1 / 19

An evaluation of Turnitin as a formative feedback tool

An evaluation of Turnitin as a formative feedback tool . Walter Nowlan. The case for …. can help students understand the concept of plagiarism by highlighting practices (Buckley and Cowap, 2013) can improve referencing and paraphrasing (Sheridan, Alany and Brake, 2005)

tammyschindler
Download Presentation

An evaluation of Turnitin as a formative feedback tool

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An evaluation of Turnitin as a formative feedback tool Walter Nowlan

  2. The case for … • can help students understand the concept of plagiarism by highlighting practices (Buckley and Cowap, 2013) • can improve referencing and paraphrasing (Sheridan, Alany and Brake, 2005) • teaches good practice and referencing conventions (Betts et al., 2013) • can reassure students when they are on the right track (Whittle and Murdoch-Eaton, 2008) (Betts et al., 2013) • help students develop paraphrasing skills (Rolfe, 2011) • is widely used in university settings, increasingly for formative purposes.

  3. But … Text-matching reports on their own are not very useful: • Do not ‘detect’ plagiarism – false negatives and false positives (Hayes and Introna, 2008) • They need to be interpreted • “Integrated and holistic approach” required (Carroll, 2009) • May not lead to a decrease in plagiarism (Rolfe, 2011) • It’s not clear whether text-matching software is used in a principled way (Pecorari and Petrić, 2014).

  4. PEAP Context • Intensive EAP course for students holding conditional offers for UG, PG or PhD study at NTU • Students study for between 10-6 weeks depending on their entry level proficiency • High stakes – students must attain required grade on PEAP in order to progress to degree course • Key aims of PEAP • to teach students the generic academic language and skills they will need on their various degree courses • to assess students’ linguistic readiness to begin English medium degree study • to introduce students to UK academic practice and the university environment

  5. Evolution of our Assessment Strategy

  6. A new approach to the coursework essay We wanted an approach which would • reflect our belief in assessment for learning as well as assessment of learning • assess the writing process as well as the end product • encourage student engagement at an early stage • provide several opportunities for formative assessment • promote student reflection and build confidence • lead to positive washback on teaching • mirror real academic practice

  7. The coursework essay writing process Engaging with source material Drafting an essay plan Formative feedback on draft plan Final plan (15%) Writing first draft FORMATIVE USE OF TURNITIN Peer review and teacher feedback First draft feedback viva (15%) Additional research to develop draft FORMATIVE USE OF TURNITIN Second draft Final draft submission (70%) Teacher feedback on final draft SUMMATIVE USE OF TURNITIN

  8. Analysis Sample size: N=40 (randomly selected from cohort of 259). Rolfe’s (2010: 703) criteria used: • Four (or more) lines of word-for-word copying • Four lines (or more) of poor paraphrasing • Lack of citation accompanying the evidence • Lack of full reference relating to the evidence – NOT USED • Any combination of the above

  9. Analysis Each submission tracked to discover: • how instances of poor academic practice. • whether students attempted to amend instances of poor academic practice in the light of the feedback from their Turnitin reports. • types of poor academic practice that occurred and how students addressed them (if at all) Referred to tutor feedback to students with problematic originality reports for first draft to ascertain: • degree of ‘integration’. • whether students addressed problems on their own (using Turnitin).

  10. How types of plagiarism are addressed

  11. Assessment Criteria – Integrated? YES! Good academic practices rewarded. Criteria address aspects of intertextuality: • Suitable use of quotation • Citation of source texts • Variety of in-text citation conventions • Paraphrasing and summarising of source texts. • Creation of reference list BUT MORE EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO TEXTUAL COPYING REQUIRED?

  12. Teacher Feedback – Integrated? 75% of direct copying was not commented on. Turnitin report mentioned only once. Copying highlighted = students reworded, often successfully Copying not highlighted: • most students reworded (unsuccessfully), transformed into quotation or removed the source. • some did not amend and/or included plagiarised texts in later submissions.

  13. How successful is Turnitin as a formative assessment tool? Students can spot instances of plagiarism using Turnitin, but many students don’t know how to act on it. Formative use of Turnitin seems to be more successful when: • students also receive explicit feedback from tutors on instances of plagiarism • classroom time is set aside to address issues.

  14. Actions based on results • Teacher training: • Familiarisation with Turnitin • Incorporation into feedback and viva. • Equipping students: • Awareness of good academic practice • How to interpret Turnitin report • Strategy practice • Incorporation into viva

  15. BETTS, L. R., BOSTOCK, S. J., ELDER, T. R. and TRUEMAN, M., 2013. Encouraging good writing practice in frist-year Psychology students: An intervention. Psychology Teaching Review, 18 (2), pp.74-81. BUCKLEY, E and COWAP, L., 2013. An evaluation of the use of Turnitin for electronic submission and marking and as a formative feedback tool from an educator’s perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44 (4), pp. 562-570. CARROLL, J., 2009. Should we use Turnitin at this university? Journal of Hospitality, Sport and Tourism Education, 8 (2), pp, 157-166. HAYES, N. and INTRONA, L., 2005. Systems for the production of plagiarists? The implications arising from the use of plagiarism detection systems in UK universities for Asian learners. Journal of Academic Ethics, 3 (1), pp.55-75. PECORARI, D. and PETRIĆ, B., 2014. Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching, 47 (3), pp. 269-302. ROLFE, V., 2011. Can Turnitin be used to provide instant formative feedback? British Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (4), pp. 701-710. SHERIDAN, J., ALANY. R. and BRAKE, D-J., 2005. Pharmacy students’ views and experience of Turnitin – an online tool for detecting academic honesty. Pharmacy Education, 5 (4), pp. 241-250. WHITTLE, S. R. and MURDOCH-EATON, D. G., 2008. Learning about plagiarism using Turnitin detection software. Medical Education, 42, p. 528.

More Related