plagiarism paper scharr

8/8/2019 Plagiarism Paper Scharr

1/19

Plagiarism: an Educational Approach

Nick Fox, Andrew Booth and Alan ORourke

University of Sheffield


2/19

Abstract

The paper reports an approach to addressing plagiarism and other unfair means in higher

education. It comprises a) an educational programme to introduce the concepts of plagiarism

to students and give them an opportunity to practice academic writing; b) a system of

declarations for all assignments; and c) a procedure to enable students and teachers to check

work using the text-matching package Turnitin. We discuss this approach in the context of

academic literacy, arguing that our responsibility to higher education students includes

fostering skills in academic writing. Furthermore, as academics we need to be aware of the

values and principles concerning originality and evidence-based citation that underpin

concepts such as plagiarism, and recognise that these concepts can be problematic for

students. Interviews with students and staff indicated a positive evaluation of the project, and

the paper describes the extension of the approach to cover all our teaching.


3/19

Introduction

Higher education institutions face a challenge to their examination procedures as a

consequence of intentional and unintentional plagiarism (Culwin and Lancaster 2001). The

rise in cases of detected plagiarism has been linked to the emergence of easy access to

millions of words of digitised scholarly texts via Internet sources, including e-journals held in

University libraries, academic search engines and more recently, Google Scholar(Ashworth

et al. 1997, OConnor 2003, Park 2003). Not only are these sources readily accessed, they are

easy to cut and paste with two clicks of a mouse button. Sharing electronic text files similarly

facilitates collusion between students. Self-plagiarism, a less recognised phenomenon, may

also be on the increase, among both students and faculty members (Collberg and Kobourov

2005).

The higher education sector has responded by developing technical solutions to address

plagiarism. Most simply, lecturers apply the same methods as their plagiarising students to

detect non-original work. Typing a sentence from a suspect essay into a search engine such

as GoogleScholarmay quickly identify matching text, and hence the source of plagiarism

(Culwin and Lancaster 2001: 36). This process has been formalised in a number of software

packages that have been developed to detect texts matches (Scaife 2007) of which the best-

known in UK academic communities is probably Turnitin. 1 These packages enable matching

of text with an extensive database of materials including previously submitted student work,

and are consequently valuable tools to identify suspected plagiarism and collusion. Turnitin

permits teaching staff to submit an electronic version of a students work and discover the

extent of text matching, or create a classroom and require all students to submit their essays

using the software. The software also offers opportunities for students to pre-test their work

for matching text (Whittle and Murdoch-Eaton 2008), and then submit it when it falls below a

pre-defined limit (for example, 20 per cent matched text). It should be noted that the software

does not detect plagiarism or collusion explicitly: it merely identifies matched text. There

may be legitimate reasons for matches, including properly referenced quotations from

scholarly sources. For these reasons, the software should be seen as a means for staff to

identify suspect matching text, as a first step in investigating why there is text matching.


4/19

Even when using software to detect text matches, plagiarism detection can be time-

consuming, as can any subsequent disciplinary procedures (Carroll 2002). In this paper, we

report our own response to plagiarism in a higher education context. This approach takes --

on one hand -- a zero tolerance approach to plagiarism, regarding it as a serious intellectual

offence worthy of disciplinary action, and on the other, an educational approach to academic

writing as part and parcel of the learning that higher education should foster in its students.

The problem of plagiarism

Unlike most other walks of life, the academic world is founded on a principle of

acknowledging intellectual outputs as the basis not only for scholarly advance, but of

individual achievement (Boud 1990). It is thus unsurprising that efforts to pass off anothers

intellectual work as ones own are regarded as a serious infringement amounting to

dishonesty, lack of integrity or theft (Park 2003: 474, 476), indeed academic careers have

been interrupted or ended by exposure of plagiarism. Socialisation into academe includes

understanding this principle and the responsibility of all to adhere to it. Students need quickly

to adopt this value if they are not to fall foul of academic disfavour or discipline, although as

Lea and Street point out (1998: 158), it is also the duty of educationalists to recognise the

different models of literacy that students may apply to their writing in good faith. Where

individuals are studying to enter professions, or are already members of a profession such as

medicine, it may also be argued that plagiarism represents unprofessional behaviour that

should be punished with particular zeal.

