Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Turnitin or Turn It Around Scholarly Paper
Turnitin or Turn It Around Scholarly Paper
Paige McClelland
Abstract
Text matching software (TMS) is a relatively new phenomenon that sheds light on important
questions about the traditional notions of scholarly writing and researching as well as academic
integrity in higher education. Turnitin is just one example of TMS, although it is likely the most
popular and profitable software. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the implications of using
research is lacking, little is known about the long-term implications of using Turnitin for
teaching and learning purposes. In fact, academic writing seems to be evolving as swiftly as the
topic, sometimes coined as a “new” problem that becomes overgeneralized. This paper seeks to
expand the narrowed definition of this problem to a complex discussion about the co-constructed
definition of plagiarism, the social shaping of technology, and some of the social, ethical, and
Introduction
The use of text-matching software (TMS) is a contentious issue, yet many Canadian
postsecondary educators seek guidance from Turnitin. Research on this software has illuminated
disputes over the nature and definition of plagiarism even though Turnitin does not claim to
identify plagiarism but does highlight copied text. Plagiarism may be difficult to define, but it is
an academic integrity violation that seriously undermines students’ “writing and analytical skills
necessary to produce evidence of progress in mastering course content” (Grohe, Schroeder, &
Davis, 2013, p. 23). With the rise of information technology and Web 2.0, educators must
consider the most effective methods to foster academic integrity and facilitate appropriate
writing practices for postsecondary students. Can educators respond to these demands and
prepare students for writing and researching in the digital age with TMS?
combat the student problem of plagiarism. However, the nature of plagiarism is complex, so it is
Turnitin’s results. As well, students and educators must understand the software’s embedded
values and assumptions for ethical and productive use. Like any technology, Turnitin has social
and political implications that are important for users to be aware of. Therefore, we must
examine the nature of plagiarism for students, the social shaping of technology in the learning
benefits of Turnitin, and the significance of using black box technology for the purpose of
transmitting knowledge. With these insights, we can discern that a) a social constructivist
plagiarism, and b) when using Turnitin, emphasis should be placed on the evolving social
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 4
process of scholarly research and academic writing rather than a punitive approach to plagiarism
in order to align with using educational technology tools responsibly and beneficially.
Online and offline, students must adhere to institution-wide academic integrity policies
that may differ from what they have become accustomed to. As Lang (2013) argued, students’
perception of citation varies greatly from that of academic citation: “[students] regard the cutting
and pasting of pastiche as evidence of originality and creativity, they embrace the notion of
collaboration in writing, and they question the possibility of originality in ideas” (p. 14). Howard
and Davies and Pfannenstiel (as cited in Evering and Moorman, 2012) found that students do not
automatically have the “skills, knowledge, and expertise to locate, navigate, and evaluate
information in an ethical manner” when they enter postsecondary (p. 37). A serious disconnect
appears between what students have personally derived from engaging in research and writing,
and how they are expected to ethically behave in a scholarly setting. Ma, Wan, and Lu (2008)
reasoned, “Social interaction between students, and with their surrounding environment, is
crucial for students’ development of ethical concepts” (p. 199). Students are social beings who
co-construct knowledge, including the definition of plagiarism and notion of ethical research
gathering that may differ from institutional and instructional norms. Thus, students should have
the learning environment, especially if TMS is implemented. Some may argue that a socially
constructed definition is not needed because academic integrity policies explain the violations.
However, the fact that TMS is in existence makes it clear that students’ misinformed application
of academic integrity policies is a serious problem. As well, the traditional ways that we explain
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 5
plagiarism must be reconsidered while at the same time addressing the misconceptions around
While it may prove easy to extrapolate data from research on academic integrity and
conclude that plagiarism is on the rise because of digital technology, this is not necessarily the
case. In fact, it is more beneficial to focus on the implicit features of technology and the learning
environment to better understand how to combat academic dishonesty rather than attribute the
but it is erroneous to say that students are plagiarizing any more than they did in the past or that
plagiarism occurs more because of access to technology (Evering and Moorman, 2012, p. 37;
Lang, 2013, pp. 14-15). Much of the present research focuses on the dispositional features of
cheating or plagiarizing, but Lang (2013) acknowledged that contextual factors, such as the
learning environment, are also critically important to understand cheating (pp. 16-17). He
theorized that there are “four features of a learning or competing environment that may pressure
individuals into cheating: 1) an emphasis on performance; 2) high stakes riding on the outcomes;
3) an extrinsic motivation for success; 4) a low expectation for success” (p. 35). While Lang
provided some salient reasons why cheating or plagiarizing occurs, he barely addressed
technology’s role in the learning environment but stated that “the future of cheating also includes
the future of technology to prevent and reduce cheating,” and that technology such as Turnitin is
“constantly evolving in response to new cheating techniques” (2013, p. 226). Recognizing the
social shaping and embedded values and assumptions of TMS are essential to understand how
academic integrity, plagiarism, and even scholarly research will evolve. Simply acknowledging
that technology changes is a passive view that limits our ability to actively shape technology and
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 6
understand how incorporating Web 2.0 tools can educate students about the complexities of
writing and researching for scholarly audiences while potentially minimizing plagiarism.
