2nd Critical Reflection - Lowe

Anti-plagiarism software: Guilty until proven innocent

RATIONALE FOR ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE

The influx of “technology-assisted academic dishonesty” has led to the manifestation of a neoplagiarism and, in turn, the rise of a severe anxiety on the part of educators (Bishop, 2006, p. 1). As is the norm with modern social anxieties, “the fear of plagiarism is often connected to the new online technologies that allow ways for creating, editing, and sharing texts that were only dreamed of in the past (Williams, 2008, p. 351). While these technologies do indeed offer students innovative avenues of expression, they simultaneously create the temptation for a student to take the facile road to an easy grade. Such Internet technologies complicit in academic dishonesty may include sites that allow a student to purchase a paper, to copy-and-paste all or sections of an online paper, or to resubmit one’s own work or the work of another student. Even more so than offering up such an apple, and perhaps more disconcerting to educators, is that these technologies bring into question the concepts of authorship, ownership and plagiarism itself.

Some critics such as Williams (2008) question the reality of a rapidly increasing epidemic of academic dishonesty; however, the attention from the mainstream media and the near-resounding fears of educators are immutable. As noted by Robelen (2007), a Josephon Institute of Ethics survey found that in a group of “more than 36,000 high school students,” sixty percent of the students admitted to academic dishonesty. Furthermore one of every three students admitted to using Internet technology to plagiarize an assignment. Similar results were deduced by Donald L. McCabe, professor at Rutgers University, in a survey of 18,000 high school students confessing to some sort of plagiarism (Robelen, 2007). According to Royce (2007), “Almost every week there is a report on the prevalence of plagiarism from Internet Sources.” This prevalence, however, is perhaps attributable to a neglected emotional impact and response to plagiarism. When a student has been dishonest a teacher will understandably feel emotions of betrayal, anger and distrust. According to Williams (2008), “the level of trust we feel in someone has a profound effect on our actions towards that person and our reactions to everything that person does,” (p. 351). Naturally academic dishonesty can affect a teacher’s assumptions regarding the integrity of student writing. It may be nothing more than natural human emotion to assume that the introduction of new technology will only play to students’ darker angels based on previous experience. Nonetheless such alarming numbers and ominous forebodings of a new type of plagiarism epidemic have necessitated, some feel, an appropriate, technological response.

Indeed all of this attention towards new-age academic dishonesty as well as its offspring of fear, anxiety and distrust has spurred a technological retaliation—a built up of arms of sorts—as educators have begun to arm themselves with anti-plagiarism software. Any discussion of anti-plagiarism software inevitably leads to a discussion of Turnitin.com. As other technologies have come and gone, Turnitin has been an impressive business endeavor. Founder John M. Barrie has even crowned Turnitin as “the next generation’s spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). Turnitin’s success is likely due to the fact that that it does not detect plagiarism, nigh impossible on the internet, but rather finds “sequences of words in submitted documents which match sequences of words in documents in its database, or sequences of words in documents on the Internet.” Despite its strengths over competitors, however, Turnitin still cannot overcome all of the challenges posed by the vast terrain of the Internet. Technology such as Turnitin, more than anything else, is supposed to be meant as a deterrent, a preventive strike on plagiarism. According to Barrie, the technology has the same function as a test proctor, “students are less likely to cheat when faced with an increased likelihood of being caught” (Robelen, 2007). Similarly Royce (2003) conjectures that just a subscription to Turnitin will suffice for a drop in a school’s “suspected plagiarism” (p. 26). Turnitin boasts to uncover around 3,000 cases of sever plagiarism from an investigation of 10,000 papers a day.

But is such software the panacea to neoplagiarism? Can plagiarist technology be combated with anti-plagiarist technology? Can plagiarism in general be stamped out? Despite the anxiety of educators and the promotions of the creators of such software, anti-plagiarism software is nothing more than a “placebo” (Carbone, 2001). It does not address the significance of teaching about and solving academic, merely catching it. An examination of the use of such software in schools will divulge the following drawbacks: anti-plagiarism software is only a continuation of the attrition building up between an increasingly strained teacher/student relationship; it leads to conflicting ideas of student authorship and plagiarism; it negates the opportunity to teach students increasingly complex literary practices; the software itself is limited and thus impractical. Even under the consideration of modifying the use of such software to a less prominent or last resort tool, the lingering issues of the legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy of such software will determine that Turnitin and similar technologies will eventually surfaces and perhaps exacerbate the issue of plagiarism. Ultimately educators must renovate their approaches to plagiarism, authorship and ownership, necessitating more effective teaching rather than punishing practices.

