· Web viewFactors influencing the incidence of plagiarism include: time management issues, (mis)understanding the assessment requirements, academic skills, level of engagement, relationship

An investigation of the extent to which formative use of text-matching software such as Turnitin may help reduce plagiarism by students both in the UK and overseas.

This project addresses a strategic priority of the University: to reduce the incidence of academic misconduct by international students. Our mixed-methods approach involves (A) a descriptive analysis of quantitative data for six representative modules over the period 2011/2 to 2015/6, and (B) a qualitative analysis of interviews with the six module leaders concerned.

This is an interim report, as the full AM data for 2015/6 will not be available until July 2017.

(A) Quantitative findings (see Appendix 1)Research question 1 (RQ1): Is there a lower incidence of plagiarism on modules in which students can access Turnitin formatively than on modules in which they cannot?

In 2011/2 – 2013/4 the incidence of plagiarism was lower on iterations where students had formative access to Turnitin. However, in 2014/5 there was no noticeable difference.

RQ2: Does the introduction of formative access to Turnitin on a given module iteration cause the incidence of plagiarism on that iteration to fall compared with the previous year?

Surprisingly, we found only three points of comparison. In two cases, the incidence of plagiarism rose and in one it remained the same.

RQ3: Do students who have accessed Turnitin formatively still go on to plagiarise?<4.19% of registered students on any given module/year committed plagiarism after having accessed Turnitin formatively.

(B) Qualitative findings (see Appendix 2)The majority of AM cases on the modules in question related to plagiarism, although outsourcing is a

growing concern.Factors influencing the incidence of plagiarism include: time management issues,

(mis)understanding the assessment requirements, academic skills, level of engagement, relationship with the module tutor/supervisor, cohort size, and English language competence. There are also factors specific to TNE delivery such as partner expectations, partner staff turnover, and partner staff development.

On the modules in question there are many examples of good practice in developing students’ academic skills and promoting good academic practice, which should be disseminated.

Module leaders felt that Turnitin can be a helpful tool if deployed in context, equitably and with support, as per the University’s current policy and guidelines. Concern was expressed that students might exploit the software as a ‘washing machine’ for last-minute assignment checking rather than as an aid in developing their use of sources.

Student uptake of formative access to Turnitin is lower than we might wish and in some cases falling.

Recommendations1. Embed academic skills development, including formative use of Turnitin, at every level of study.2. Link formative access to Turnitin with tutor/supervisor meetings and/or online feedback to

ensure that it is fully supported and truly educational.3. Ensure that all staff who use Turnitin receive training in how to interpret an Originality Report.4. Develop a suite of online resources on academic integrity which can be incorporated into

modules or used as a standalone self-study package.

Carol Bailey, Lee Crofts, Mark Groves, Phil Harris, Samia Mahmood, Kate Moseley, Subashini Suresh, Margaret WalshJune 2016

Background and context to the project

Academic misconduct is a growing problem for universities across the world. In Anglo-western institutions (Carroll, 2015), international students are disproportionately likely to commit academic misconduct due in part to differences in their previous study background and, in some cases, a lack of fluency in written English (CAU, 2015; Bailey, 2012; Schmitt, 2005). The challenge is particularly acute for students entering top-up or Masters degrees, since they are expected to perform at the same level as students who have already been schooled in UKHE study and assessment methods for two or three years. For students from countries where examinations are the main means of assessment (Nigeria, India, China and many others), written coursework is a new challenge, and the pressure to master academic writing skills (including information management and academic writing conventions) in the space of twelve months may seem impossible. Failure to master these skills may lead to excessive copying from sources (plagiarism), over-reliance on friends (collusion) and, in cases where students become desperate (or disengage with their studies), the commissioning of assignments (cheating).

The University’s Conduct and Appeals Unit (CAU) Annual Report 2013-4 (published in January 2015) identified a rise in the number of Academic Misconduct (AM) cases, following two years of decline, with the most notable increase at NQF level 7. “International students, both TNE and those studying in the UK account for 46% of all academic misconduct cases whilst only representing 13% of the student population” (p.3). Similar findings from the 2012-13 report were highlighted during the QAA inspection of February 2015, appearing in both the University’s Self-Evaluation Document (p.109:346) and the Student Union Written Submission (pp.20-21, 31-32, 47-48), as acknowledged in the QAA’s final report (April 2015, p.32):

While a range of support is available to all students in understanding and avoiding academic malpractice, there is a disproportionately high number of academic misconduct cases among international students, particularly at postgraduate level. The Students' Union has also identified this as an area requiring attention. The University, through its analysis of academic misconduct data, has acknowledged this as an area for improvement, and has established a working group to further develop the information, support and training made available to staff and students.

