@article{57e3e1ef705f4023a4d0673f9d45ece9,
title = "{\textquoteleft}Turnitin said it wasn{\textquoteright}t happy{\textquoteright}: can the regulatory discourse of plagiarism detection operate as a change artefact for writing development?",
abstract = "This paper centres on the tensions between the introduction of plagiarism detection software (Turnitin) for student and tutor use at undergraduate level and the aim to promote a developmental approach to writing for assessment at a UK university. Aims to promote developmental models for writing often aim to counteract the effects of the structural organisation of learning and assessment in higher education. This paper will discuss the potential for the implementation of plagiarism detection software to operate as a 'change artefact', creating opportunities for a departure from the habits of practice created by the demands of writing for assessment and the potential for the emergence of enclaves of good practice in respect of writing development. Tutor and student qualitative responses, gathered via questionnaires and focus groups were analysed in order to investigate the effectiveness of this initiative. In this inquiry plagiarism detection emerges as a dominant theme within regulatory discourses of malpractice in higher education. The promotion of writing development via a tool for regulation and plagiarism detection seems to be a mismatch and the extent to which Turnitin can be operate as a change artefact to promote developmental approaches to writing for assessment in higher education is questioned. The suitability of plagiarism detection software as a tool to promote writing development will be discussed in light of the findings from this inquiry.",
keywords = "writing development, plagiarism, Turnitin, change artefacts",
author = "C Penketh and Chris Beaumont",
note = "Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997) {\textquoteleft}Guilty in Whose Eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment{\textquoteright} Studies in Higher Education, 22: 2,187-203. Badge, J., Cann, A. & Scott, J.(2007) 'To cheat or not to cheat? A trial of the JISC Plagiarism Detection Service with biological sciences students', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32: 4, 433 — 439. Bean, (2001) Engaging Ideas San Francisco: JosseyBass. Catt and Gregory (2006) The Point of Writing: Is Student Writing in Higher Education Developed or Merely Assessed? in Gnobscik-Williams, L. Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education New York: Palgrave Macmillan pp.16-28. Davis, M. (2007) {\textquoteleft}The Role of Turnitin within the Formative Process of Academic Writing – A tool for learning and unlearning{\textquoteright} Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching Vol. 2, No.2, http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/the_role_of_turnitin_within_the_formative_process_of_academic_writing/ [accessed 15/01/10]. Davis, M. and Yeang, F. (2008) {\textquoteleft}Encouraging International and Dyslexic Students to Develop Better Learning Strategies for Writing through the Use of Turnitin{\textquoteright} Vol. 2, No. 3, http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/encouraging_international_and_dyslexic_students_to_develop_better_learning/ [accessed 15/01/10]. East, J. (2006) {\textquoteleft}The problem of plagiarism in academic culture{\textquoteright} International Journal for Educational Integrity Vol. 2 No. 2 December 2006 pp. 16-28 Elander, J., Pittam, G., Lusher, J., Fox, P. & Payne, N. (2010) {\textquoteleft}Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity{\textquoteright} Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 35(2), p157-171. Gannon-Leary, P., Trayhurn, D. and Home, M. (2009) {\textquoteleft}Good images, effective messages? Working with students and educators on academic practice understanding{\textquoteright} Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 33, No. 4, pp435-448. Keuskamp, D. & Sliuzas, R. (2007) Plagiarism prevention or detection? The contribution of text-matching software to education about academic integrity Journal of Academic Language & Learning 1: 1, 2007, 91-99. Ledwith, A. & R{\'i}squez, A. (2008) 'Using anti-plagiarism software to promote academic honesty in the context of peer reviewed assignments', Studies in Higher Education, 33: 4, 371 — 384. Lillis, T. (2004) Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire Routledge. Macdonald, R. & Carroll, J. (2006) 'Plagiarism—a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31: 2, 233 — 245. Miettinen, R. and Virkkunen, J. (2005) {\textquoteleft}Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and Organisational Change{\textquoteright} Organization Vol 12(3): 437-456. Mitchell, S. & Ganobcsik-Williams, L. (2008) The Role of Writing Development Work in the University: Realities & Visions iPED Conference Keynote Address, Coventry University. Park, C. (2003) 'In Other (People's) Words: plagiarism by university students--literature and lessons', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28: 5, 471 — 488. Parker, A. and Tritter, J.Q. (2006), {\textquoteleft}Focus Group Method and Methodology: reflections on current practice and recent debate{\textquoteright}, International Journal of Research and Method in Education., 29 (1): 23-37. Sheridan, J., Raid, A. & Brake, D-B. {\textquoteleft}Pharmacy students{\textquoteright} views and experiences of Turnitin - an online tool for detecting academic dishonesty{\textquoteright} Pharmacy Education, 5: 3/4, 241–250. Turnitin.com (2010) {\textquoteleft}Quick Facts{\textquoteright} http://www.turnitin.com/static/index.html [accessed 08.01.10]. Whittle, S. & Murdoch-Eaton, D. (2008) {\textquoteleft}Learning about plagiarism using Turnitin detection software{\textquoteright} Medical Education 42 513–543.",
year = "2013",
month = may,
doi = "10.1080/14703297.2013.796721",
language = "English",
journal = "Innovations in Education and Teaching International",
issn = "1470-3297",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
}