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

1 / 21
About This Presentation
Title:

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

Description:

How effective are electronic plagiarism detection systems and does it matter how you use them? Dr Jo Badge (_at_jobadge) School of Biological Sciences – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:593
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: archivePla
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

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


1
How effective are electronic plagiarism detection
systems and does it matter how you use them?
  • Dr Jo Badge (_at_jobadge)
  • School of Biological Sciences
  • University of Leicester

2
http//bit.ly/eDetection
3
(No Transcript)
4
Electronic Detection Systems
  • Software to automatically search for non-original
    text
  • dynamic list of software online

5
Plagiarism detection services
6
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

7
Mode of use prevention
  1. Long term effects
  2. Risk / benefit perceptions
  3. Punishment as education

8
1. Long term effects Culwin, 2006
9
Deterrent Badge, 2007
Detection rate/
pilot 2.06
Year 1 2.73
Year 2 0.94
10
2. Risk / benefit perceptions Woessner 2004
11
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

12
Mode of use student access
  1. Punitive supported access
  2. Outside institutional systems
  3. Institutional open access
  4. Tutor supported access

13
2. Outside institutional systems
first spelling check second grammar check
third originality check
14
3. Institutional open access
  • Still fairly rare
  • IFS
  • York (controlled training session trial)

15
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 (n78) 10 1
Politics 100 D (n73) 9 0
16
4. Tutor supported access
  • Ledwith Risquez, 2008

Proportion of matching text for both assignments
submitted through Turnitin
17
Ledwith Risquez, 2008
18
Barrett Malcolm, 2006
19
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 n66 (over 3 years 2007-2009)

20
http//bit.ly/eDetection
21
Acknowledgements
  • Higher Education Academy
  • University of Leicester Teaching Enhancement
    Forum
  • GENIE CETL

Dr Nadya Yakovchuk
Dr Jon Scott
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com