So far, we have identified that the interpretation of plagiarism is socially constructed and
both students and educators play an active role in mutually defining this term; as well, plagiarism
is not inherently a digital technology problem. Thus, it is important to ask, how do students and
educators play a role in the social shaping of TMS when it is introduced into the classroom? In a
way, the theory of technological determinism aptly recognizes that technology plays an
important role in social change (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999, p. 3), such as minimizing
plagiarism. However, the theory fails to recognize that technology and society do not operate in
separate spheres and that technology is far from neutral (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999, p. 5).
Therefore, subscribing to any technology requires users to critically interpret the use and
influence of the technology in specific contexts. Bromley (1999) expanded this view by
emphasizing the need to ascribe agency to people rather than technology, avoid detached
technology (pp. 3-4). To understand the embedded values of technology, the social context in
Interestingly, the goals of Turnitin’s creator, John Barrie, were to minimize the rise in
“rampant cheating” and amount of cut-and-paste plagiarism, assuming this is the most common
form of plagiarism (Vie, n.d., para. 1-2). However, many students do not plagiarize intentionally,
and the cut-and-paste method is one of many forms of plagiarism. A closer look reveals other
important insights: Turnitin’s emphasis on cut-and-paste plagiarism favours native speakers and
use of the software enacts “legitimate” or “illegitimate” writing practices (Introna, 2016, p. 38).
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 7
In fact, using Turnitin without understanding the embedded values of the software can lead to
assumptions that international students are plagiarists (Introna & Hayes, 2008, p. 1). Turnitin
does not understand the learning environment that entices people to cheat in the first place, nor
can it consider the learning environment from which the paper was submitted. Yet, Turnitin
undoubtedly shapes acceptable and unacceptable academic writing practices. The key point is
recognizing that Turnitin is a black box technology, with inherent design biases and seemingly
little social input from outsiders not involved in the design process. The danger of incorporating
Turnitin into Canadian postsecondary institutions is when educators view the technology as
neutral and passively submit papers into the black box without engaging in critical discourse
about the technology or the results of submission. Although technological determinism will
continue to influence the implementation of technology in education, as it has done in the past,
we must recognize that plagiarism is socially constructed, not technologically determined. Thus,
the problem will not be solved by introducing technology into the classroom, despite the
education system’s long history of expecting technology to fix complex social issues. Students’
and educators’ role in the social shaping of technology is an important responsibility that
includes acknowledging but broadening the scope from the theory of technological determinism.
Turnitin has many parallels to Sidney Pressey’s teaching machine, primarily because it is
technology that alerts students of right and wrong writing behaviours without providing any
learning strategies, that is, how to effectively paraphrase, quote, and cite information. Because
Turnitin is expensive, educators may feel pressured to use the software once the institution
purchases a subscription. According to Ferster (2014), most teaching machines have similar
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 8
goals: individualized pacing, mastery of learning, condensed material, rapid feedback, adaptive
learning, and remedial instruction (p. 159). Ease, flexibility, and convenience have always been
important for the teaching machine’s functionality, and these values are reflected in Turnitin’s
(2010) services: “Turnitin is #1 in trust with customers because of the reliability, speed and
security of paper processing and student paper archives” (para. 3). Part of the allure of Turnitin is
that it appears to make educators’ jobs easier in a secure setting. Once educators start to use the
software regularly, it becomes part of their marking and teaching routine, with the potential to
minimize the main task of helping learners develop their academic skills. It is concerning that we
can become more focused on the product rather than the process of writing and researching
through the inappropriate use of technology. Not long ago, Benjamin (1988) claimed that the
early prediction of teaching machines replacing educators has never materialized, and the
teaching machine’s purpose remains largely facilitatory to free up educators’ time (p. 711). In the
present day, there is danger in assuming automated technology simply provides more time for
educators, outweighing all of the limitations and constraints of the technology. Looking to the
past, we can observe how teaching machines both shape and constrain the learning process, as
well as how the embedded values of the teaching machine are present in modern day technology.
