Approaches To Developing A Programme For Educating Students (and Staff) About Academic Conduct

Approaches to developing a programme for educating students (and staff) about academic conduct and misconduct using Turnitin

Hazel Owen

Introduction Sensitive consideration of general guidelines at the planning and subsequent stages of implementing innovations, as well as the development of associated programmes can lead to greater uptake (Bonk, Cummings, Hara, Fischler, & Lee, 2000). This report considers some underlying considerations when designing new programmes and then suggests and critiques two approaches to developing a programme for educating students (and staff) about academic conduct and misconduct using Turnitin. The Issue at Unitec Plagiarism is a global issue, and one strategy that has been adopted by Unitec is the use of the plagiarism detection software, Turnitin (Allan, Callagher, Connors, Joyce, & Rees, 2005). Although a few academic schools use the software, uptake has tended to be ad hoc with only interested schools holding licenses. Research would be required to identify reasons for this tendency (Stockley, 2006), but such a study is not within the remit of this report. Discussion Research conducted initially by Moore (1991) indicates that the adoption of innovation and change rates vary, and can be placed on a bell curve (see Figure 1). Figure 1 illustrates that a few departments and faculty will always be fascinated by new innovations (the innovators). Once the potential of the innovation is recognised others become interested (the early adopters). Subsequently, if convinced by the results of the innovators and early adopters, as well as given sufficient incentives, the more pragmatic may be attracted to form an early majority of users (Woodellby, & Garofoli, 2002). Cummings (1995) indicates that effectiveness and rate of adoption, as well as shifts in attitude, need to be motivated by convincing reasons. Motivation can include ‘reward’ such as release and development time, and technical support, as well as intrinsic motivation such as the enhancement of learning (Zemsky & Massy, 2004). Unless reasons are compelling the adoption process can become stalled in the ‘chasm’ (Bonk et al, 2000).

Hazel Owen

Figure 1: The Diffusion of Innovation Adoption Bell Curve (Moore, 1991, from Rogers, 1962) Key to Figure 1 Innovators (I)

Enthusiasts who like technology for its own sake.

Early Adopters (EA)

Those who have vision to adopt emerging technology

The Chasm (C)

Time gap in technology adoption, which is between early adopters and pragmatists.

Pragmatists (P) Early Majority

Early majority pragmatists are solid citizens who do not like to take risks of pioneering, but are ready to see advantages of tested technologies

Pragmatists (P) -Late Majority

Late majority pragmatists represent about one-third, who dislike discontinuous innovations and believe in tradition rather than progress.

Traditionalists (T)

Traditionalists (laggards) do not engage with high technology products - except to block them.

If the use of an initiative is going to be efficacious and enduring (Geoghegan, 1994, Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001) a range of barriers (Owen & Allardice, 2007) need to be considered (see Table 1). In particular, ICT innovations must “address pedagogical as well as technological, economical, societal, and political objectives” (Hoppe & Breitner, 2006, p. 45).

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 3 of 12

Hazel Owen

As much as is feasible all stakeholders (see Figure 2) should be involved in the preliminary stages of implementing an innovation such as Turnitin (Collis & Van der Wende, 2002).

Figure 2: Dynamic collaborative process of blended e-learning integration project management planning (Owen & Allardice, 2007)

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 4 of 12

Hazel Owen

Turnitin A simple definition of plagiarism is: “The use of another person’s ideas, expressions or opinions without acknowledging or noting the source” (Learning Centre, 2004, p. 2). Sheard, Markham, and Dick (2003) indicate that plagiarism has three major damaging effects. The first is escalating negative attitudes toward the value of study; secondly, students who plagiarise do not learn, and finally, they are not able to demonstrate target learning outcomes. Degrees of plagiarism vary (see Table 2) as do the reasons behind it (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Core reasons that culminate in students plagiarising (Owen, 2007).