However, we would argue that is over-simplistic to consider plagiarism simply as a feckless

endeavour to cheat or gain unfair advantage. While many cases of plagiarism considered in

academic disciplinary committees have identified intentional efforts to pass off others

intellectual property as their own, many other reasons for copying texts without due

recognition have also been suggested. In their review, Hayes and Introna (2003) identify a

range of factors that may have led to increasing plagiarism, including a lack of understanding

by students and clarity by university authorities of plagiarism, worsening staff-student ratios

leading to inadequate mentoring, increased use of assessment methods other than unseen

examinations, and coincident deadlines for multiple assignments. Park (2003) documents


5/19


6/19

However, given the social and cultural contexts within which students and their writing are

situated, and the importance of addressing not only the equity of the examination process but

additionally the development of students capacities as academic producers, it insufficient to

address plagiarism simply in terms of discipline, as many institutions (including our own)

have inclined (Park 2003). With a rapid increase in the numbers of overseas students

unfamiliar with UK academic culture, we wished both to ensure rigorous and punitive

responses to intellectual fraud, and to give students an opportunity to address their academic

literacy, gaining transferable skills in academic writing and developing their own writing

identities as members of an academic community. Whittle and Murdoch-Eaton (2008) found

that students appreciated the opportunity to pre-test their essays for plagiarism, both as re-

assurance and to gain greater understanding of academic writing. Ashworth et al (1997) have

argued that plagiarism needs to be addressed within a framework that acknowledges students

as apprentices in academe that need mentoring and nurturing:

Rather than being predominantly negative and prohibitive in tone, the message given

to students ought to stress the positive reasons for proper attribution and be

accompanied by concrete examples of both good and impermissible practice. We

believe that such an approach should include the idea that students are junior members

of a scholarly community (Ashworth et al. 1997: 201)

The ScHARR Plagiarism Project

In the spring of 2006, primarily in response to a disciplinary procedure involving alleged

plagiarism by three medically-qualified students on a postgraduate programme, the first

author launched a project to develop an approach to plagiarism in the School that would both

establish a punitive regime for plagiarism and associated academic cheating, and an

educational strategy aimed to eradicate these transgressions. The second and third authors

took on responsibility for developing the educational programme and materials and a protocol

for using Turnitin software to assess all written assignments for text matching within the

Schools examination procedures.


7/19

During the September 2006 to June 2007 session, the approach was piloted with new students

taking postgraduate programmes in the School, and an evaluation of its impact on students

and staff was undertaken towards the end of this session. As will be reported later, the

approach has been subsequently adopted for all students on the Schools undergraduate and

taught postgraduate programmes. The components of the approach were a) an educational

programme to introduce the concepts of plagiarism to students and give them an opportunity

to practice academic writing and use of text matching software; b) a system of declarations to

be used as cover sheets for all assignments and c) a procedure to enable students and teachers

to check work using Turnitin, and attach plagiarism reports to assignments.

The Educational Programme

During the introductory week, all attending students received a one-hour workshop on

plagiarism, comprising a presentation and exercises. They were also provided with an

independent study pack entitled Making good use of the literature: plagiarism and how to

avoid it, covering the issues raised in the workshop, training in the use ofTurnitin, and a

compulsory exercise and declaration form. The pack also contained information about the

university penalties for plagiarism and collusion. This training was located within a two-day

introductory programme during which students learnt principles of scholarly enquiry

including use of library resources, searching and critical appraisal of literature. Distance

learning students (who do not attend this workshop) received the independent study pack

electronically.2

A web page with FAQs was also devised, and the URL publicised widely to

students.

The exercise required the students to analyse two brief papers presenting contrasting opinions

on a specific topic, and synthesise these into an 800-word discursive essay. Students had then

to use Turnitin, in a pre-existing classroom set up by the plagiarism course organiser, to check

their essays. In their study ofTurnitin, Whittle and Murdoch-Eaton (2008) found that

students wanted a declared cut-off point for matching text. Turnitin will identify legitimately-

quoted and referenced text as matching, so a generous 24 per cent matched text cut-off was

applied, above which the extent of text-matching would be considered as plagiarism (or

conceivably collusion if it matched an essay submitted by another student). Students could

repeatedly test and refine their essay using Turnitin. Once it passed the matched-text


8/19

criterion, they then submitted it electronically to the classroom. The course organiser collated

results, to ensure all registered students took and passed the test within a designated period

(approximately six weeks).

