Three Things Teachers Need to Spot—and Stop—Plagiarism
my note: I firmly disagree with the corporate push to mechanize plagiarism. Plagiarism is about teaching both faculty and students, and this industry, under the same cover is trying to make a profit by mechanizing, not teaching about plagiarism.
According to the International Center for Academic Integrity, 58% of more than 70,000 students surveyed say they have plagiarized someone else’s ideas in their writing.
Plagiarism-detection software can address the most pressing needs of classroom educators faced with assessing students’ written work. Here’s how:
1. Teachers Need More Time
The Challenge: The larger the class is, and the more students that are in it, the longer it takes to review each written assignment—checking grammar, style, originality of ideas, etc. This is especially important when screening for plagiarism.
My note: this is NOT true. If the teacher is still lingering in the old habits of lecturing, this could be true. However, when a teacher gets into the habit of reviewing papers, s/he can detect as soon as in the first several paragraphs the discrepancies due to copy and paste of other work versus the student’s work.
In addition, if the teacher applies group work in her/his class, s/he can organize students to proofread each other’s work, thus teaching them actively about plagiarism, punctuation etc.
2. Evidence Must Be Reliable
The Challenge: When identifying plagiarism, teachers need to be confident in their assessment. Accusing students of academic dishonesty is a weighty claim; it can lead to their suspension or even expulsion from school.
My note: another myth perpetuated by industry searching for profit. Instead of looking at the process of plagiarism as punitive action, an educator will look at it as education and prevention. Prevention of plagiarism will never be successful, if the focus as in this article is on “suspension,” “expulsion,” etc. The goal of the teacher is NOT to catch the student, but to work with the student and understand the complexity of plagiarism.
3. Tools Must Be Easy to Use
My note: right, the goal is to make the teacher think as less as possible.
My note: PlagiarismCheck is the same as TurnitIn and all other tools, which seek profit, not education. Considering that plagiarism is a moving target (http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2016/01/10/plagiarism-or-collaboration/) and it is a concept first and secondly an action, the attempt to extract profits from the mechanization of this process is no less corrupt then the attempt to focus on profit (of education) rather then on education (itself)
more on plagiarism in this IMS blog
We know that many of you have been interested in exploring Turnitin in the past, so we are excited to bring you an exclusive standardized price and more information on the roll out of Feedback Studio, replacing the Turnitin you have previously seen. We would like to share some exciting accessibility updates, how Feedback Studio can help faculty deliver formative feedback to students and help students become writers. Starting today thru December 31st non-integrated Feedback Studio will be $2.50 and integrated Feedback Studio will be $3 for new customers! Confused by the name? Don’t be! Turnitin is new and improved! Check out this video to learn about Feedback Studio!
Meet your exclusive Turnitin Team!
Ariel Ream – Account Executive, Indianapolis firstname.lastname@example.org – 317.650.2795
Juliessa Rivera – Relationship Manager, Oakland email@example.com – 510.764.7698
Juan Valladares – Account Representative, Oakland
firstname.lastname@example.org – 510.764.7552
To learn more, please join us for a WebEx on September 21st. We will be offering free 30 day pilots to anyone who attends!
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
11:00 am | Central Daylight Time (Chicago) | 1 hr
Meeting number (access code): 632 474 162
my notes from the webinar
I am prejudiced against TI and I am not hiding it; that does not mean that I am wrong.
For me, TurnitIn (TI) is an anti-pedagogical “surfer,” using the hype of “technology” to ride the wave of overworked faculty, who hope to streamline increasing workload with technology instead of working on pedagogical resolutions of not that new issues.
Low and behold, Juan, the TI presenter is trying to dazzle me with stuff, which does not dazzle me for a long time.
WCAG 2.0 AA standards of the W3C and section 508 of the rehabilitation act.
the sales pitch: 79% of students believe in feedback, but only %50+ receive it. HIs source is TurnitIn surveys from 2012 to 2016 (very very small font size (ashamed of it?))
It seems to me very much like “massaged” data.
Testimonials: one professor and one students. Ha. the apex of qualitative research…
next sales pitch: TurnitIn feedback studio. Not any more the old Classic. It assesses the originality. Drag and drop macro-style notes. Pushing rubrics. but we still fight for rubrics in D2L. If we have a large amount of adjuncts. Ha. another gem. “I know that you are, guys, IT folks.” So the IT folks are the Trojan horse to get the faculty on board. put comments on
This presentation is structured dangerously askew: IT people but no faculty. If faculty is present, they will object that they ARE capable of doing the same which is proposed to be automated.
More , why do i have to pay for another expensive software, if we have paid already Microsoft? MS Word can do everything that has been presented so far. Between MS Word and D2L, it becomes redundant.
why the heck i am interested about middle school and high school.
TI was sued for illegal collection of paper; paper are stored in their database without the consent of the students’ who wrote it. TI goes “great length to protect the identity of the students,” but still collects their work [illegally?}
November 10 – 30 day free trial
otherwise, $3 per student, prompts back: between Google, MS Word and D2L (which we already heftily pay for), why pay another exuberant price.
D2L integration: version, which does not work. LTI.
“small price to pay of such a beauty” – it does not matter how quick and easy the integration is, it is a redundancy, which already can be resolved with existing tools, part of which we are paying hefty price for