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 5 of 12

Hazel Owen

Turnitin (iParadigms, 2004) is plagiarism detection software that matches text by comparing a 'submitted' text with papers, Web sites, online journals, and other electronic resources and printed resources contained in a database. An originality report is produced where matching text is colour coded and the source indicated with a hyperlink to the original (Mulcahy, & Goodacre, 2004). The submitted text is added to the database for future comparisons. One limitation of Turnitin is that not all cases of plagiarism are recognised especially when paraphrasing is used. However, research suggests that more examples of plagiarism are identified than when Turnitin is not used (Mulcahy, & Goodacre, 2004), but each report has to be checked manually to ascertain the extent of the plagiarism and the reason behind it (Lancaster, & Culwin, 2004). Suggested approaches to address the issue The term 'programme' has several interpretations. In a more general sense it can be a system or institutional initiative whereby a plan is devised to implement an innovation, change or reform. Alternatively, it can be a set of stand-alone workshops, seminars, or training sessions aimed at a whole system/institution, or it can be a specific, fully-integrated learning module. Developing a programme for educating students (and staff) about academic conduct and misconduct using Turnitin – Approach One A suggested approach to developing a programme that would educate students (and staff) about academic conduct and misconduct using Turnitin would be to offer a series of workshops and supporting resources. The first step would be investigative and would included attendance at c ey staff could be involved in the planning, design and development stages. However, there may be issues with workload and time release (Moser, 2007; Garrison & Vaughan, 2007), as well as with levels of technical expertise (Donovan, 1999). On the other hand, if staff are involved at the design stage there is an increased sense of ownership and buy-in (Zemsky & Massy, 2004), plus staff would become very familiar with the workings and potential of Turnitin. A major drawback with Approach One is that unless aims are explicitly integrated into graduate outcomes, associated curricula and assessments, the sessions may be seen (by both students and staff) as irrelevant add-ons. Furthermore, with academic schools where there is a

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 6 of 12

Hazel Owen

strong practical skills focus plagiarism could be considered to be relatively low priority (Woodellby, & Garofoli, 2002). Developing a programme for educating students (and staff) about academic conduct and misconduct using Turnitin – Approach Two Another approach would involve a more integrated implementation whereby initial seminars and workshops for faculty are followed by a second stage where each academic school (with support from education technology specialists) plan, design and integrate into their curricula heavily scaffolded, blended learning plagiarism awareness and avoidance programmes (Owen & Durham, 2006). Face-to-face sessions would be complemented by online, interactive tools, documents, models, explanations, instructions, learning outcomes and rubrics (Garrison, & Vaughan, 2007) (for further detail, see Table 3).

Students would be taught the ethics of academic integrity, as well as given opportunities to actively assimilate and apply the basic skills to avoid plagiarism (Hughes, Kooy, & Kanevsky, 1997) in assignments, assessments and projects (see Table 4), and an iterative cycle would facilitate experiential learning. Information communication technologies (ICT) could provide students with opportunities (through tools such as group discussions, postings on bulletin boards, and blogs) to ask for assistance, peer tutor, and discuss (Gross & Wolff, 2001, Waxman, Lin, & Michko, 2003) the 'why, how, and what' of avoiding plagiarism. The 'tailored' approach can help guarantee that student needs and learning styles (Fleming & Bonwell, 1998) were catered for.

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 7 of 12

Hazel Owen

Some benefits of approach two include involving faculty with suitable expertise, or who wish to upskill, in an authentic project. Staff from the teaching and learning support department could provide project management assistance (Stockley, 2006), as well as just-in-time, one-toone training whereby a faculty member can ask for assistance while in the middle of the development process therefore taking part in the problem solving process. Existing resources could be adapted and integrated to reflect the particular academic school's culture / learning community, as well as using tasks, activities and assessments that are already part of courses. Students from each academic school could also be involved in smallscale pilots of programmes, providing feedback before widescale use, thus giving students an increased sense that they are valuable members of the learning community. Drawbacks to approach two include greater budgetary requirements as staff involved with development would require some incentive such as release time and training (Cramphorn, 2004). There could also be problems with meeting deadlines, and ensuring consistency (McPherson, 2002) and sustained involvement from academics who may be used to working C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 8 of 12