THE DRAWBACKS

CATALYST FOR UNHEALTHY TEACHER/STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS

The issue of plagiarism is ultimately an issue of trust. Anti-plagiarism software begins a relationship of distrust between the teacher and student and creates a dysfunctional classroom environment. The opposition to building such a relationship and environment is resounding. As Williams (2008) points out, by even informing students that their writing will undergo a review of authenticity even before a teacher reads them, with or without threat of punishment, the underlying hint is that a teacher does “not trust them to act honorably” (p. 352). Similarly Carbone (2001) contends that such software “assumes the worst about students” who apparently have “no honor” and must be constantly eyed over with “a big brother welcome to academic traditions.” Such software is a clear message from the teacher to students that they are already presumed guilty until proven innocent. Barrie even admits that Turnitin’s main function is to act as a deterrent, almost analogous to a panopticon, a prison system, that serves to detect and punish students. It assumes guilt. Even McCabe, whose survey “exposed” the ominous cloud of a plagiarism epidemic, is opposed to the widespread use of such software: “To me that says to students, I can’t trust any of you” (Robelen, 2007). Whether a teacher assumes student’s efforts as honest or duplicitous can have significant effects upon the relationship, and moreover can influence how students perceive authority figures in general. Anti-plagiarism software, though perhaps well intentioned, shows distrust and positions teachers and students as enemies. This dynamic of adversaries rather than collaborators detracts from good pedagogy. Bishop contends that “A much more effective way of achieving the same goal might be to an atmosphere of respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). By a teacher displaying trust in students’ abilities, their self-esteem and ultimately their “sense of well-being” are stimulated and maintained.

CONFLICTING IDEAS OF AUTHORSHIP AND PLAGIARISM

Along with creating a dysfunctional dynamic, anti-plagiarism software can add to student confusion over the concepts of authorial identity and plagiarism. Students are subjected to a thin rope of social nuances. As Williams (2008) explains, “we want students to draw on their creativity and create original work, yet we want them to become readers and writers who draw from ideas of others” (p. 351). If a student fails to walk this line they are considered “intellectually or morally deficient.” The concepts of authorship, ownership, and plagiarism are constantly in flux; however, exponentially now perhaps because of the possibilities of new technology. This evolution of technology has sparked an evolution of literacy practices, “creating texts as collages and hybrids of other texts” (p. 352). It is arguably intellectually or morally deficient of educators rather then to focus on punishing students (as anti-plagiarism seems intent on doing) for transgressing against evolving literary practices instead of teaching how to cope with their evolution.

LOSS OF TEACHING MOMENTS

Williams (2008) adds, because the issue of plagiarism so often “turns all to quickly to detection and punishment,” an opportunity is lost to “engage students in increasingly sophisticate literacy practices” (p. 352) Anti-plagiarism puts detection and punishment over instruction. Correctly using ideas from others in an original piece of writing according to cultural customs is a skill that must be taught. It is the responsibility of the teacher to instruct proper usage before punishment should even be considered. Carbone (2001) adds that “teaching students how to wisely use other ideas—how to distinguish when to cite a source, how to introduce them into conventions for doing so—is hard enough with adding in the threat of constant surveillance.” Still most teachers approach plagiarism as something that should be scrutinized closely and punished accordingly. This antagonistic approach goes back to the idea of a lack of trust. Important opportunities for teaching evolving literacy practices are lost because students feel the teacher is working against instead of with them. Moreover students never develop their own identities as writers without the nurturing of the teacher. Students constantly view the teacher as a source of punishment rather than guidance.

Regardless of whether a student intentionally or unintentionally plagiarizes, however, “such moments offer important chances to teach students about writing and life” (353). In regards to intentional plagiarism, a teacher should make an effort to discover why a student is academically dishonest, often due to the pressure to succeed or to just not to fail. Obviously the student does not comprehend his or her own strengths as a writer. In a collaborative relationship, a teacher can teach students to discover their own identities as writers. In regards to unintentional plagiarism, it is ignorant for a teacher to assume that this is anything other than a natural teaching opportunity. As Carbone (2001) explains, “Mistakes in using and citing sources -- which can be technical, mechanical, rhetorical, and evaluative -- are in fact a necessary part of learning how to write with and from sources.” When a teacher equates mistakes that are necessary for a student to make to acquire good writing skills with fraud, that teacher is negating the very purpose of learning. Intentional or unintentional plagiarism must both be viewed as opportunities for a teacher to teach good writing. These opportunities are lost when all students are worried about is a software system that denies their authorial worth.
There are sound alternatives that will reanimate such teaching moments, however. Masur (2008) recommends that teachers can “respond pedagogically by offering writing workshops or assigning essays in stages.” Williams (2008) espouses similar tactics, “working with some papers as drafts and approaching each assignment as a process that builds on ideas” will help improve students writing practices (p. 353). In this manner teachers and students develop more a relationship of trust, moving both parties away from “the paranoia of potential plagiarism punishment.”