Turnitin transforms the writing process, and educators and students need to be aware when they
sign up and turn it in: is the ease, flexibility, and convenience of TMS being used appropriately
to teach academic writing and integrity? While the technology may free up more time, are we
using this time to help students understand the process of writing and researching?
Although Turnitin is not an effective teaching tool by itself, the software does have
pedagogical benefits that make it a valuable tool to use in the classroom. Turnitin (n.d.a) is self-
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 9
described as “a set of web-based tools for feedback and collaboration on written assignments that
supports both students and teachers” (p. 7). Turnitin sends mixed messages to users about the
collaborative and social nature of its services. In fact, many students misconstrue collaborative
academic writing: “The Internet can be viewed as a constructivist learning environment where
students engage in meaningful learning that is relevant to their own personal interests, which can,
in turn, form a social community that encourages plagiarism” (Ma et al., 2008, p. 199). However,
a constructivist online environment is not inherently a bad thing; rather, educators should
Educators’ roles are essential in supporting students’ writing endeavours but also teaching
appropriate researching and writing strategies that adhere to academic integrity policies. It is no
acknowledged, expect students to pursue these endeavours in isolation with the rise of
information technology and Web 2.0 (p. 55). In fact, researching and writing are dynamic
processes that can be strengthened with Web 2.0 tools. Purdy (2010) recognized that Web 2.0
“can enhance the value of academic research by making these activities more understandable
across a wide audience—and by raising students’ awareness of what constitutes, and what it
takes to do, good research” (p. 55). If a Web 2.0 strategy is to incorporate Turnitin, then
educators must have meaningful discourse with students about using Turnitin’s feedback to
construct appropriate knowledge about the writing and researching process. Many students
misconstrue the social nature of the classroom and the Web, but Turnitin’s results can offer
teachable moments and visual representation of the misconceptions that cause plagiarism to
Researchers have recognized that Turnitin is not being used for its intended purpose of
eliminating rampant cheating. According to Grohe et al. (2013), some educators have found
success using students’ Turnitin results to discuss the importance of citing sources and finding
credible research, with an emphasis on formative feedback rather than punitive measures (pp. 27-
28). They found that using Turnitin’s feedback can prompt educators and students to have deeper
discussions about plagiarism and writing expectations in the digital age (p. 28). Of course,
Turnitin will not have the same effect in every learning context, so educators and students must
carefully consider the benefits and limitations of using the software in specific learning
environments, like they would with any Web 2.0 tool. As Bromley (1999) put it: “We need to
look at the site where that artifact is put to use. We need to consider who is using it and why,
what goals these people have, and how they’re likely to utilize the technology in pursuit of their
goals” (p. 5). If the goal is for students to construct knowledge about the writing process and
academic integrity, technology alone will not be the answer to bring about transformative student
learning. While Turnitin opens up new and exciting ways to construct knowledge and presents
opportunities for teachers to share information about academic writing, we must avoid eclipsing
Case Study
The University of Western Australia set out to use Turnitin as a teaching tool rather than
a tool to enforce plagiarism detection, and equip students with the digital literacy skills to
navigate the complex task of writing at the scholarly level (Stappenbelt & Rowles, 2009, p. 1).
The main goal of using the software was to teach students how to correctly cite their sources and
improve their paraphrasing skills (p. 1). In order for the students to understand the purpose of
citation, and the use of Turnitin” (p. 3). Throughout a semester, engineering students submitted
their rough drafts and then worked with the feedback from Turnitin in class, along with the
support of peers and professors (p. 3). Although the study was qualitative and thus restrictive in
the conclusions we can draw, there were important findings. The amount of plagiarism declined
while proper paraphrasing and quoting increased; furthermore, the process of using Turnitin in
class allowed active engagement and the social construction of knowledge between faculty and
students (Stappenbelt & Rowles, 2009, p. 5). A notable takeaway from this study is that students
were successful when they understood why plagiarism should be avoided and used the results of
Turnitin within the context of the learning environment (p. 5). Not only was the software used to
supplement teachers’ pedagogical abilities rather than replace them, but also the use of Turnitin
connected Web 2.0 with scholarly experiences in ways that students could relate to. Despite
these advantages, more research should be done in regards to how educators can uncover their
own biases and assumptions to inform their practice and better support international students
using TMS.