Hazel Owen

individually (Owen, 2006). Furthermore, as the programmes would be evaluated during and after implementation, there would be follow-up revisions that would require team agreement and effort (Hoppe & Breitner, 2006). There are also researchers, educators and managers who emphasise that using ICT enhanced learning can be complex and fraught with issues with some claiming “that e-learning was just one more fad, exhibiting more hype than substance” (Zemsky & Massy, 2004, p. 3). Parity of input and output is important for effective team work, and where this is not the case the implementation and uptake of a project can be slowed, halted, or blocked completely. Mentoring can be valuable; in each team, there will be members with different levels of expertise and experience. As such, faculty members can buddy up, work together on tasks, and provide support when appropriate within an established relationship of mutual trust (Owen & Allardice, 2007). Conclusion and recommendations To help increase the likelihood of extensive, sustained uptake of innovations such as Turnitin, the approach to developing suitable programmes needs to be selected sensitively. It is essential to encourage academic schools to build collaborative and supportive teams (Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001) where initiatives are driven internally (Graves, 2005). As such, faculty should have input into initial research, educational philosophies, identification of their own and of student needs (Stockley, 2006), design, interface, choice of tools, resources, and the piloting of the programmes developed (Donovan, 1999). Students must also feel a sense of ownership, and this can be encouraged through explicit evaluation of the programmes. The two approaches to developing and implementing a programme to educate students and staff to use Turnitin have both strengths and weaknesses. As more data is not available to inform a detailed consideration of the approaches no definitive recommendation can be made. However, approach two offers a wide range of benefits that would enhance learning for both students and staff. On the other hand, the undertaking is initially time and labour consuming, although the greater depth of understanding, the possibilities for recycling, and the relevance to each individual academic school suggests that it would be a more viable approach than that offered by option one. Furthermore, although option one is likely to appear more cost-effective it is unlikely to encourage committed uptake by any but the innovators and the early adopters.

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 9 of 12

Hazel Owen

References Allan, G., Callagher, L., Connors, M., Joyce, D., & Rees, M. (2005). Some Australasian perspectives on academic integrity in the Internet age. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from www.copyright.mq.edu.au/pdf/austperspect.pdf Bonk, C. J., & Cummings, J. A. (1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the center of Web-based learning. Educational Media International, 35(2), 82-89. Bonk, C. J., Cummings, J. A., Hara, N., Fischler, R. B., & Lee, S. M. (2000). A ten level web integration continuum for educational psychology courses: New resources, partners, courses, and markets. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk/paper/10level.html Christe, B. (2003). Designing online courses to discourage dishonesty. Educause Quarterly(4), 54-58. Collis, B., & Van der Wende, M. C. (2002). Models of Technology and Change in Higher Education: An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in Higher Education. Enschede: University of Twente. Cramphorn, C. (2004). An evaluation of the formal and underlying factors influencing student participation with e-learning web discussion forums. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/individual_pa pers/cramphorn.htm Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the Collaborative Experience of Learning. London: Routledge. Culwin, F., & Lancaster, T. (2001). Plagiarism, Prevention, Deterrence & Detection. Retrieved May 02, 2004, from http://www.ilt.ac.uk/resources/Culwin-Lancaster.htm Dawson, J. (2004). Plagiarism: what’s really going on? In J. Hobson (Ed.), Seeking Educational Excellence. Perth: Murdoch University. Cummings, L. E. (1995). Educational technology - A faculty resistance view: Part I: Incentives and Understanding. Educational Technology Review Aut, 4, 13-18. Donovan, M. (1999). Rethinking faculty support. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://technologysource.org/article/rethinking_faculty_support Fleming, N., & Bonwell, C. C. (1998). VARK: A guide to learning styles. Retrieved 2 January, 2005, from http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp Garrison, R., & Vaughan, N. (2007). Blended learning and course redesign in higher education: Assessing the role of teaching presence from the learner perspective. Retrieved May 12, 2007, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/ Geoghegan, W. H. (1994). Whatever happened to instructional technology? Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Business Schools Computing Association, Baltimore, MD. Graves, W. H. (2005). Improving performance through IT-enabled innovation. Educause Review(November / December), 79-98. Hagner, P. R., & Schneebeck, C. A. (2001). Engaging the faculty. In C. A. Barone & P. R. Hagner (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Teaching and Learning: Leading and Supporting the Transformation on Your Campus (Vol. 5, pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Heinze, A., & Proctor, C. (2004). Reflections on the use of blended learning. Paper presented at the Education in a Changing Environment, University of Salford, UK. Retrieved June 10 2005, from the Salford University Web site: http://www.edu.salford.ac.uk/her/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf. Hexham, I. (1999). The plague of plagiarism. Retrieved October 21, 2005, from C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 10 of 12