The purpose of the exercise was two fold. First, it gave students experience of writing a

university essay, managing the source materials according to the concepts of academic

literacy introduced in the workshop and study pack. Second, they gained the skills to use

Turnitin classrooms formatively, prior to their compulsory use for submitting summative

assignments for their course.

The Declaration Form

When submitting their test essay, students completed a declaration form, indicating that they

had read the study pack, understood what was meant by plagiarism, were aware of the

universitys penalties for plagiarism and collusion, and acknowledged that their assessed work

would be tested for plagiarism and collusion using text-matching software. In tandem, new

assignment cover sheets were devised, to incorporate a further declaration by students

confirming their knowledge of plagiarism, the university penalties, and that they had

submitted the assignment to Turnitin. Students could tick a box indicating that their work had

less than 24 per cent matching text according to Turnitin, or offer an explanation of why it

scored about 24 per cent (there are some legitimate reasons why this may occur). Cover

sheets were to be handed in with all assignments. 3

The Turnitin text-matching procedure

To achieve comprehensive use of Turnitin for assignments requires separate classrooms to

be created for each summative assessment. A brief training pack was provided to all module

co-ordinators using assignments for summative assessment. During the pilot, an

administrative member of staff adopted a progress-chasing role, to ensure all co-ordinators

successfully created a classroom and had informed their students of the log-in procedures in

advance of the assignment hand-in date.


9/19

The same 24 per cent cut off level was set for acceptable text-matching in summative

assignments. Students were able to use revision classrooms to test their essays on three

occasions to ensure it fell below this threshold. If an essay exceeded the target level, a

student could thus revise it progressively to ensure that the final version would not exceed the

cut-off. This introduced a further formative element to the plagiarism testing process that

contributed to the educational approach adopted (Davis 2007). A satisfactory essay would

then be submitted to the main classroom, and when the student received the report, this was

then attached to the essay before it was handed in, with a completed declaration cover sheet.

Module co-ordinators could access the reports online if they wished, and could also check

prior to the deadline that students were using the classroom to test their assignments. The

pilot allowed refinements to this process, and following discussion, some assignments were

exempted from using Turnitin: typically those involving statistical analysis or other questions

where students could conceivably submit identical answers legitimately. Dissertations were

also exempted, as we wished to gain experience of the process before applying it to extended

pieces of work.

Evaluation of the Pilot Project

Following the first use ofTurnitin classrooms for summative assessments at the end of the

autumn semester 2006, we approached course directors, unit co-ordinators and student

representatives to evaluate the impact of the initiative. They were invited to respond by e-

mail with general comments on the project.

Most students who had attended the project training were clear what the School required of

them from the beginning of the academic year, and coped well with the test exercise and the

use of Turnitin classrooms. Some appreciated the exercise as useful to their studies, and even

indicated that they had enjoyed the exercise. The main problems encountered were technical.

Some expressed frustration at the time needed to access papers for the test essay, Turnitin

registration, waiting for originality reports, and revising and re-submitting drafts if the text

matching for their first version came out above the 24 per cent cut off: There can be a delay

of up to a day between submitting an essay to Turnitin and the production of an originality

report showing text matching. Students indicated that this might be a problem for assignment


10/19

deadlines, particularly if the report showed a high proportion of matched text, necessitating a

further revision. A student course representative said

I personally had no problems with the plagerism [sic] software, but I understand some

of the other students did: It took up to 5 hours to generate the originality report for a

lot of students on one of the assignment submissions. It also clashes with one of the

anti-virus programmes that the university distributes to students!

Technical difficulties predominantly affected students on distance learning programmes,

including access to the papers used for the test essay, and to the Turnitin site. These problems

appeared to stem from lack of understanding of University systems for remote access to

campus computing services or use of non-University e-mail addresses. One distance learning

student, who had struggled with access from a remote location, complained that he had not

been told about the project when he first registered.