LIMITATIONS OF SOFTWARE

Regardless of the academic drawbacks of anti-plagiarism software, its physical limitations further negate its use. Both Royce (2003) and Bishop (2006) chronicle a vast and growing set of limitations just on the part of Turnitin alone (supposedly the most effective anti-plagiarism software) to fully detect plagiarism. Turnitin alone has been defunct as it cannot “detect cleverly paraphrased passages,” identify work done by a “ghost-writer,” differentiate between properly and improperly cited text, and nor can it account for the many loopholes that students are still discovering (Bishop, 2006, p. 7). Royce (2003) points out other limitations for the software, such as not taking into account text that has been translated from another language or the plagiarism of diagrams, pictures or graphs (p. 28) Moreover for teachers to just use Turnitin’s “originality report” alone, though many do, is an improper use of the software’s service. The software only points out similarities between texts, it does not detect plagiarism. The burden of proof in a case of plagiarism is on the teacher, and with the grand scope of that the new technology poses, an “originality report” is a superficial indicator of original work at best. In fact, both Carbone (2001) and Royce (2003) contend that a skilled teacher with a search engine is more effective than any anti-plagiarism software developed so far.

MODIFYING THE ROLE OF SUCH SOFTWARE

Despite its academic and physical limitations to becoming the plagiarism panacea, could anti-plagiarism software still play some modified role in the classroom? According to Royce (2003), software is still only “a tool, a weapon, a deterrent” (p. 30). As a deterrent, Turnitin founder Barrie still argues, “Our uses have validated us with their use” (Robelen, 2007). According to Barrie, the renewal rate is above 95 percent with an expanding clientele. In this regard, anti-plagiarism software has begun to set up a panopticon status with its proposed omniscient view. Even with its limitations it can still “scare” plagiarists. There is no substantial research that shows this deterrent effect however. Keith D. Klein, an English teacher at Washington Lee High School in Arlington, Virginia, hopes to use the software to create “teachable moments”: "That in itself is a platform for me to talk about plagiarism, and a pretty good disincentive” (Robelen 2007). Turnitin’s role in Mr. Klein’s class has actually evolved from just as a platform for discussion and disincentive, as he typically likes to use the peer review features of the software. Robelen (2007) describes alternative uses of the software by another teacher, Ms. Christel, who limits the use of Turnitin to major papers only, and only when there are suspect citation issues. Ms. Christel uses other tools to supplement this software, however, and stresses that “teachers need to work hard to ensure students under-stand what plagiarism is and how to avoid it.” From this perspective, could then anti-plagiarism software therefore be utilized in a reduced role in the classroom, more as a supplemental device to teaching about plagiarism?

LINGERING ISSUES OF LEGALITY, ETHICALITY, & HYPOCRISY

Despite a near acquiescence by Carbone (2001) to using anti-plagiarism software “as a last ditch attempt to find the smoking gun,” there are still serious issues that negate its use. Most damning for Turnitin are legality issues. Bishop (2006) explains, “By storing the uploaded papers in order to expand its database for comparison to new submissions, Turnitin is potentially violating the students’ copyrights and right to privacy” (p. 7). The nature of Turnitin requires a database, and a database necessitates a copy of a student’s work to be archived. Because a student has no real say in the matter of submitting their paper to the software, they are stripped of their rights as authors of their own work. Turnitin essentially does to the student what proposes to keep the student from doing. Despite the software companies contention that Turnitin loopholes certain legalities, Bishop (2006) contends that ultimately the software violates students’ rights granted by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).

On top of the legality issues of anti-plagiarism software, Carbone (2001) sees any use of such tools as unethical, because it “co-opts students’ intellectual property to sell its service.” Turnitin has indeed been a remarkable financial success, one that banks on the authorial disenfranchisement of students. It is a business plan that has played off the pedagogical misunderstandings and distrust of educators; no wonder Blaire calls it “the next generations’ spell checker” (Royce, 2003, p. 27). It has monopolized the theft of student’s intellectual properties.