Hazel Owen

http://c.faculty.umkc.edu/cowande/plague.htm#self Hoppe, G., & Breitner, M. H. (2006). Evaluation and optimization of E-learning scenarios. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft(February), 43-61. Hughes, H. W., Kooy, M., & Kanevsky, L. (1997). Dialogic reflection and journaling. Clearing House, 70(4), 187-190. iParadigms. (2004). Turnitin tour. Retrieved January 20, 2008, from http://www.turnitin.com/static/tour/tour_master.html Klass, P. (1987, 5 April). Turning my words against me. New York Times Book Review, pp. 4546. Lahur, A. M. (2005). Plagiarism among Asian students at an Australian university offshore campus: Is it a cultural issue? A pilot study. Retrieved March 14, 2006, from http://herdsa2004.curtin.edu.my/contributions/NRPapers/A033-jt.pdf Lancaster, T., & Culwin, F. (2004). Using freely available tools to produce a partially automated plagiarism detection process. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 520-529). Perth, Australia: ASCILITE. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Learning Center. (2004). Library Glossary. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://dbm.hct.ac.ae/learningCenter/ReferenceZone/learning_majlis/Glossary/Library_Glossary.htm Lipson, A., & Reindl, S. M. (2003). The responsible plagiarist: Understanding students who misuse sources. About Campus, July / August, 7-14. Love, P. (1997). The meaning and mediated nature of cheating and plagiarism among graduate students in college of education. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Alburqueue, New Mexico. Martin, B. (1994). Plagiarism: A misplaced emphasis. Journal of Information Ethics, 3(2), 3647. Martin, B. (1997). Academic credit where it's due. Campus Review, 7(21), 11. Martin, D. F. (2005). Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of Education for Business, 80(3), 149-152. McPherson, M. (2002). Organisational critical success factors for managing eLearning implementation. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/8445/26602/01186336.pdf Moore, G. (1991). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling technology products to mainstream customers. New York: Harper Business. Moran, D., Durham, E., & Owen, H. (2007). From disorientation to application: Integrated mathematics and computing tasks. In Active Teaching and Active Learning (pp. 89-99). Abu Dhabi, UAE: Middle East Teachers of Science, Mathematics and Computing (METSMac). Moser, F. Z. (2007). Faculty adoption of educational technology. Educause Quarterly, 1, 66-69. Mulcahy, S., & Goodacre, C. (2004). Opening Pandora’s box of academic integrity: Using plagiarism detection software. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds.), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 688-696). Perth, Australia: ASCILITE.

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 11 of 12

Hazel Owen

Owen, H. (2007). ESL students: Fostering skills to avoid plagiarism. The power of language: Perspectives from Arabia. A. Jendli, S. Troudi and C. Coombe. Dubai, TESOL Arabia: 215-231. Owen, H. (2006). Research skills and projects: A blended learning course (Blended learning education course). Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai: Dubai Men's College. Owen, H. (2005). Sociocultural theory: An interpretative framework for computer assisted language learning? In J.-B. Son & S. O'Neill (Eds.), Enhancing learning and teaching: Pedagogy, technology and language (pp. 195-214). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed. Owen, H., & Allardice, R. (2007). Managing the implementation of blended E-learning initiatives with the unconverted in a climate of institutionally driven change. The International Journal of Learning, 14(9), 179-192. Owen, H. & Durham, E. (2006). Course leader's report: Research Skills and Projects 2006. Dubai: Dubai Men's College. Owen, J. M. (2006). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches (3rd ed.). New York: Allen & Unwin. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press of Glence. Sheard, J., Markham, S., & Dick, M. (2003). Investigating Differences in Cheating Behaviours of IT Undergraduate and Graduate Students: the maturity and motivation factors. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(1), 91-108. Stockley, D. (2006). Implementing e-learning successfully. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from http://derekstockley.com.au/articles/elearning-implementation.html Woodellby, J., & Garofoli, E. (2002). Faculty development and the diffusion of innovations. Retrieved December 6, 2007, from http://campustechnology.com/articles/39321_4 Young, K. (2005). Plagiarism Prevention. Retrieved February 28, 2006, from http://www.uwplatt.edu/library/reference/plagiarism.html Zemsky, R., & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted Innovation: What happened to e-learning and why. Retrieved December 7, 2007, from http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/Docs/Jun2004/ThwartedInnovation.pdf

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.doc Page 12 of 12