how effective are electronic plagiarism detection systems and does it matter how you use them?...

www.le.ac.uk

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

4th International Plagiarism Conference 23 June 2010

Dr Jo Badge (@jobadge)School of Biological SciencesUniversity of Leicester

http://bit.ly/eDetection

Electronic Detection Systems

• Software to automatically search for non-original text

• dynamic list of software online [link]

Plagiarism detection services

Turnitin CopyCatch

SafeAssign

WCopyFind

Effectiveness

• Cross comparison reviews mostly focus on usability

• Live testing with scoring for detection rates carried out by Debora Weber-Wuff– Rates Safeassign above Turnitin in terms

of detection rates

Mode of use: prevention

1. Long term effects

2. Risk / benefit perceptions

3. Punishment as education

1. Long term effects : Culwin, 2006

Deterrent : Badge, 2007

Detection rate/ %

pilot 2.06 Year 1

2.73

Year 2

0.94

2. Risk / benefit perceptions : Woessner 2004

3. Punishment as education

• Punitive tutor-supported access

• Students shown originality report prior to penalty

• Most common but least studied

• Form of student access to originality reports

Mode of use: student access

1.Punitive supported access

2.Outside institutional systems

3.Institutional open access

4.Tutor supported access

2. Outside institutional systems

first: spelling check; second: grammar check; third: originality check

3. Institutional open access

Still fairly rare in UK

• IFS

• York (controlled training session trial)

Braumoeller & Gaines, 2001

• Marked on grading curve

• Feedback on effect of plagiarism on grades

Assignment 1

Plagiarised papers

Assignment 2

Plagiarised papers

Politics 100 C (n=78) 10 1Politics 100 D(n=73) 9 0

4. Tutor supported accessLedwith & Risquez, 2008

Proportion of matching text for both assignments submitted through Turnitin

Ledwith & Risquez, 2008

Barrett & Malcolm, 2006

Davis & Carroll, 2009

Reduction in– Amount of plagiarism (45.5%)– Over-reliance on one source (45.5%)– Citation errors (62%)– Insufficient paraphrasing (38%)

Percentages= total final drafts showing reduction where n=66 (over 3 years 2007-

2009)

http://bit.ly/eDetection

AcknowledgementsHigher Education Academy

University of Leicester Teaching Enhancement Forum

GENIE CETL

Dr Nadya Yakovchuk

Dr Jon Scott