Pedagogically speaking, teaching students about plagiarism through such software is counterproductive and grossly hypocritical. First of all, anti-plagiarism software frees teachers from making challenging, plagiarism-proof assignments that teach students responsible and socially acceptable good writing. Furthermore Bishop (2006) believes that software assumes students are cheating, so it teaches students that they are “guilty until proven innocent” (p. 9). This idea is contradictory to the democratic values that American education is supposed to instill in its students. Bishop (2006) admits using such software contradicts his philosophies as a teacher and only creates the aforementioned distrust so crippling to teacher/student relationships. Moreover such software teaches students a double standard. Carbone (2001) eloquently explains the message sent to students by using anti-plagiarism software like Turnitin:

Plagiarism is wrong because it's the theft of another person's intellectual property. Yet we don't trust you to follow that ethos, so we're going to violate it ourselves to save you from your own perfidy. We're going to take your property--your writing--and check it here, in this place that will keep a copy of your work whether you give permission for this or not. Sorry, it won't be just your property any more, it will also belong to Turnitin.com's database.
(Carbone, 2001)

Students are basically told that in order to save them from committing plagiarism they must be plagiarized. It is no wonder that cheating occurs out of desperation to succeed or not to fail, because a student is taught not to value his or her own writing by such hypocrisy.

It is Bishop (2006) that points out the greatest hypocrisy of such software. When music companies are allowed to sue individuals for illegally using their intellectual property, it is duplicitous for a student to “relinquish their intellectual properties for others use, in this case for profit” (p. 9). In other words a student is expected to accept that their originality is secondary to the innovations of big business. Obviously, the inherit issues of legality, ethicality, and hypocrisy indicate that educators must abstain from anti-plagiarism software if they want to instruct students properly about academic dishonesty.

ALTERNATIVES TO ANTI-PLAGIARISM SOFTWARE

In order to combat plagiarism, there must be a paradigm shift in how educators view it. Simple escalation with software that purports to stamp out plagiarism will only continue the attrition, as evidenced by the loopholes already discovered in software such as Turnitin. Bad blood will continue to fester between teachers and students, students will still be ambivalent to the evolving concepts of authorial ownership and plagiarism, teaching moments that could be beneficial to this ambivalence would disappear, and the software will always be limited. As Royce (2003) concludes, “we are not going to beat the cheats,” and such software is impractical (p. 29). Moreover because anti-plagiarism software such as Turnitin creates such legal and ethical faux pas, the only person that it would be ethically reasonable for using such software would be the student as self-check device (Bishop, 2006, p. 10). This use of technology would foster a positive learning environment for students rather than feeling isolated by some panopticon of plagiarism. Royce (2003) espouses this type of environment, and sets guidelines for its manifestation:
We can attempt to set plagiarism-proof assignments; we can make it so that students do not want or need to copy; we can devise alternative presentation methods which minimize the opportunity for plagiarism; we can stress process as well as content; we can ask students to provide originals or copies of the sources used; we can make it so hard for the plagiarist to plagiarize that it is easier to do the real work; we can try to promote honorable and ethical attitudes towards work.
(p.30)

None of these requirements for a more effective approach to plagiarism necessitate a threat of punishment. In fact these requirements seek to circumvent plagiarism by making it obsolete: students becoming autonomous and conscientious writers. Likewise Williams (2008) feels that teachers should “create assignments that engage their lives, interests, and individual intellectual questions” (p. 353). These assignments are certainly the most plagiarism proof. Most importantly teachers need to adopt approaches that work to build a positive relationship, as Bishop (2006) state, one of “respect, honesty and academic integrity” (p. 10). Even Mr. McCabe, with his disconcerting survey of plagiarism, endorses the promotion of academic integrity to students as the solution to academic dishonesty. Anything else is just a placebo.

Finally, all of the issues of anti-plagiarism software are all consequence of how teachers have come to distrust students. The success of anti-plagiarism software has been to the manipulation of educators’ fears and anxieties and perhaps a gross exaggeration of a plagiarism epidemic. Teachers must overcome the disillusioning emotions of betrayal and distrust. They must come to see their students as, though obviously flawed human individuals, capable of extraordinary creative and original work. Teachers cannot give into their fear of this neoplagiarism either. The influx of new technology creates unknown dangers but also creates unknown possibilities for students to explore ever-fluctuating literacy practices. No, teachers cannot give into the fear of the unknown because this type of fear manifests prejudice. And when it is students who come to believe these prejudices, then a far greater injustice than plagiarism has occurred.

REFERENCES

Bishop, Jack (2006) Using Turnitin at UCLA. Retrieved July 29th, 2007, from www.oid.ucla.edu/training/trainingarticles/ turnitin/index.html

Carbone, N. (2001). Turnit.com, a pedagogic placebo for plagiarism. Retrieved June 30, 2007, from bedforstmartins.com/technotes/techtiparchive/ttip060501.html

Robelen, E.W. (2007). Online anti-plagiarism service sets off court fight. Education Week, 26 (36) 16-17).

Royce, John (2003). Has Turnitin.com got it all wrapped up? Teacher Librarian, 30 (4), 26-30.

Williams. Bronwyn T. (2008). Trust, betrayal, and authorship: Plagiarism and how we perceive students. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy, 51 (4), 350-354.