Academic Misconduct is a highly complex issue and the CAU data provides a rich source of enquiry, beyond the scope of this investigation. One current study is analysing transcripts of home student AM hearings to identify common factors. It would similarly be fruitful to explore the explanations given by international/TNE students at their AM hearing. According to the CAU report (2015, p.5) “For International students, poor English language skills remain a key contributing factor.”

As regards English language support, this is managed differently on UK-based and TNE courses. The International Academy offers academic English language tuition and support to all UK-based students and on a small number of TNE courses where this has been costed in to the programme. However, on most TNE courses English language and academic skills support is provided by the partner institution. For the purpose of this VCSEI project, we would like to evaluate an intervention that can be applied equally on UK-based and TNE iterations, since the 2013-4 CAU data shows that 22% of all AM cases involved TNE students although these represented only 7% of the student body.


One tool which may help students develop their proficiency in writing from sources is Turnitin. Formative use of this text-matching software has been piloted on EFL modules since the University of Wolverhampton acquired its first licence in 2007, and rolled out across the institution when University policy was amended to permit this in 2011. However uptake across Schools and Faculties has been patchy (UWSU, 2015, p.58) and, as far as we know, only two Subjects (Law and Built Environment) have been using the software as a learning tool on TNE iterations. Feedback from students on modules where Turnitin is used formatively has been mainly positive (see for example Bailey and Challen, 2015), but to date no investigation has been carried out at this University on whether allowing students to access Turnitin as a learning opportunity has any impact on their attainment.

Aims and objectives

We aim to investigate the extent to which formative use of the text-matching software Turnitin can help reduce the incidence of plagiarism among all students, including UK-based home/EU/international students and those on TNE programmes, with a particular focus on modules which are delivered both in the UK and overseas.

Our objectives:

1. Critically review the literature on AM, specifically published research and grey literature which deals with the formative use of text-matching software in reducing plagiarism

2. Collect quantitative data within the University on the number of plagiarism cases by module and location of delivery (CAU) module registration figures (eVision/Planning) and student formative use of Turnitin (WOLF/Turnitin)

3. Collect qualitative data from module leaders on the project team about any factors which may have affected the incidence of AM: for example changes to assessment, changes to module content, staffing issues, recruitment patterns, relationship with the TNE partner

4. Using a mixed methods approach, analyse and present the above data5. On the basis of our findings, identify initiatives and examples of good practice in promoting

academic integrity which could be implemented throughout the University and disseminated externally.

Our research questions:

1. Is there a lower incidence of plagiarism on modules in which students can access Turnitin formatively than on modules in which they cannot?

2. Does the introduction of formative access to Turnitin on a given module/iteration make any difference to the incidence of plagiarism on that module compared with the previous year?

3. What proportion of students who commit plagiarism have previously used Turnitin formatively, on modules where this is permitted?

4. What other factors, for example learning and teaching innovations, may have led to a reduction in the incidence of plagiarism where this is the case?


Scope and methodology

The three Subject areas involved in this institutional case study (Law, Business and Built Environment) all have a long history of TNE delivery. The specific modules for investigation were chosen on the basis that they had a relatively high number of academic misconduct cases in 2013-14, or because they have been using Turnitin formatively for a number of years and provide a basis for comparison.

6BU001 Researching Business and Management Issues (Lee Crofts)used Turnitin formatively for the first time in 2014-15 with UK-based students and is rolling it out for TNE iterations in 2015-16

6CN010 Construction Dissertation (Subashini Suresh)is using Turnitin formatively for the first time in 2015-16, with both UK-based and TNE cohorts

6LW002 Research Methods and Project (Margaret Walsh)used Turnitin formatively for the first time in 2011-12 with UK-based students and rolled it out to TNE iterations in 2012-13

7ET022 Research Methods and Professional Skills (Phil Harris)used Turnitin formatively for the first time in 2011-12 with UK-based students and rolled it out to TNE iterations in 2013-14

7LW023 Advanced Legal Research Methods (Margaret Walsh)used Turnitin formatively for the first time in 2012-13 with UK-based students and rolled it out to TNE iterations in 2013-14

7MG001 The Independent Business Analysis Project (Kate Moseley)is using Turnitin formatively for the first time in 2015-16, with both UK-based and TNE cohorts

We are taking the academic year 2011-12 as our baseline, since this was the first year that all work submitted on level 6 and 7 independent study modules was screened using Turnitin; it was also the first year of the 20-credit PG curriculum.