I do feel annoyed that this obligatory part of the course was not flagged up at the

beginning. I am also concerned that, if I was not warned about this, there may be other

measures forced upon me later on that I could not accommodate.

Students working at locations remote from Sheffield may have felt unsupported at a

vulnerable time.

I am very happy to engage in plagiarism exercises but I could make neither head

nor tail of the Turnitin system. Thus, my essay is late and I doubt whether it is

plagiarism tested but I am not sure. It would seem that I may have inadvertently

submitted the original rather than a test and it is too late to now do a test. As I

have said before the course is good but the Turnitin system is appalling. I simply do

not wish to do another term, spend ages writing an essay and then have to struggle to

submit it (as it happens this time incorrectly).


11/19

These technical difficulties affected a minority; indeed the evaluation found that some

students had been using the test essay Turnitin classroom to check essays for plagiarism on

behalf of their friends in other University departments. Only one student objected in principle

to using Turnitin to detect text matches.

To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with Turnitin. When I submitted the [test] exercise, it

was citing all kinds of supposed plagiarism from publications I had never even heard of,

never mind read or plagiarised. It evens cites your references as plagiarism! An article

about Turnitin in the New Scientist this week says that you can be found guilty of

plagiarism if you use information that you saw somewhere else and then use it without

realizing that someone else said it first. It's a bit like 'sleep plagiarising'. Most of what I

say is straight out of my own head, without reference to publications, but of course, Iknew very little about some of the issues, such as Yalom's Responsibility theory, before I

began the unit, so I dare say I could well tot up a few points without any intention. I have

a very good memory! I thinkTurnitin is a step too far and will stifle creativity, even

though it is supposed to encourage this. Turnitin is Big Brother, and it makes the

hairs on the back of my neck stand on end.

Among teaching staff, the initiative was given broad support, and was perceived by course

directors as an effective way to deal with the perennial problem of plagiarism that they faced,

and was easy to implement. There was support to widen the scope of the pilot from

postgraduate taught courses to cover dissertations, postgraduate research papers, and research

theses. One course director commented:

My sense was that the students had few problems with it and neither did the staff. Given

that it appeared to kill plagiarism stone dead in the [name of course] then I think its done

the trick!

However a course director of a distance learning programme felt that more needed to be done

to support students to use the system.


12/19

I am concerned about the reaction that this exercise is receiving from several of our

students. Part of this may be relating to how it is introduced, and I will be more

careful with new students to tell them about this early on in their studies and not to

surprise them with it near the end of term. I have had several comments to the effect

that students find the process overly complicated, confusing [and] rather patronising.

I am concerned that the current practice is alienating for students. Whether this is

purely due to the distance learning context, or the way the issue has been introduced to

students is unclear.

Although Turnitin matches text against a vast database, it will inevitably not identify text

matches with other sources, including many textbooks. One course director noted that

examiners had identified an essay passing Turnitin with 17 per cent matched text as actuallybeing 90 per cent plagiarised from a single book.

Apart from this, other problems were technical. One teacher felt poorly supported in using

Turnitin, despite the guidance offered

The use of the system is a good practice point in assessment methodology but this counts

for nothing without thinking how it will affect people at different levels. Module

coordinators are given no training or support with the system and cant answer the

questions the students raise. We don't even know what the students ought to know how to

do. [Project officer] may know the ins and outs of the system, but it doesn't necessarily

help any of us if hes the only one that does. Students inevitably struggle, incorrectly

submit drafts, submit in the wrong classroom, or simply cannot access the system.

In summary, both students and staff indicated some concerns over the technical side of theproject, but raised few fundamental concerns with the underpinning conception of an

educational approach to plagiarism. Some distance learning students had struggled with the

technology, but that derived from a mix of inadequate support during the training phase of the

project and problems with remote access to University resources. Their exposure to the


13/19

package came after a month of the semester had passed, giving inadequate time for students to

complete the test essay before the assessment period.

