Perceived Effectiveness of Turnitin® in Detecting Plagiarism in Presentation Slides

Year 2019, , 25 - 36, 15.01.2019

Seher Balbay Selcan Kilis

https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.512522

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This cross-sectional survey study investigates students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Turnitin in detecting plagiarism in academic presentation slides. The data was collected online from 311 students studying at a prominent English-medium instruction university in Turkey. The findings indicated that more than half of them believed in the effectiveness of Turnitin in detecting plagiarism in presentations. Students perceived themselves as academically honest when preparing their presentations. Also, they were aware of the importance of using Turnitin in a required presentation skills course to detect plagiarism. This research can add to the literature since, unlike research on the use of detecting plagiarism in writing, the literature on the use of Turnitin in presentations is not rich and diverse.

Keywords

Plagiarism, Plagiarism detection, Academic honesty, Turnitin

References

• Akbulut, Y., Sendag, S., Birinci, G., Kilicer, K., Sahin, M. C., & Odabasi, H. F. (2008). Exploring the types and reasons of Internet-triggered academic dishonesty among Turkish undergraduate students: Development of Internet-Triggered Academic Dishonesty Scale (ITADS). Computers & Education, 51, 463-473.
• Akbulut, Y., Uysal, O., Odabasi, H. F., & Kuzu, A. (2008). Influence of gender, program of study and PC experience on unethical computer using behaviors of Turkish undergraduate students. Computers & Education, 51, 485-492.
• Anderson, M. S. & Steneck, N. H. (2011). The problem of plagiarism. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 29(1), 90-94.
• Blum, S. D. (2009). My word! Plagiarism and college culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Brumfiel, G. (2007). Turkish physicists face accusations of plagiarism. Nature, 449(8), 8. doi:10.1038/449008b
• Bruton, S. & Childers, D. (2016). The ethics and politics of policing plagiarism: A qualitative study of faculty views on student plagiarism and Turnitin®. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 316-330.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson Education.
• Eret, E. & Ok, A. (2014). Internet plagiarism in higher education: tendencies, triggering factors and reasons among teacher candidates. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 1002-1016. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.880776
• Flint, A., Clegg, S., & Macdonald, R. (2006). Exploring staff perceptions of student plagiarism. Journal of further and higher education, 30(2), 145-156.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Gokmenoglu, T. (2017). A review of literature: Plagiarism in the papers of Turkish context. Higher Education Studies, 7(3), 161-170.
• Graham-Matheson, L. & Starr, S. (2013). Is it cheating or learning the craft of writing? Using Turnitin to help students avoid plagiarism. Research in Learning Technology. Research in Learning Technology, 21, 1-13.
• Halgamuge, M. N. (2017). The use and analysis of anti‐plagiarism software: Turnitin tool for formative assessment and feedback. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(6), 895-909.
• Hayes, N. & Introna, L. D. (2015). Cultural values, plagiarism and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics and Behavior, 15(3), 213-231.
• Henderson, P. (2008). Electronic grading and marking: A note on Turnitin's GradeMark function. History Australia, 15(1), 11.1-11.2.
• Hu, G. & Lei, J. (2016). Plagiarism in English academic writing: A comparison of Chinese university teachers' and students' understandings and stances. System, 56, 107-118.
• Introna, L. D. & Hayes, N. (2011). On sociomaterial imbrications: What plagiarism detection systems reveal and why it matters. Information and Organization, 21(2), 107-122.
• Kenny, D. (2007). Student plagiarism and professional practice. Nurse Education Today, 27, 14-18.
• Kose, O. & Arikan, A. (2011). Reducing plagiarism by using online software: An experimental study. Contemporary Online Language Education Journal, 1, 122-129.
• McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
• Our History: Turnitin. (2018). Retrieved from Turnitin: http://turnitin.com/en_us/about-us/our-company
• Pennington, M. C. (2010). Plagiarism in the academy: Towards a proactive pedagogy. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(2), 147-162.
• Power, L. G. (2009). University students' perceptions of plagiarism. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 643-662.
• Risquez, A., O’Dwyer, M., & Ledwith, A. (2013). 'Thou shalt not plagiarise': From self-reported views to recognition and avoidance of plagiarism. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(1), 34-43.
• Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 307-323.
• Singh, A., Mangalaraj, G., & Taneja, A. (2011). An approach to detecting plagiarism in spreadsheet assignments: A digital answer to digital cheating. Journal of Accounting Education, 29(2), 142-152.
• Sutherland-Smith, W. & Carr, R. (2005). Turnitin.com: Teachers’ perspectives of anti-plagiarism software in raising issues of educational integrity. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2(3), 95-101.