Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
How effective are electronic plagiarism detection systems and does it matter how you use them?<br />4th International Plag...
http://bit.ly/eDetection<br />
Electronic Detection Systems<br />Software to automatically search for non-original text<br />dynamic list of software onl...
Plagiarism detection services<br />Turnitin<br />CopyCatch<br />WCopyFind<br />SafeAssign<br />
Effectiveness<br />Cross comparison reviews mostly focus on usability<br />Live testing with scoring for detection rates c...
Mode of use: prevention<br />Long term effects<br />Risk / benefit perceptions<br />Punishment as education<br />
1. Long term effects : Culwin, 2006<br />
Deterrent : Badge, 2007<br />
2. Risk / benefit perceptions : Woessner 2004<br />
3. Punishment as education<br /><ul><li>Punitive tutor-supported access
Students shown originality report prior to penalty
Most common but least studied
Form of student access to originality reports</li></li></ul><li>Mode of use: student access<br />Punitive supported access...
2. Outside institutional systems<br />first: spelling check; second: grammar check; third: originality check <br />
3. Institutional open access<br />Still fairly rare in UK<br />IFS<br />York (controlled training session trial)<br />
Braumoeller & Gaines, 2001<br />Marked on grading curve<br />Feedback on effect of plagiarism on grades <br />
4. Tutor supported access<br />Ledwith & Risquez, 2008<br />Proportion of matching text for both assignments submitted thr...
Ledwith & Risquez, 2008<br />
Barrett & Malcolm, 2006<br />
Davis & Carroll, 2009<br />Reduction in<br />Amount of plagiarism (45.5%)<br />Over-reliance on one source (45.5%)<br />Ci...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

How effective are electronic plagiarism detection systems and does it matter how you use them? Reviewing the evidence

3,408 views

Published on

Presentation 23 June 2010. 4th International Plagiarism Conference, Northumbria University. The advent and use of digital technologies, which open up a plethora of useful and credible information for use by students, at the same time expose the risks of uncritical and unacknowledged use of other people’s work. Institutions have met these concerns with the implementation of electronic detection systems. The situation has moved very quickly, from the introduction of the UK national license for Turnitin in 2002/3 to the present situation where this software is used by over 95% of Higher Education Institutions. Electronic detection of plagiarism is one of the most widely spread technologies used in education and the evidence base for its use is only just beginning to yield results. This paper will examine the evidence to date for the effects of plagiarism detection systems. It is based on a HEA-funded review ‘Digital with plagiarism in the digital age’ which is available online at http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/Dealing-with-plagiarism-in-the-digital-age.

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

How effective are electronic plagiarism detection systems and does it matter how you use them? Reviewing the evidence

  1. 1. How effective are electronic plagiarism detection systems and does it matter how you use them?<br />4th International Plagiarism Conference 23 June 2010<br />Dr Jo Badge (@jobadge)<br />School of Biological Sciences<br />University of Leicester<br />
  2. 2. http://bit.ly/eDetection<br />
  3. 3.
  4. 4. Electronic Detection Systems<br />Software to automatically search for non-original text<br />dynamic list of software online [link]<br />
  5. 5. Plagiarism detection services<br />Turnitin<br />CopyCatch<br />WCopyFind<br />SafeAssign<br />
  6. 6. Effectiveness<br />Cross comparison reviews mostly focus on usability<br />Live testing with scoring for detection rates carried out by Debora Weber-Wuff<br />Rates Safeassign above Turnitin in terms of detection rates<br />
  7. 7. Mode of use: prevention<br />Long term effects<br />Risk / benefit perceptions<br />Punishment as education<br />
  8. 8. 1. Long term effects : Culwin, 2006<br />
  9. 9. Deterrent : Badge, 2007<br />
  10. 10. 2. Risk / benefit perceptions : Woessner 2004<br />
  11. 11. 3. Punishment as education<br /><ul><li>Punitive tutor-supported access
  12. 12. Students shown originality report prior to penalty
  13. 13. Most common but least studied
  14. 14. Form of student access to originality reports</li></li></ul><li>Mode of use: student access<br />Punitive supported access <br />Outside institutional systems<br />Institutional open access<br />Tutor supported access<br />
  15. 15. 2. Outside institutional systems<br />first: spelling check; second: grammar check; third: originality check <br />
  16. 16. 3. Institutional open access<br />Still fairly rare in UK<br />IFS<br />York (controlled training session trial)<br />
  17. 17. Braumoeller & Gaines, 2001<br />Marked on grading curve<br />Feedback on effect of plagiarism on grades <br />
  18. 18. 4. Tutor supported access<br />Ledwith & Risquez, 2008<br />Proportion of matching text for both assignments submitted through Turnitin<br />
  19. 19. Ledwith & Risquez, 2008<br />
  20. 20. Barrett & Malcolm, 2006<br />
  21. 21. Davis & Carroll, 2009<br />Reduction in<br />Amount of plagiarism (45.5%)<br />Over-reliance on one source (45.5%)<br />Citation errors (62%)<br />Insufficient paraphrasing (38%)<br />Percentages= total final drafts showing reduction where n=66 (over 3 years 2007-2009)<br />
  22. 22. http://bit.ly/eDetection<br />
  23. 23. Acknowledgements<br />Higher Education Academy<br />University of Leicester Teaching Enhancement Forum<br /> GENIE CETL<br />Dr NadyaYakovchuk<br />Dr Jon Scott<br />

×