Roll-out of the Approach

The plagiarism project was a standing item on the agenda of the Schools teaching committee

throughout the 2007/08 session and has continued to be discussed on a regular basis. The

committee considered the pilot evaluation in May 2007 and agreed to confirm the approach as

mandatory for all taught programme students. New versions of the educational packs were

developed for undergraduate, postgraduate and distance learning students, a different topic

was chosen for the test essay and a refresher course for staff was run in autumn 2007. A

follow-up process evaluation was undertaken among course directors in May 2008, to assess

progress of the approach across programmes, and to explore how the project had affected

levels of detected academic misconduct. Course directors reported that the process was

running smoothly, with no problems in administration of the classrooms by either staff or

students. One suggested that students were using Turnitin classrooms formatively

Many students (about a third I would estimate) submitted high-percentage versions

first, and reworked them to bring down the percentages. If one assumed that they

would otherwise have handed in the first versions, then the effect of the education

pack is significant.

All reported that the incidence of unfair means had fallen, although this cannot be quantified

as there were no baseline measures, and a longer-term analysis is required to confirm this

trend. However, despite the use of the software, plagiarism had not been eradicated. One

course director noted a case of plagiarism that had been missed by Turnitin, when text had

been copied from a book not included in the software database, but picked up by an assiduous

marker. This is a weakness in the system, but is a reminder that the software identifies

matched text, not plagiarism, and is not a substitute for vigilance by academic staff. Another

commented:


14/19

I attach the plagiarism reports of the student who clearly did not understand what

plagiarism was, and who had cut and pasted an essay then changed occasional words

to get past the plagiarism checker. There are two reports: one before and one after her

attempts to change the language (using the Word thesaurus by my estimation!).

Turnitin has been very helpful in this case as it allowed me to identify what the student

has done, and which sources she used.

Two course directors pointed to negative impacts of the approach. One noted concerns

among staff and the external examiner that the use ofTurnitin fostered a sense among

students that they were not trusted. Another commented that

I have had a few (students) who have sought exemption due to their previousexperience as lecturers. Some of these have felt affronted at being asked to do the

exercise, saying. I would have thought that by now we would all know what

plagiarism is. I have replied that assessments on the programme have shown that not

all students do know what plagiarism is and how to avoid it.

While recognising these reservations, the School teaching committee concluded that overall

the approach had significant benefits both in reducing plagiarism and in fostering the growth

of academic literacy. Endorsing the model for permanent use, in May 2008 the committee

commissioned a further pilot on its application to dissertations and PhD theses. One further

change was to re-brand the training pack as an approach to academic literacy, to emphasise to

students that the principal objective is educational rather than punitive.

Discussion

The approach we have adopted to plagiarism and collusion melds a software package that can

match student work against a database of digitised text with an educational programme of

training in the concepts underpinning academic writing and ways to avoid accusations of

plagiarism. As such, it reflects a recognition that students sometimes do seek to gain

advantage by cheating. However, it simultaneously acknowledges a broader literature on

plagiarism in higher education that suggests a problem grounded in a failure to fully

understand the principles of academic writing, and a lack of specific skills to produce original


15/19

academic work (Boscolo et al. 2007, Lea and Street 1998). Throughout the project we have

aimed to provide benefits to staff by improving the rigour by which use of unfair means can

be detected and demonstrated objectively, while assisting students to avoid rightful or

misplaced accusations of scholarly misconduct. Perhaps more importantly, our approach

proactively addresses academic literacy among higher education students.

In their study of academic writing, Boscolo et al (2007) argue that the synthetic work entailed

in producing assignments based around reviews of literature moves beyond knowledge re-

telling to knowledge transformation and elaboration. Students need to learn how to move

beyond superficial reporting of others work (whether or not this is deemed to be plagiarism),

to a transformative process in which

the writer relates the contents of the sources in new ways, and makes connections

between the source materials and his/her knowledge. A good synthesis is, therefore,

more than a summary of other texts; it is an elaboration of contents in a new

representation, according to the writers purposes (Boscolo et al 2007: 422).

