Beyond Turnitin: A Pedagogical Framework for Identifying Plagiarism in Student Writing

1
Beyond Turnitin A Pedagogical Framework for
Identifying Plagiarism in Student Writing

• Dr Nadya Yakovchuk
• University of Leicester, UK
• n.yakovchuk_at_hotmail.co.uk

2
Outline

• 1. Setting the Scene
• 2. Plagiarism Identification Model
• 3. Comparison with Turnitin UK
• 4. Practical Implications

3
Part I. Setting the Scene

• My PhD Thesis PLAGIARISM AND INTERNATIONAL
  STUDENTS AN INVESTIGATION IN THE BRITISH HIGHER
  EDUCATION CONTEXTCentre for Applied Linguistics,
  University of Warwick, UKSupervisors Professor
  Hilary Nesi and Dr Richard Smith
• Focus academic writing of NNS (non-native
  speaker) students, plagiarism prevention
• Four Main Parts
• Empirical research into on-line plagiarism
  prevention guidelines at UK universities
• Theoretical research plagiarism
  conceptualisation
• Theoretical and empirical research into the
  causes of plagiarism among NNS students
• Theoretical and empirical research into the
  plagiaristic practices of NNS students

4
Complexity of Plagiarism

• Theoretical complexity
• (the complexity of the concept)
• Pennycook, 1994, 1996 Scollon, 1995 Currie,
  1998 Bloch, 2001 Howard, 2001 Pecorari, 2001
  Macdonald and Carroll, 2006, etc.

• Practical complexity
• (the complexity of identifying plagiarism)
• Pennycook, 1994 Buranen, 1999 Angélil-Carter,
  2000 Park, 2003 Pecorari, 2003, etc.

5
Challenges of Plagiarism Identification

• Scollon (1995 4)
• plagiarism shares a curious semantic feature
  with the term pornography. Even though we cannot
  agree on specifics, We know when we see it
• Three major challenges (Park, 2003)
• Distinguishing between different degrees of
  plagiarism
• Distinguishing between plagiarism and paraphrase
• Identifying the origin of ideas
• Some relevant studies
• Campbell (1990), Deckert (1993), Pecorari (2003),
  Shi (2004)

6
Study of Plagiaristic Practices of NNS Students

• Research Question What plagiaristic practices
  occur in the academic writing of NNS students?
• Focus textual plagiarism
• Method developing a Plagiarism Identification
  Model (PIM) and applying it to student writing
  samples
• Participants 10 third-year Chinese students
  doing a BA in English Language, Translation and
  Cultural Studies at Warwick
• Writing Samples 10 Sociolinguistics
  assignments (literature review parts), 1236 words
  on average (from 421 to 1806)

7
Part 2. Plagiarism Identification Model

• 2a) Plagiarism Identification Framework (PIF)
• 2b) Analysis Unit (AU) Identification
• 2c) Procedure of Applying PIF to AUs

8
2a) Plagiarism Identification Framework

• Three determinants for acceptability of writing
  in terms of source incorporation
• 1) Presence or absence of a Quotation Signal (QS)
• 2) Presence or absence of a Reference to a Source
  (RS)
• 3) Degree of Text Transformation
• Exact Copying (EC)
• Wording Close to Original (WCO) unsuccessful
  paraphrase
• Wording Distant from Original (WDO) successful
  paraphrase

9
Possible Combinations of Three Features and
Acceptability of Writing
10
Three Degrees of Acceptability of Writing
11
2b) Analysis Unit (AU) Identification

• Basic AU - a sentence
• Essay and section titles were not counted as AUs
• Tables and figures were counted as one AU
• 548 AUs in 10 samples (ranging from 24 to 88 per
  sample)

12
2c) Procedure of Applying PIF to AUs

• Identifying background sources for each AU and
  coding AUs accordingly
• 5 main categories
• U (unidentifiable)
• Own (student own writing)
• N (no plagiarism, i.e. acceptable writing)
• P (plagiarism)
• I (inconsistency in source attribution)
• 2 additional categories
• TE (technical errors)
• MM (misrepresentation of meaning)
• Metadiscourse

13
WCO or WDO? From 3-word string to
3-lexical-word string to 3-lexical-item
string formula

• Stubbs (1986) distinction between lexical and
  grammatical words

14
WCO or WDO?3-Lexical-Item String Formula in
Action
15
Results

• 548 analysis units
• 123 - own writing (Own)
• 127 unidentifiable (U)
• 298 (54 ) - based on sources (P, N, I)
• 48.3 - P
• 51.4 - N
• 0.3 - I

16
Percentage Figures for Acceptability of Writing
17
Summary of Main Findings

• A considerable amount of plagiarism in the
  analysed samples (26.5 of all 548 AUs, or 48.3
  of the 298 AUs identified as based on sources)
• 43 of plagiarism units constituted WDO without
  a quotation signal or a source reference
  (plagiarism of ideas)
• 29 of plagiarism units were WCO, with a source
  reference and without a quotation signal
• 67 of plagiarism units did not contain a
  reference to a source (EC, WCO or WDO)
• Technical Errors (e.g. incomplete references to
  sources, wrong use of quotation marks,
  inaccuracies in documenting secondary citations,
  etc.) constituted 20.5 of all the AUs identified
  as based on sources