Some Canadian universities have not had quite the same experience as other successful
ventures with Turnitin, albeit for different reasons. Until recently, the Canadian version of
Turnitin’s (n.d.b) privacy policies adhered to American privacy laws, which meant that Canadian
students’ submitted work could be viewed under the Patriot Act by American officials (pp. 2-3).
This revelation posed significant privacy concerns for Canadian students, even many years after
graduation. In response, Turnitin (n.d.b) collaborated with Miller Thompson LLP to ensure
compliance with Canadian privacy laws (p. 1). Despite the effort of Turnitin to protect Canadian
students’ privacy rights by acknowledging the Personal Information and Protection and
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 12
Electronic Documents Act, there are still legitimate concerns about how and why students’
papers are stored on servers. In 2011, the University of British Columbia noticed that Turnitin
had been saving student papers to American servers, which was a direct violation of B.C.’s
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the university’s agreement with
Turnitin (Cheng, 2011, para. 6). Given the option to stop backing up the data in the United States
or design a more secure connection, Turnitin denied investing in either option (para. 8). In the
next province over, the University of Alberta declined to renew their contract with Turnitin,
partially due to concerns about security and privacy (Campus Law Review Committee, 2013, p.
12). Similarly, CBC News (2011) reported that Dalhousie University severed its contract with
Turnitin after they lost confidence in the company regarding privacy protection (para. 14).
Ironically, Turnitin has been incorporated into many schools from a technological deterministic
viewpoint—as a response to rampant cheating and a catalyst for social change—while shedding
light on bigger societal issues brought about by technology, such as privacy concerns over online
data storage. Obviously there are huge ethical concerns for using Turnitin, along with political
repercussions, but Turnitin will likely continue to be a powerhouse in the academic writing
world. According to Introna (2016), “the algorithmic actor Turnitin is embedded in the
educational practices of 3,500 institutions globally” (p. 31). TMS such as Turnitin is quickly
becoming ingrained into the culture of teaching and learning, so what are the responsibilities of
educators and students who support academic writing and researching with TMS or Web 2.0
tools in general?
Turnitin or similar software has become a Web 2.0 strategy that many educators and
students turn to for support, sometimes without even questioning the consequences of the
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 13
technology or examining why they are using the technology in the first place. Kahn and
Friedman (1999) offered some wise words that can be applied to our reliance on Web 2.0: we
must “teach students that humans, and often the students themselves, control computer
technology and are responsible for the consequences of computer-mediated action” (p. 159).
have power to effect meaningful and ethical change in educational settings and beyond” (p. 159).
Because technology advances quickly, we often forget that it is people who determine how
technology is ethically used and are ultimately responsible for the consequences. As Adams
unwitting subscription to its prescriptions, as well as retreat of critical discourse regarding its
presence” (p. 268). If educators decide to use Turnitin in the classroom, they must be aware of
the prescriptions that are attached to the software before papers are even turned over as well as
engage students in critical dialogue about the software. If an educator was unaware that Turnitin
does not detect plagiarism, for example, use of the technology could be very damaging to the
learning process and students’ perception of academic writing because of misled assumptions.
In the 21st century, we have come to rely on the Web for the transmission of knowledge
from “expert” sources. It is concerning when Turnitin has the ability to imbue the expertise and
judgment of a tutor or teacher (Introna, 2016, p. 39). In fact, we could easily rely on Turnitin to
dictate appropriate writing strategies and use the technology to mask the complex problem of
plagiarism. Instead, we must recognize that technology and society are intertwined, and avoid
minimizing the environment in which plagiarism occurs as well as the nuanced cultural and
social practices of writing. Thus, we can apply what we are learning about plagiarism in the
digital age to inform our next steps and demand that educational technology becomes more
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 14
transparent by questioning the embedded values and assumptions of the technology. Students can
use TMS to gain the appropriate knowledge and tools for their research and writing skills, while
at the same time being mindful that technology such as Turnitin can mimic teacher agency and is
Educators must accept that the meaningful transmission of knowledge is not didactic but
socially constructed and apply this understanding to how they incorporate Web 2.0 tools into
their practice and pedagogy. Web 2.0 tools other than Turnitin have the capacity to transform
researching and writing practices and minimize plagiarism. In fact, we are witnessing huge
changes in scholarly writing brought about by Web 2.0: the lines are blurring between
“scholarly” and “non-scholarly” sources, databases are becoming more usable and engaging, and
discussion and collaboration are essential components of writing and researching (Purdy, 2010,
p. 57). The barriers around esoteric scholarly writing are being broken in the digital age, and no
longer are writing and researching operating in separate silos. If we fail to use Web 2.0 tools
appropriately or do not adapt to the new era of writing, not only do we devalue students’
experiences, but also we likely increase the risk of plagiarism as students disengage and fail to
see the relevance of academic research and writing in their own lives. As noted by Purdy (2011),
process through engaging with the technologies that embody this notion, we can better prepare
students to see themselves as capable knowledge producers” (p. 57). The results of Turnitin are
just one step in the writing and researching process; it is not the end of the line for students.