We are focussing only on plagiarism cases, since Turnitin cannot detect cheating and, while our WOLF/Turnitin integration for summative use can detect collusion, our formative integration does not. The formative tool is therefore mainly of benefit as a visual aid in demonstrating inappropriate source use (including plagiarism).

Using AM data provided by CAU (as it becomes available), the project leader is logging the number of plagiarism cases on each iteration of each module, as a percentage of the number of students registered on that iteration. At the same time, the project leader has trained and is supporting colleagues using Turnitin formatively on their modules. She is also identifying, where Turnitin has been/will be used formatively, what proportion of students who commit plagiarism have previously


accessed the software. Module leaders are advising on any factors which may have influenced the rise or fall in AM: for example changes to assessment, changes to module content, staffing issues, recruitment patterns, relationship with the TNE partner. The data will then be analysed to see if any conclusions can be drawn regarding the effect, on number of plagiarism cases, of facilitated student access to Turnitin. On the basis of our findings, the project team will identify initiatives and examples of good practice in promoting academic integrity which could be implemented throughout the University and disseminated externally.

The main limitation will be the difficulty of drawing firm quantitative conclusions from our data, given the many variables involved. Also, given our relatively narrow focus (six modules, each with 2-5 iterations per year, over five years) it may not be possible to generalize from our findings.

Project timetable

Oct/Nov 2015 – Sept 2016

Train module leaders who have not used Turnitin formatively before, and support all module leaders in setting up student access via their WOLF topics

Carol Bailey,Lee Crofts,Phil Harris,Kate Moseley, Subashini Suresh, Margaret Walsh

Nov 2015 – July 2017

Provide AM data for 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16 as it becomes available, and advise on interpretation

Mark Groves

Jan 2016 – July 2017

Log the number of plagiarism cases on each iteration of each module from 2011-12 – 2015-16, as a percentage of the number of students registered on that iteration. Identify, where Turnitin has been used formatively, what proportion of students who commit plagiarism had previously accessed the software as a learning opportunity.

Carol Bailey

Jan - Sept 2016

Monitor student uptake of formative access to Turnitin on each module/iteration

Carol Bailey

Jan 2016 – July 2017

Advise on any other factors which may have influenced the rise or fall in number of AM cases between 2011-12 and 2015-16, for example: changes to assessment, changes to module content, staffing issues, recruitment patterns, relationship with the TNE partner

Lee Crofts,Phil Harris,Kate Moseley, Subashini Suresh, Margaret Walsh

May/June 2016

Preliminary analysis of data available for the academic years 2011-12 to 2014-15

Samia MahmoodMark GrovesCarol Bailey

June/July 2016

Internal dissemination of preliminary findings via Rich Exchanges/CoLT conference and to USEC

Project team


June/July 2017

Final analysis including data from 2015-16 academic year Samia MahmoodMark GrovesCarol Bailey

Sept 2017 Final report to USEC and internal/external dissemination as appropriate.

Project team

References

Bailey, C. (2012) Negotiating writing: challenges of the first written assignment at a UK university. In S. Sovic and M. Blythman (eds.) International Students Negotiating Higher Education: critical perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.173-189. Available at: http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/323629

Bailey, C. and Challen, R. (2015) Student perceptions of the value of Turnitin text-matching software as a learning tool. Practitioner Research in Higher Education 9(1) pp.38-51. Available at: http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/344418

Carroll, J. (2015) Tools for Teaching in an Educationally Mobile World. London: Routledge.Conduct and Appeals Unit (2015) Annual Report 2013-14. Available in Outlook Public Folders

(Academic Board, 14-15 archive, 09Mar15).Quality Assurance Agency (2015) Higher Education Review: University of Wolverhampton, February

2015. Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/provider?UKPRN=10007166#.VhDWTW9wb3h

Schmitt, D. (2005) Writing in the international classroom. In J. Carroll and J. Ryan (eds) Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.63–74.