An educational approach to plagiarism must address the production of synthetic writing, in

which students learn to integrate source materials within an argument, and move beyond

summary to an elaborated discourse on a topic that ranges sources within an overarching

structure, in order to answer a specific question. Plagiarism, whether intentional or

unintentional, represents a shortfall in achieving transformative and elaborated writing that

meets the expectations of academe. It follows that a solely punitive approach to plagiarism

misses the underlying educational needs of students to grasp the principles and methodologies

of academic writing. By focusing on educating students about scholarly sources and their

contribution to academic production, our approach to plagiarism addresses, in part at least,

these needs. The objective is not simply to assist students to avoid an accusation of

plagiarism, but also to encourage understanding of the purposes of academic writing and how

to do it.


16/19

The evidence from our course directors is that this project has reduced plagiarism in the

School, and consequently the amount of time devoted to detecting and prosecuting unfair

means. However, a spin-off is that staff have gained a clearer insight into the provenance of

many cases of plagiarism as grounded in students poor grasp of the principles of academic

writing. Scrutiny of work submitted to Turnitin revision classrooms shows how students use

the revision classrooms to ensure their essays do not breach the cut-off point of 24 per cent

matching text. While this could be considered a charter for cheating, an alternative

perspective is that students are using the opportunities of an objective check on text matching

to improve their citation and use of source data; in other words, to gain skills in academic

literacy. 4 We would argue that this is an important process objective for a university

assessment. Lea and Street (1996: 170-1) point out that academic literacy is not simply a skill

for students to acquire, it is an implicit cultural issue that requires reflexivity among

academics about the processes of student writing. By learning more about how students

regard academic writing and construct their outputs, even where these do not conform fully to

established academic literacy values, we gain insight into the development of our students

competencies that can only enhance our own competence as educators.

Developing the approach has required significant academic and administrative effort,

including the creation of educational materials and many hours of discussion of its

implementation. Questions have had to be addressed concerning the use ofTurnitin for

assignments by students from other departments, distance learning and continuing students.

We have had to confirm that we could compel students to take the test essay and submit to

Turnitin under University regulations. Finally we have considered exemptions, most recently

for reflective work where inclusion in the Turnitin database could compromise

confidentiality. However the main challenge with such as project inevitably concerns

changing culture rather than process, and the project team has worked concertedly with staff

and students to help them understand the goals of academic literacy. Two years on, the

approach is finally fully integrated into course management processes and the second

evaluation indicates that it has become a familiar aspect of the assessment culture and strategy

in the School among students and staff alike. Further work is needed to evaluate how best to

submit long documents to Turnitin so we may extend the approach to postgraduate

dissertations and PhD theses. The project has been reported widely in the University


17/19

community, informed the University of Sheffield plagiarism policy developed in 2007, and

has been adopted by some other departments.

No doubt there will be future cases of plagiarism in our School, despite our initiative. Indeed

one assignment recently submitted had an originality report indicating 72 per cent matching

text, yet no effort at explanation! In such a case, should we diagnose malignant cheating or

grotesque ignorance of academic process? Had this work been identified by a marker prior to

our project, this student would have been penalised or even excluded for unfair means, but we

would lack the insights to proactively support their rehabilitation beyond admonition to

reference fully. Now we need both to impose an appropriate penalty and to work with the

student collaboratively to explore his/her difficulties over academic literacy. This suggests

our approach is correct, as educators we need to assist our students to be effective academicwriters: the plagiarised assignment is a reminder of our failures as well as those of the student.

We may indeed conclude that if higher education wishes to legislate upon unfair means, that it

has a duty to deliver not only academic content but also academic literacy skills, and that

higher education institutions should be pro-active in skilling their students to be able to

produce scholarly work without the intention to subvert, or fear infringing, precepts of

intellectual integrity.5

Notes

1. The emergence of such software has no doubt made it easier to detect plagiarism.Assertions that there is an epidemic of plagiarism should be tempered by the

possibility that plagiarism is now more readily detectable. From this perspective, the

emergence of digitised academic archives should be seen as marking the end of

plagiarism, not its rampant spread.

