The Pervasive Misconception and Misapplication of Turnitin by UG Lecturers: Effects and Solution

Dear Editor:

There is overwhelming evidence that numerous lecturers at the University of Guyana (UG) have been misapplying the Turnitin similarity detection programme, because of ignorance of its real purpose, and/or a misconception that similarity is synonymous with plagiarism. Consequently, numerous students—dare I say the majority—have been victims of compromised academic assessment, and false accusation of violation academic integrity.

Plagiarism is defined by Crowder et al. (2013) as “…a particular type of cheating…among the most common forms of academic misconduct. Essentially, it involves the use of intellectual property (e.g., words, constructs, inventions, or ideas) without proper acknowledgment, giving others the false impression that it is original work”. Plagiarism is a form of fraud; a form of violation of intellectual property rights; a violation of the most fundamental standard of academic integrity. Plagiarism should be avoided diligently, condemned strongly, and punished condignly. The fair, ethical use of others’ intellectual property—appropriate attribution or crediting of information, ideas and other forms of intellectual property—is one of the pillars of scholarly research and academic writing.

However, similarity (or even identicality) ought not to be misconstrued as plagiarism. The Turnitin Similarity Report is NOT a measure of plagiarism. It is a highlight of areas of textual match between a student’s submitted writing and published materials within Turnitin’s database. For example, if John’s assignment relies on the published works of 15 authors—and especially if his assignment utilises substantial verbatim text (excerpts or quotes) from the publications—John’s assignment will attract a significantly higher Turnitin Similarity Score than that of Jane’s whose assignment—having relied of the same published works of the same 15 authors as John’s—employs significant paraphrasing. Does this mean that John’s work represents a higher degree of plagiarism than Jane’s? Absolutely not! But, to the average UG lecturer, it apparently does.

Furthermore, John’s assignment can be supported by 10 published sources, all of which are appropriately referenced (through in-text citation and end-referencing or bibliography), and attract a significantly higher Turnitin Similarity Score than the assignment of Jane’s whose work is supported by 20 published sources, with only five sources appropriately referenced. This can, and frequently does, happen as a result of the level of paraphrasing and use of synonyms employed by many students. Despite a significantly lower Turnitin Similarity Score attributed to Jane’s assignment compared to John’s, it is Jane who may well be guilty of plagiarism because she has skillfully paraphrased 15 published works without appropriate citation or source attribution. However, it is John’s assignment, unfortunately, that would be flagged by the average UG lecturer for plagiarism. John’s assignment would not even be assessed if the Turnitin Similarity Score exceeds to threshold established by the lecturer. Instead, it would be returned to him for his modification until it attracts a Turnitin Similarity Score not exceeding the threshold. This is a pervasive malpractice that makes many a John victim. It is not only injurious to the student, but also inimical to research and development of which the University of Guyana ought to be a foremost proponent and formidable custodian.

Further still, originality and plagiarism are complex issues, and lecturers often punish originality unwittingly because they misconstrue if for plagiarism. For instance, if John articulates a perspective on a subject—within his assignment—and his perspective has not been influenced by his consult with or exposure to any published material or conversation, that perspective is original to John, despite the existence of an identical perspective within the publication space. Quite understandably, there is difficulty in ascertaining whether the perspective, as articulated in the assignment, does, in fact, originate with John. Many UG lecturers would automatically assume that such perspective is plagiarised (stolen from its source and passed off by the student as his), as though no two humans—of the eight billion globally—are capable of having identical perspectives on a subject. Consequently, these lecturers penalise students for the perceived academic misconduct. Whenever students seek clarification and the opportunity to defend themselves in the face of false accusation of plagiarism—and students rarely attempt to defend their academic integrity for fear of victimisation—there is usually no recourse for them. This is a prevalent form of injustice to which many UG students are subjected.

Proposed Solution

It is imperative that the Minister of Education, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Guyana, and other principal policymakers within the local education system address this issue with urgency and as a matter of priority. A comprehensive solution should encompass:

1. An institution-wide education of UG lecturers on the essence and proper use of the Turnitin similarity detection programme;
2. An institution-wide education of UG lecturers in the intricacies of plagiarism, how to detect it, and how to treat with it;
3. A standardised approach to assessment and measurement across the University, with mandatory use of rubrics (which should be made available to students, illustrating the criteria against which student’s assignments are graded. Students have a right to know how and why their assignments are graded the way they are);
4. A unified position on referencing style to be used within each faculty (American Psychological Association for the Social Sciences, and Modern Language Association for the Humanities, for example). Lecturers must no longer be allowed to arbitrarily decide on what referencing style a student should use; and
5. The development of a robust monitoring, evaluation and appraisal system to assess the extent of lecturers’ conformity with established standards, their demonstration of professional, ethical conduct, and their general effectiveness (students should have a stake in lecturers’ appraisal).

Yours respectfully,

Alvin Doris

Human Development, Environmental and Education Consultant.