Stappenbelt, B. and Rowles, C. (2009) The effectiveness of plagiarism detection software as a learning tool in academic writing education. 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI) [online]. 28–30 September 2009, University of Wollongong, NSW Australia. Available at: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Stappenbelt.pdf

University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union (2015) Student Written Submission: QAA Higher Education Review of the University of Wolverhampton, February 2015. Available at: http://www2.wlv.ac.uk/webteam/email/Student-Written-Submission.pdf


http://www2.wlv.ac.uk/webteam/email/Student-Written-Submission.pdf

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Stappenbelt.pdf

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/provider?UKPRN=10007166#.VhDWTW9wb3h

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/provider?UKPRN=10007166#.VhDWTW9wb3h

http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/344418

http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/323629

Appendix 1: Quantitative data from the academic years 2011/2 to 2014/5

Note: Some 2014/5 cases from students registered on the ERC (Singapore) and Cornerstone (UAE) iterations of 7MG001 are still outstanding, so these iterations have been temporarily excluded from the figures below.

Research question 1: Is there a lower incidence of plagiarism on modules in which students can access Turnitin formatively than on modules in which they cannot?


Research question 2: Does the introduction of formative access to Turnitin on a given module iteration cause the incidence of plagiarism on that iteration to fall compared with the previous year?

Module/ iteration

No access to Turnitin

% incidence of plagiarism

Formative access to Turnitin is introduced

% incidence of plagiarism

Movement

6BU001 UK 2013/4 4.01 2014/5 sem 2 8.87 UP6LW002 BCAS 2011/2 0 2012/3 7.89 UP7LW023 UK 2011/2 0 2012/3 0 NO CHANGE

Research question 3: Do students who have accessed Turnitin formatively still go on to plagiarise?

We currently only have data from four modules, as 6CN010 and 7MG001 used Turnitin formatively for the first time this academic year.



Not one of our original research questions, but we thought it would be interesting to see if there is a relationship between incidence of plagiarism and mode of delivery on TNE provision

where FF = flying faculty (taught and assessed by UW staff) and SD = supported delivery (taught and assessed by TNE partner staff. Excludes mixed modes of delivery

Further, more detailed graphs and data related to all the above are available on request.


Appendix 2: a summary of interviews with colleagues leading/teaching on the six modules

The notes below address our fourth research question: What other factors, for example learning and teaching innovations, may have led to a reduction in the incidence of plagiarism where this is the case?

Students

Module leaders reported that PG students are mostly mature, with family and work commitments. Some hold senior positions and the majority work full-time. They may be sponsored by their employer or (in the case of international students) government. On UK iterations, a high proportion of students are from overseas. Gaining a PG qualification represents promotion and a salary increment, so motivation/stakes are high. One module leader commented: “They try their best and they do try… they email me at 3am in the morning sometimes – their time – they are committed, very hard-working, very professional.”

UG students were reported as being mixed in ability and levels of engagement. The majority on UK iterations are home students.

The main challenges facing students on the modules in question are:

Understanding and meeting the academic requirements of their level of study. For home students progressing from a HND or from UG to PG study, this may involve a lack of criticality or undue focus on the research product as opposed to the process. International and TNE students may be unfamiliar with assessment through coursework and the demands of independent study.

Time management. For PGs, the pressures of full-time work and family commitments may cause them to ‘drop off’. All students have to balance deadlines on a range of modules. For some, financial pressures cause them to take up part-time work or lodge with relatives in another city; this erodes the time available for study.

English language. This is a cause of poor performance for some international/TNE students.

One module leader felt it would be wrong to generalise about specific groups of students. “Some of them are good; they are hard-working students … we can’t generalise – it varies from person to person – there is some fantastic work from TNE students on both [my] modules”

Academic Misconduct

Module leaders said that the majority of cases on the six modules in our study related to plagiarism. Outsourcing is a growing concern - one colleague had found an Ivory Research business card on a Faculty noticeboard. Collusion was not mentioned as a problem – one module leader said his students behaved “like family … you can tell they’re all close friends: they all help each other out” but that the incidence of collusion was low as students were researching individual work-related topics.

Where the incidence of AM was low, suggested reasons (apart from good academic practice on the part of students!) were:


markers choosing to penalise a student for poor academic writing rather than put them through the AM process

AM not being spotted or penalised by TNE partner staff non-submission (students choosing not to submit work rather than risk being penalised for

plagiarism).

Several colleagues mentioned a link between AM and student engagement – see below.

Plagiarism: potential causes

Module leaders were of the opinion that plagiarism is sometimes deliberate. For example, some students copy an entire methods section, including data. Some students could be seen as “chancers; they were hoping they were going to get away with it and they knew what they were doing.” In many cases, students begin the assignment with good intentions but run out of time: “their fallback position is ‘OK, this is critical, let me copy and paste it’.”

