'Academia and Text Matching Software Essay\r'

'Critically evaluate the engross of school school textbookbookual matter twin(a) parcel as an encourage to ontogenesis honourable encyclopaedism practice Introduction schoolman dishonesty much(prenominal) as piracy has been a major factor in education that has alter students’ success and donnish achievements in re centime years. plagiarization agree to commonalty (2003) is the act of appropriating or write a nonher(prenominal) person’s train and flying them on as one’s report with push through acknowledging the original source. Park (2003) historied that plagiarism is a growing problem and has been a misuse of the publications of another author, their ideas, hypothesis, theories, research findings and interpretations.\r\nFurthermore studies by Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) emphatic that the rising trend of plagiarism among students throne be attributed to several factors such as academic literacy, verbiage competence and the tech nological advancements in the world instantly in terms of high speed mesh facility available in hostels and computer labs. These factors according to Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) has enhanced the ability of students to plagiarise a full-page assignment by obtaining opuss on the profits relating to their assignments which is as easy as copying and pasting.\r\nPark (2003) stated that students have different perceptions towards plagiarism. He noted that students view plagiarism as a nipper offence which is different from cheating in exams. He further discovered that plagiarism could be un allow foring (ibid). This is because few students possess a mental dissembling in which they believe they have produced something from their own office while infact they atomic number 18 reproducing something which they have read from another author. The purpose of this composition is to critically evaluate the feat of text matching packet as an aid to makeing grievous encyclopa edism practice.\r\nThis paper will begin by briefly describing what good scholarship practise is. In addition the use of text matching software for detecting good scholarship practice will be critically discussed and a conclusion will be made base on the evaluation. Good scholarship practice can be referred to as a formal get a line which involves academic learning and achievement. It involves acknowledging where information use to victuals ideas in a particular context is gotten and citing the sources (Locke and Latham, 2009).\r\nBritag and Mahmud (2009) pointed out that different strategies whichinclude the use of electronic software dents such as turnitin have been derived for detecting plagiarism with the tendency of allowing students’ take responsibility of their learning and as well as work hand in hand with their tutors in the draftsmanship stages of their assignments. According to Britag and Mahmud (2009) manual sleuthing of plagiarism is herculean because it is time consuming and this is the reason why some tutors are reluctant in pursuing capableness cases of plagiarism.\r\nHowever both the manual manner of plagiarism maculation and the electronic text matching method should be employed (Britag and Mahmud, 2009). Scaife (2007) argued that the electronic text matching software is not the solution to eliminating plagiarism because the software only focuses on text matching of paper under review with entrys (journals, articles, e-books and conference papers) found on the internet or which has been previously submitted and this is a limit because the only detection are focused on electronic materials without considering some non-electronic paper based documents which could til now be plagiaristic.\r\nWalker (2010) stated that with the development of text matching software such as the turnitin plagiarism detection was made easier, however he underscore that the turnitin detection software is not 100 per cent efficient, it merely id entifies and matches materials present in a document uploaded to turnitin website to materials available on the internet. Walker (2010) describes the electronic text matching software as a tool only suitable for detecting raillery for word or direct plagiarism in electronic form and the refined ones from the paper based sources are not easily detected.\r\nMoreover Carroll and Appleton (2001) argued that the turnitin is just an weft for measuring plagiarism and that alone cannot be used as a basis for judging good scholarship practice. In addition Carroll and Appleton (2001) insist that the use of electronic software for detecting plagiarism requires compassionate application and interpretation and that using turnitin alone as a medium for plagiarism detection is not proficient.\r\nAccording to Barrett and Malcolm (2006) the electronic text matching software (turnitin) only indicates possible plagiarism without any certainty, it is go forth to the tutor to determine the extent to which the writer has plagiarised or included some sources in the paper without acknowledging where they were acquired. In conclusion the concept of plagiarism cannot be overemphasised.\r\nIt has become a factor that has affected good academic scholarship practice and has created an avenue for educators to develop methods for detecting and dealing with plagiarism. The development of the electronic detection software such as the turnitin has enhanced the detection of plagiarism however it cannot be relied upon completely because it is not effective. In addition it is important to understand that the best way to detect plagiarism is to use both the manual method which involves educators and the use of electronic text matching software such as turnitin.\r\nStudents could also be assisted in understanding the criteria for academic writing such as the code of conducts which requires them to sleep together any source from where data is derived when writing academically. References Barre tt, R. & antiophthalmic factor; Malcolm, J. (2006) ‘Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment cultivate’, International Journal for Educational Integrity, Vol. 2, no 1, pp. 38-45. Bretag, T. and Mahmud, S. (2009) ‘A model for determining student plagiarism: electronic detection and academic judgement.\r\n‘, Journal of University Teaching and knowledge Practice, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 50-60. Chao, C. , Wilhelm, W. J. , Neureuther, B. D. (2009. ) ‘A Study of Electronic maculation and Pedagogical Approaches for Reducing piracy’, The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 31-42. Carroll, J. and Appleton, J. (2001), Plagiarism: A good practice guide, Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. Locke, E. A, Latham, G. P (2009) ‘Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or bemuse Its Attackers Abandoned Good Scholarship? ‘, The Academy of care Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 17-23. Park, C. (2003).\r\n‘In Other (People’s) Words: pl agiarism by university studentsâ€literature and lessons’, Assessment & military rank in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 472-488. Scaife, B (2007) IT Consultancy Plagiarism Detection Software Report for JISC Advisory Service. [Online]. Retrieved from:www. plagiarismadvice. org/documents/resources/PDReview-Reportv1_5. pdf [Accessed twenty-fourth October 2012]. Walker, J. (2010) ‘Measuring plagiarism: researching what students do, not what they say they do’, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 41-59.\r\n'