2. Different versions of the educational pack for undergraduate and postgraduate studentsand FAQs may be found at

http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/current/plagiarism/index.html

3. During the pilot period the University confirmed that existing regulations authoriseduse ofTurnitin and plagiarism declaration cover sheets as requisites for assessment.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/current/plagiarism/index.htmlhttp://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/current/plagiarism/index.html


18/19

4. A study by Davis (2007) indicates that students appreciated opportunities to test theiressays in Turnitin revision classrooms, as this provided formative feedback on correct

citation and over-reliance on single sources: key elements of academic literacy. She

concludes that Turnitin can assist students to improve drafts and encourages its use in

this way.

5. We checked the manuscript of this paper in a Turnitin classroom prior to submission.Excluding bibliography and fully-cited quotations, it scored an exemplary one per cent

text-match.

References

Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P. (1997) Guilty in whose eyes? University students'

perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment, Studies in Higher

Education, 22 (2): 187-203.

Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values, Studies in Higher

Education, 15 (1): 101-111. Accessed on 16 April 2008 at

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/03075079012331377621

Boscolo, P., Arf, B. and Quarisa, M. (2007) Improving the quality of students' academic

writing: an intervention study, Studies in Higher Education, 32 (4): 419 438. Accessed on

16 April 2008 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092.

Carroll, J. (2002)A handbook for deterring Plagiarism in Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford

Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Collberg, C. and Kobourov, S. (2005) Self-plagiarism in computer science. Communications

of the ACM, 48 (4) 88-94. Accessed on 4 April 2008 at

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1053291.1053293

Culwin, F. and Lancaster, T. (2001) Plagiarism issues for higher education. Vine, 31 (2): 36

41.

Davis, M.(2007) The Role of Turnitin within the formative process of academic writing.

Brookes e-Journal of Learning and Teaching, 2 (2). Accessed on 18 July 2008 at

http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/the_role_of_turnitin_within_the_formative_process_of_acad

emic_writing/
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/03075079012331377621http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1053291.1053293http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/the_role_of_turnitin_within_the_formative_process_of_acadhttp://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/the_role_of_turnitin_within_the_formative_process_of_acadhttp://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1053291.1053293http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476092http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/03075079012331377621


19/19

Hayes, N. & Introna, L. (2003). Alienation and plagiarism: coping with otherness in our

assessment practice. Lancaster University working paper. Accessed on 1 April 2008 at

http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/publications/viewpdf/000239/

Lea, M.R. and Street, B.V. (1998) Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies

approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 157 172.

OConnor, S. (2003) Cheating and electronic plagiarism scope, consequences and

detection. Report by Caval Collaborative Solutions. Accessed on 1 April 2008 at

http://www.caval.edu.au/assets/files/PDFs/About_us/Staff%20Publications/Cheating_and_el

ectronic_plagiarism_scope_consequences_and_detection_EDUCASUE_May_2003.pdf

Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: plagiarism by university students - literature and

lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 (5), 471-488.

Russikoff, K., Fucaloro, L. & Salkauskiene, D. (2003). Plagiarism as a Cross-Cultural

Phenomenon. The CAL Poly Pomona Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 16. Accessed on 1

April 2008 at http://www.csupomona.edu/~jis/2003/RussikoffFucaloroSalkaus.pdf

Scaife, B. (2007) Plagiarism Detection Software (Report for JISC Plagiarism Advisory

Service). Manchester: NCC Group. Accessed on 18 July 2008 at

http://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/documents/resources/PDReview-Reportv1_5.pdf

Whittle, S.R. and Murdoch-Eaton, D.G. (2008) Learning about plagiarism using Turnitin

detection software. Medical Education, 42 (5): 528.

5906 words
http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/publications/viewpdf/000239/http://www.caval.edu.au/assets/files/PDFs/About_us/Staff%20Publications/Cheating_and_elhttp://www.csupomona.edu/~jis/2003/RussikoffFucaloroSalkaus.pdfhttp://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/documents/resources/PDReview-Reportv1_5.pdfhttp://www.jiscpas.ac.uk/documents/resources/PDReview-Reportv1_5.pdfhttp://www.csupomona.edu/~jis/2003/RussikoffFucaloroSalkaus.pdfhttp://www.caval.edu.au/assets/files/PDFs/About_us/Staff%20Publications/Cheating_and_elhttp://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/publications/viewpdf/000239/

plagiarism paper scharr

Documents