Where plagiarism is unintentional, this may be due to an insufficient understanding of the assessment requirements.

I think a lot of it is misunderstanding what Mastersness is – my view is that they’re still operating as an undergraduate where they just need to provide knowledge and explain what authors are saying, rather than having to debate and justify and critically analyse, all the Masters level skills. … It’s such a big leap from UG to PG … they hear about critical analysis and how they’re supposed to write differently but they don’t know how to actually do it.

Good quality [UG] students understand the dissertation as a process rather than presenting something which looks like a dissertation.

In some cases (particularly for international/TNE students), this may be because their academic background is very different from UKHE. They may have been previously assessed by exam only, had little/no access to online databases, little/no experience of academic writing, and the academic writing conventions in their country/former institution may be very different from ours. “For them, [our way of doing things] is very new.”

When I spoke to the [UG TNE] students … plagiarism is what they do – cut-and-pasting is how they presented their work beforehand, and they see that as a natural way of doing things. So they were just shocked and frightened that they had to read stuff for themselves – I believe they were genuinely shocked.

As a result, international/TNE students may be highly skilled in memorising and replicating information, but have less experience of information retrieval and application - skills more highly valued in the UK. Two module leaders mentioned database use and referencing of sources:

In their defence - the reason they may plagiarise much more is because they haven’t got the wherewithal, they haven’t had the training to use the databases … TNE students do need more support with referencing … we need to be drip-feeding them that information … so that they gain confidence in what they need to do.


All they do is go to Google … They don’t know how to use databases; they sometimes know Google Scholar … Wikipedia’s the biggest problem – they all use Wikipedia.

Others mentioned paraphrasing and summary skills. “The culture that they come from, it’s not embedded that you have to paraphrase”, creating a tendency to produce “chunks and chunks and chunks” of referenced copy-paste. “They don’t have the confidence to read something, understand it, and feel they can write it in their own words … they’re worried they’ll change things or lose the meaning, particularly when they’re talking about legal issues … some of them just changed the odd word.” Module leaders felt that these skills could be developed over time, but that time is a scarce commodity on intensive top-up and Masters degrees.

One factor affecting all students is their degree of engagement with the module.

I think students who don’t come along, they miss classes, they don’t make the effort to understand what the module is, that is where [AM] comes up, because if the staff members have seen the work, we keep pointing them in the right direction. Because of the dialogues we have with them … ‘what are your strengths?’ … ‘you might think about these various options’ … ‘this is the way you have to write up’ … there are several things we tell them depending on their progress, so for them to plagiarise is difficult.

A related factor is the relationship students have with their tutor/supervisor. All module leaders demonstrated a high degree of care and concern for students and their progression, but where a student does not engage it is impossible for tutors to identify and communicate where s/he may be going wrong. This is also more difficult with large cohorts (“it’s just you and a sea of faces, there may as well be no one there”) and with supported delivery TNE, where students are “one step removed,” having little contact with the module leader. Even on ‘flying faculty’ TNE iterations, tutor/student contact is limited by the intensive mode of delivery.

TNE issues

There are other factors specific to TNE delivery which may hinder training in academic integrity and contribute to the high levels of plagiarism in some TNE iterations. These factors include: unrealistic expectations by partner institutions, lack of continuity, and staff development. Two module leaders mentioned cases where the TNE partner had negotiated a course length/intensity that does not allow sufficient time for students to complete the work or acquire the academic skills required. On another course, rapid staff turnover in the TNE partner institution meant that understanding of our teaching methods and assessment requirements, acquired through staff development and dedicated liaison over a period of time, were lost. Where there is continuity, however, a mutual understanding develops and the AM incidence is lower. Two module leaders mentioned ERC (Singapore) as an example of a successful relationship in this regard.

Developing students’ academic skills

Module leaders provided many examples of excellent practice in this area:


i. One Course has a specific language/skills module for TNE students. 6LW026 (English Communication Skills for Law) includes input on academic integrity, referencing and paraphrasing as well as general and legal English.

ii. In some modules, academic and English language skills are embedded. For example, on 7MG001 six academic skills sessions are delivered at the start of the module by LIS colleagues; thereafter students access weekly Academic English workshops (timetabled adjacent to research skills seminars) delivered by International Academy staff. On 7ET022, certain sessions are likewise delivered by LIS and International Academy colleagues. The takeup for embedded skills input is notably higher than when such sessions are freestanding and perceived as optional.