18
Part 3. Comparison withTurnitin UK
19
Discussion

• Turnitin UK
• Limitations
• Incomplete coverage (limited database, printed
  sources, etc.)
• Originality Reports
• Plagiarism of ideas
• Strengths
• Highly standardised procedure
• Fast performance
• Saves time and effort

• Proposed PIF
• Limitations
• Incomplete coverage (subjective)
• Time-consuming and labour intensive (manual
  examination)
• Familiarity with the subject required for
  effective use
• Strengths
• Identifying different types of plagiarism
• Plagiarism of ideas
• Covers printed sources

20
Part 4. Practical Implications
because the problem has been exacerbated by
the impact of communication and information
technology, it could be tempting to believe that
a solution is provided through the same means,
i.e. through electronic detection tools (Carroll
and Appleton, 2001 4) COMPLEMENTARY
PROCEDURES?

• Turnitin UK
• Detection tool large-scale screening, longer
  pieces of writing
• Pedagogical tool (playing the system?)
• Deterrent
• Although Originality Reports can be very
  effective at helping to identify suspected
  individual cases of plagiarism, JISC PDS
  plagiarism prevention works even more powerfully
  when used as a deterrent. Students who know that
  their work could come under effective scrutiny
  are much more likely to produce original work
  (JISC Plagiarism Detection Service Instructor
  User Guide, 2005 16).

• Proposed PIF
• Detection tool small samples of student writing
• Research tool (when close examination of text is
  required)
• Pedagogical tool developing skills of
  appropriate source incorporation and successful
  paraphrasing
• By EAP tutors short structured writing tasks
• By subject tutors trial assignments

21
References

• Angélil-Carter, S. 2000. Stolen Language?
  Plagiarism in writing. UK, Essex Pearson
  Education Limited.
• Bloch, J. 2001. Plagiarism and the ESL Student
  From Printed to Electronic Texts. In Belcher, D.
  and A. Hirvela (Eds.). Linking Literacies.
  Perspectives on L2 Reading-writing Connections.
  USA The University of Michigan Press, pp.
  209-228.
• Buranen, L. 1999. But I Wasnt Cheating
  Plagiarism and Cross-Cultural Mythology. In
  Buranen, L. and A.M. Roy (Eds), Perspectives on
  Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a
  Postmodern World. New York Sate University of
  New York Press.
• Campbell, C. 1990. Writing with others words
  Using background reading text in academic
  compositions. In Kroll B. (Ed.). Second Language
  Writing. Cambridge Cambridge University Press,
  pp. 211-230.
• Carroll, J. and J. Appleton. 2001. Plagiarism. A
  Good Practice Guide. Oxford Brooks Univeristy.
• Currie, P. 1998. Staying Out of Trouble Apparent
  Plagiarism and Academic Survival. Journal of
  Second Language Writing, 7/1, pp. 1-18.
• Deckert, G. D. 1993. Perspectives on Plagiarism
  from ESL Students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second
  Language Writing, 2/2, pp. 131-148.
• Howard, R. M. 2001. Plagiarism What Should a
  Teacher Do? Paper presented at the Conference on
  College Composition and Communication. Syracuse
  University. http//wrt-howard.syr.edu/Papers/CCCC2
  001.html Access date 13/06/2008.
• JISC Plagiarism Detection Service Instructor User
  Guide. 2005, Updated.http//www.submit.ac.uk/usag
  e_jisc/jisc_instructor_guide.pdf Access date
  13/06/08.

22
References

• Macdonald, R. and J. Carroll. 2006. Plagiarism
  a complex issue requiring a holistic
  institutional approach. Assessment Evaluation
  in Higher Education, 31/2, pp. 233-245.
• Park, C. 2003. In Other (Peoples) Words
  plagiarism by university students literature
  and lessons. Assessment Evaluation in Higher
  Education, 28/5, pp. 471-488.
• Pecorari, D. 2001. Plagiarism and International
  Students How the English-Speaking University
  Responds. In Belcher, D. and A. Hirvela (Eds.).
  Linking Literacies. Perspectives on L2
  Reading-writing Connections. USA The University
  of Michigan Press, pp. 229-245.
• Pecorari, D. 2003. Good and original Plagiarism
  and patchwriting in academic second-language
  writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12,
  pp. 317-345.
• Pennycook A. 1994. The Complex Contexts of
  Plagiarism A Reply to Deckert. Journal of Second
  Language Writing, 3/3, pp. 277-284.
• Pennycook, A. 1996. Borrowing Others Words
  Text, Ownership, memory, and Plagiarism. TESOL
  Quarterly, 30/2, pp. 201-230.
• Scollon, R. 1995. Plagiarism and ideology
  Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in
  Society, 24, pp. 1-28.
• Shi, L. 2004. Textual Borrowing in
  Second-Language Writing. Written Communication,
  21/2, pp. 171-200.
• Stubbs, M. 1986. Lexical density a technique and
  some findings. In Coulthard M. (Ed.). Talking
  about text. English Language Research Journal,
  (University of Birmingham), 13, pp. 27-42.

23
Beyond Turnitin A Pedagogical Frameworkfor
Identifying Plagiarism in Student Writing

• MANY THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
• ANY QUESTIONS?
• Dr Nadya Yakovchuk
• University of Leicester, UK
• n.yakovchuk_at_hotmail.co.uk