Rather, it is a chance to further develop their skills and contribute to the scholarly conversation
Conclusion
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 15
For Turnitin to make a significant difference in teaching and learning, both students and
teachers must be empowered by the technology. Thus, it is essential for educators and students to
co-construct the meaning of plagiarism when they employ Turnitin for formative writing and
learning purposes. As well, educators should not assume that students have inherently mastered
the skills necessary to uncover technological design biases and assumptions that influence users’
perception and use of the software. Students and educators share an important role in the social
shaping of technology as well as actively using software responsibly and ethically. Considering
the black box nature of automated learning software, educators must seriously consider the use
of Turnitin before implementing TMS into the learning environment. Although Turnitin has
some questionable features that are shaped by society, history, and politics, this software can be
used effectively and constructively. Like any technology, Turnitin will continue to evolve;
therefore, both educators and students should be part of this developmental process. Turnitin will
likely be replaced by another service or take on new forms and functions; therefore, educators
and students, not just designers, are responsible for contributing to these changes and engaging in
References
Adams, C. (2012). Technology as teacher: Digital media and the re-schooling of everyday life.
http://www.maxvanmanen.com/files/2012/12/2012-Adams-Technology-as-Teacher.pdf
Educational computing as a social practice [eBrary Reader version] (pp. 1-27). Retrieved
from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/macewan
Campus Law Review Committee. (2013). Report from the working group on text-matching
software for detecting plagiarism in student work [PDF]. Retrieved from the University
of Alberta website:
http://www.osja.ualberta.ca/en/~/media/osja/Documents/TextMatchingSoftwareReport.p
df
CBC News. (2011, August 3). Dalhousie cancels anti-plagiarism site contract [News article].
plagiarism-site-contract-1.1041020
Cheng, S. (2011). UBC tries to protect student privacy on plagiarism-checking website, Turnitin
http://old.ubyssey.ca/news/turnitin999/
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 17
Evering, L. C., & Moorman, G. (2012). Rethinking plagiarism in the digital age. Journal of
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1936-2706
Ferster, B. (2014). Teaching machines: Learning from the intersection of education and
http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/book/36140
Grohe, B., Schroeder, J., & Davis, S. R. B. (2013). Using online resources to improve writing
skills and attitudes about writing plagiarism of criminal justice students. Journal on
https://celt.muohio.edu/ject/
10.1177/0162243915587360
Introna, L., & Hayes, N. (2008). Plagiarism detection systems and international students:
online world: Problems and solutions [eBrary Reader version] (pp. 108-123).
doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-801-7.ch008
Kahn, P. H., & Friedman, B. (1999). Democratic possibilities: When does technology empower?
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/macewan
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 18
Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Cambridge, MA:
Ma, H. J., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory into
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). Introductory essay and general issues. In D. MacKenzie
& J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (2nd ed., pp. 3-27). Philadelphia,
Purdy, J. P. (2011). The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and
doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2009.12.001
Stappenbelt, B., & Rowles, C. (2009). The effectiveness of plagiarism detection software as a
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Stappenbelt.pdf
Turnitin. (2010). 7 things educators should know about Turnitin [PDF]. Retrieved from
https://www.turnitin.com/static/resources/documentation/turnitin/sales/Turnitin_FAQ_7_
Things_Educators_Should_Know.pdf
http://responsable.unige.ch/assets/files/canadian_legal.pdf
Turnitin (n.d.b). How educators can help students develop both content knowledge and 21st
https://turnitin.com/static/resources/documentation/turnitin/company/Turnitin_Whitepape
r_21st_Cent_Skills_hires.pdf
Vie, S. (n.d.). Turn it down, don’t Turnitin: Resisting plagiarism detection services by talking
http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/spring2013_special_issue/Vie/histor
y.html