iii. TNE partners play a key role in academic skills development. ERC Singapore was noted as providing a lot of guidance on academic integrity and research methods: “it works well; there are far fewer cases of academic misconduct from ERC because of that.” On 7ET022, the BCAS iteration is taught by UW staff but BCAS colleagues provide followup workshops and formative tasks, using materials and model answers prepared by the module team.

iv. In Law, training on specific legal databases is carried out (on UK iterations) by ‘student associates.’ The Law team are considering how to make this training more readily accessible online, and more attractive, for TNE students. On 7ET022, the UW module tutor delivers training on specialist databases in a BCAS IT lab.

v. Modelling is seen as a good way of making students aware of our academic requirements. For example, Built Environment students are shown published articles by staff and by a former student on the course.

vi. One highly effective (but very time-consuming) method of developing students’ academic skills is by providing formative feedback on their work. On the Built Environment modules, a number of formative tasks and draft deadlines are incorporated in the programme, and time is set aside in class for students to receive feedback on these from their tutors and peers. On 6CN010 (UK iteration), colleagues from a range of disciplines attend each session, so that there is always someone with the relevant expertise to comment on a student’s work. On 7ET022 (UK iteration) students also receive formative feedback on their English language from an International Academy colleague, using Turnitin’s feedback function(GradeMark).

Formative use of Turnitin

While acknowledging its limitations (e.g. not matching all the sources students use), one module leader felt that Turnitin was very helpful in saving staff time, particularly in formative marking, by highlighting potential plagiarism much more quickly than is possible with a manual Google search. This module leader gave students two opportunities to access Turnitin, with feedback on each upload, and noted a marked improvement regarding source use in the second draft.

Several module leaders stressed that student access to Turnitin should be tied in with tutor/supervisor meetings and/or online feedback, to make it a truly formative and educational experience rather than a “washing machine” for assignment drafts. Some module leaders are doing this already but it is more difficult to manage on large modules with multiple tutors/supervisors. One method we discussed is to hide the Originality Reports from students until they meet their tutor/supervisor. This would have the added benefit of encouraging them to make contact with staff at an earlier stage (but would not work when using GradeMark to give online feedback).


Three module leaders felt that earlier access to Turnitin would benefit students and that having opportunities to use it on prior modules (not just on their final project/dissertation) would mean “they are not scared of Turnitin – they say ‘OK I am used to it now as a helpful tool’.” Two module leaders felt strongly that the University should be using Turnitin more frequently as a learning tool, and that we are lagging behind other UK institutions in this regard. At the same time it was acknowledged that using Turnitin more widely may pose a challenge re equity – between iterations and even between students on modules with multiple tutors/supervisors. Several module leaders mentioned the need for more staff development in interpreting the Originality Report, as they felt some colleagues were making judgements on the basis of the % match without probing more deeply what that represents.

There were other concerns around the wider exercise of Turnitin. One colleague wondered whether using it more might highlight more (previously unnoticed) incidences of plagiarism. Another colleague was concerned that the open-ended and unsupported ‘Upload to Turnitin’ WOLF topics hosted by the College of Learning and Teaching might prompt students to check their work at the last minute (i.e. too late to receive academic support), or exploit the software as a means to escape detection by making superficial modifications to highlighted text, rather than addressing the underlying problems in their writing. “I don’t want us to pretend this is a formative opportunity … just using Turnitin as a technical fix … I genuinely would like to see it used as a demonstrably formative, educational process.”

A final concern regarding formative use of Turnitin was the level of student uptake. This is lower than we would like; in some cases it is falling, and on one iteration of 6LW002 (BCAS, 2014/5) no students uploaded a draft through Turnitin – with a concomitant rise in the incidence of plagiarism. On modules where students are encouraged (but not obliged) to discuss the draft Originality Report with their supervisor, this rarely happens. One module leader felt that students might need more reassurance that the software is not being used to catch them out and that there will be no negative repercussions for a high % match on formative work. Another module leader suggested that allowing earlier access to Turnitin would reduce students’ anxiety regarding the software (see above).

Recommendations

1. Embed academic skills development, including formative use of Turnitin, at every level of study.2. Link formative access to Turnitin with tutor/supervisor meetings and/or online feedback to

ensure that it is fully supported and truly educational.3. Ensure that all staff who use Turnitin receive training in how to interpret an Originality Report.4. Develop a suite of online resources on academic integrity which can be incorporated into

modules or used as a standalone self-study package.


Documents

· Web viewFactors influencing the incidence of plagiarism include: time management issues, (mis)understanding the assessment requirements, academic skills, level of engagement, relationship