS) (e.g., Turnitin) use in postsecondary institutions. Our primary research question was “How is text-matching software used in postsecondary contexts?” Using a scoping review method, we searched 14 databases to find peer-reviewed literature about the use of TMS among postsecondary students. In total, 129 articles were included in the final synthesis, which comprised of data extraction, quality appraisal, and the identification of exemplar articles. We highlight evidence about how TMS is used for teaching and learning purposes to support student success at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Australian universities are grappling with the challenge of plagiarism among students, particularly international students, with a reliance on software such as Turnitin. Measuring plagiarism in this way has limitations, with consequences for the internalisation of academic integrity by international students. An appraisal of such software demonstrates how its purported aims may differ substantially from pragmatic applicability. While academics are reluctant to encourage student obsession with Turnitin similarity percentages to the detriment of genuine academic engagement, higher education providers increasingly view clear-cut metrics as attractive solutions to a deeply complex and widespread phenomenon. Teachers operating in a pathway program for international students raise serious questions about the effectiveness of Turnitin to achieve the desired pedagogical outcomes when they see students expending time and effort in mastering avoidance techniques while remaining immune to the essence of academic scholarly integrity. This paper addresses these concerns and presents alternative and/or complementary recommendations.
Full-text available
Dengan banyaknya kasus plagiarisme yang terjadi dalam kalangan akademis, terutama kalangan mahasiswa, membuat perpustakaan UKRIDA ingin memberikan layanan untuk membantu mahasiswa mengidentifikasi kesalahan apa saja yang terjadi dalam penulisan karya tulis masing-masing dengan menerapkan aplikasi Turnitin sebagai media pemeriksaan plagiarisme. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menunjukkan bagaimana UKRIDA memberikan layanan cek plagiarisme via turnitin terhadap karya tulis mahasiswa lingkungan kampus tersebut. Dalam hasil penelitian dapat disampaikan bahwa penggunaan aplikasi Turnitin dalam layanan perpustakaan UKRIDA dapat membantu dalam mengetahui indikasi plagiarisme dalam karya tulis mahasiswa yang disubmit, walau masih adanya ketidakpahaman dalam menganalisis indikasi hasil akhir plagiarisme dalam karya tulis masing-masing. Keyword: Plagiarisme, Turnitin, Karya Tulis
Full-text available
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the functionality and accuracy of Turnitin results as applied to 68 science and engineering research papers, and the potential use of the software in a second language context. Results showed Turnitin found “similar matching” in 99% of papers; however, an analysis eliminating false positives and categorizing actual plagiarism events as outright, paraphrase and patchwork plagiarism, or stealing an apt term showed only 29% featured plagiarized material, and in most cases, evidence suggested no intent to deceive. Findings indicate that Turnitin can be useful, particularly as a pedagogical rather than policing tool, but “similarity” percentages can be misleading and careful user evaluation of the entire paper shown with flagged highlighting is necessary in order to fairly assess student intent.
Full-text available
This article presents the results of a study, which examined the current level of computer literacy of a group of Indonesian teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL) and investigated factors affecting their use of computers in classrooms. Participants in the study were in-service teachers of EFL at Indonesian schools and universities. The teachers were invited to respond to a questionnaire containing questions related to the teachers' ownership and accessibility of computers, their level of ability to perform computer-based tasks, their personal and professional use of computers and their interest in computer-assisted language learning (CALL). The findings of the study provide a picture of the Indonesian teachers' use of computers in their local contexts and recommend increasing the teachers' online opportunities, skills and competencies in the use of computers for their teaching practices and professional development.
Full-text available
The need for effective education to enhance students' understanding and development of academic integrity has been well established, particularly for international students new to tertiary study in English-speaking countries. Most research recommends the use of methods such as instruction and warnings, as part of a plagiarism education programme. Few studies have looked at the role of formative feedback through tutorial intervention in the process of academic writing, in which use of the text-matching tool Turnitin is made in ways which support learning, rather than guide assessment. This study addresses that gap using data gathered over three years from cohorts of international students in the United Kingdom (UK) with regard to four identified areas of development: avoidance of plagiarism, decrease in over-reliance on some sources, correct use of citation and appropriate paraphrasing. Individual tutorials were held to give formative feedback on students' own writing, with particular regard to their use of sources. A supportive environment was created in which questions about references could be discussed, by using the Turnitin originality reports directly. The tutorial feedback appeared to have a positive effect on students' understanding of academic integrity reflected in improved drafts. This implies that tutorial feedback using Turnitin could be a key factor in plagiarism education. Recommendations for future use are given at the end of the study.
Full-text available
There are numerous plagiarism detection software systems that claim to discover plagiarism of all sorts, given a digital text. This paper first discusses a typology of plagiarism , which makes clear that plagiarism is more than just an exact copy. Then a collection of 42 test cases in German are presented that were developed at the HTW Berlin for testing plagiarism detection software. The test cases have been used in three tests, in 2004, 2007 , and 2008 and are available online. The test suite will be extended to include English -language test cases in 2010. Full text is under a <a href="> Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK licence.
Full-text available
As instructional technology becomes more integrated into the foreign language cur-riculum language teachers are increasingly being called upon to make software acqui-sition decisions. However, not all teachers have the knowledge or experience to make decisions of this kind. This article provides guidance about making such decisions by (a) identifying sources of foreign language software, including specialist vendors, textbook publishers, software retails, and university language resource centers; (b) indicating sources of foreign language software reviews, including journals and other sources; and (c) outlining essential procedures of software evaluation.
Detecting and combating plagiarism from Web-based sources is a concern for administrators and instructors involved in online distance education. In this paper, we quantify copy-and-paste plagiarism among adult learners in an online geography course offered through Penn State's World Campus Geographic Information Systems (GIS) certificate program. We also evaluate the effectiveness of an "expectation management" strategy intended to discourage adult learners from unintentional violations. We found that while manual methods detected plagiarism in only about 3 percent of assignments, revealed a 13 percent plagiarism rate among the same assignments. Our attempts to increase awareness and manage expectations decreased infractions measurably, but not significantly. In contrast, substantially improved our ability to detect infractions. We conclude that raising awareness and managing expectations about plagiarism may be worthwhile, but is no substitute for systematic detection and vigilant enforcement, even among adult learners.
The authors used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the use of Turnitin originality detection software in a graduate social work course. Qualitative analysis of student responses revealed positive and negative spent completing assignments, and the tone of the class. Quantitative analysis of students' originality scores indicated a short-term reduction in student plagiarism, although the full level of decline was not maintained in the long term. Implications for originality issues in social work education and social work practice are presented.
In this study, the author evaluated an online plagiarism detection system to determine whether (a) it would be practical to use in an academic setting and (b) it would have an effect on student plagiarism. The author analyzed graduate student papers for plagiarism over the course of 5 semesters. Students in the last 3 semesters plagiarized significantly less than did students in the 1st semester, suggesting that students' awareness of the system and its use by the instructor may have acted as a deterrent to plagiarism. Results showed that the system was a viable means to detect and discourage plagiarism in an academic environment. The author provides conclusions, limitations, and recommendations for faculty use of a plagiarism detection system.