|
Articles Conference Reviews |
2008E21VieThe Reality of Writing: Alternative Perspectives of Turnitin.com All three of the presenters were from Fullerton College in California and discussed multiple ways to use Turnitin.com in their classrooms. Their presentations were meant to be a response to what they called the “narrow, somewhat naïve views of Turnitin.com's abilities” that instructors may hold. The panel was certainly provocative in its direct response to many of the arguments regarding plagiarism detection services in the field of composition and rhetoric today. Renee Bangerter: From Plagiarism Detection to Plagiarism Play Book Bangerter, a former Turnitin.com administrator at Fullerton, began the panel by responding to some common arguments regarding the use of plagiarism detection services in composition, drawing on documents like the Council of Writing Program Administrators' “Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices” (http://www.wpacouncil.org/positions/plagiarism.html) and the CCCC-IP Caucus Recommendations Regarding Academic Integrity and the Use of Plagiarism Detection Services (http://ccccip.org/cccc-ip-caucus-plagiarism-detection-serv). Bangerter argued first that the WPA Statement and the CCCC-IP Caucus both approach Turnitin.com solely as a plagiarism detection service and do not consider the ways it can be used “as an effective instructional tool.” She described it instead as a “means to guide students in source integration and documentation” by using tools like the originality report and peer review available on the site. For example, she described the originality report in depth, noting that the visual reports can be used “to help students self-evaluate their academic work which prepares them for writing ethically.” Next, she argued that Turnitin.com is not a plagiarism policing product and that she is not an instructor who is “interested in policing.” Finally, Bangerter responded to some of the arguments regarding Turnitin.com's use of students' intellectual property by noting that “programming [in Turnitin.com's system] allows instructors to prevent papers from being stored in the databases.” Furthermore, in her opinion, the database “protects student authorship and promotes real learning,” and students should have the “individual learning experience” that comes from uploading their own papers to the site. Miquel Powers: Practicing with Plagiarism and Turnitin.com Powers' presentation emphasized the “teaching potential” of Turnitin.com over its policing potential. He began by describing his credo for his classes: “Being wrong is not wrong. Staying wrong is wrong.” To that end, he uses Turnitin.com to help students practice writing citations and thus “empower students to review and improve citation [practices].” He handed out his syllabus and supplemental handouts for English 100, which integrates Turnitin.com in multiple ways: the use of sample originality reports; analysis of students' own analysis reports; and even a song at the end to which students can add verses (“We Love the MLA”). Powers ended by noting that “students are not guilty until proven innocent, but rather students are learning to do it [cite] correctly.” Danielle Fouquette: Programmatic Benefits of Turnitin.com Fouquette ended the panel by referencing the CCCC-IP Caucus recommendations again and noting that she wanted to “quell the panic” that the Caucus was stirring, reiterating that Turnitin.com is “just a tool”; as such, the conversation our field should be having is not should we use it, but how should we use it. Like Bangerter, Fouquette spent a good deal of her presentation defending Turnitin.com from commonplace arguments in the field. For example, Fouquette referenced the idea that Turnitin.com undermines students' authority and violates students' privacy; she responded by stating that there is an “unbalanced differential in all student writing, so that's not a good enough reason to say no to Turnitin.com.” She continued, “Students have to accept that they give up control in the classroom in some ways,” and again referenced that students could choose not to have their essays included in the database—a choice that “can enhance student authority.” (This, however, seems in direct contradiction to the legalese included on Fullerton syllabi, which states: “In its commitment to academic honesty and accurate assessment of student work, Fullerton College uses Turnitin.com to prevent and detect plagiarism. […] Assignments submitted to Turnitin.com by the student or instructor will become part of their database and will be used for plagiarism prevention and detection. Student papers, however, will remain the intellectual property of the author.”) Fouquette closed by turning back to the CCCC-IP Caucus recommendations, arguing that to her, “Googling a student's paper seems more unethical [than using Turnitin.com]” and that the Caucus's depiction of plagiarism detection services placing students in a position of being guilty until proven innocent “is not true,” ending: “What more can I say about this?” |