Skip to main content

Returning students’ right to access, choice and notice: a proposed code of ethics for instructors using Turnitin

Abstract

This paper identifies the ethical issues associated with college instructors’ use of plagiarism detection software (PDS), specifically the Turnitin program. It addresses the pros and cons of using such software in higher education, arguing that its use is justified on the basis that it increases institutional trust, and demonstrating that two common criticisms of such software are not universally valid. An analysis of the legal issues surrounding Turnitin, however, indicates that the way it is designed and operates raises some ethical issues because it denies students notice, access and choice about the treatment of their personal information. The paper concludes with a set of guidelines for instructors using Turnitin in the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In their 2010 study, these authors submitted 24 papers from a variety of Education publications in their entirety to Turnitin (and one other PDS) and found that none of them were identified as 100% plagiarized. Unfortunately, the authors do not indicate whether or not the papers that came down with lower matches still contained enough information to lead the instructor to the original source. Regardless, these findings indicate that the databases against which Turnitin checks its material may contain significant gaps. The author of this article did a similar non-scientific test in which he uploaded six articles from six different disciplines and databases to Turnitin with significantly better results. Turnitin correctly labeled three of the six papers as 100% plagiarized.

  2. 2.

    Naturally, this does not mean that PDS alone can eliminate plagiarism and this certainly should not be interpreted as a rejection of methods designed to prevent rather than catch plagiarism. Prevention and education are crucial in the fight against plagiarism, but their effectiveness as well can only be assessed if there are methods available to detect plagiarism.

  3. 3.

    In order for an outside party to qualify as a school official, three conditions have to be met:

    1. 1.

      the outside party provides a service for the agency or institution that it would otherwise provide for itself using employees;

    2. 2.

      the outside party would have “legitimate educational interests” in the information disclosed if the service were performed by employees; and

    3. 3.

      the outside party is under the direct control of the educational agency or institution with respect to the use and maintenance of information from education records (FERPA (Sec. 99.31(a)(1)(i)(B)))

    According to Turnitin, it meets all three conditions. While this may very well be the case, there are some reasons to doubt this. It is far from certain that Turnitin is under the “direct control” of the schools with which it has licensing agreements (criterion three). It is also unclear that if not for Turnitin, institutions would otherwise provide the service themselves. It seems unlikely that institutions would collect papers from students at different schools to compare their students’ papers against. Turnitin reads this requirement as meaning that given “an inordinate amount of resources” it would be conceivable that a school would perform this service itself, but the Department of Education seems to require likelihood, not logical possibility, for this criterion to be met. Moreover, section 99.33 (a) (2) of FERPA states that “officers, employees, and agents of a party that receives information under paragraph (a)(1) of this section [the “school official” exemption] may use the information, but only for the purposes for which the disclosure was made.” The educational purpose of the disclosure is to conduct an originality analysis of the paper submitted to Turnitin, and one could argue that to have the paper become part of a database falls outside the purpose of disclosure.

References

  1. A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009).

  2. Barrie, J. (2007, November 20). Statement of November 20, 2007. Retrieved 25 March 2010, from http://www.web2.umkc.edu/ia/its/Turnitin/2007.11.20_Turnitin%20and%20FERPA.pdf (no longer available).

  3. Brinkman, W. J., II. (2009). Privacy of student worked. Presented 7 March 2009 at the Association for practical and professional ethics annual meeting, Cincinnati, OH. Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Chaudhuri, J. (2008, March). Deterring digital plagiarism, how effective is the digital detection process? Webology, 5(1). Retrieved 25 March 2010, from http://www.webology.ir/2008/v5n1/a50.html.

  5. Ciocchetti, C. A. (2007). E-Commerce and information privacy: Privacy policies as personal information protectors. American Business Law Journal, 44(1), 55–126. Retrieved 30 March 2010, from http://www.works.bepress.com/corey_ciocchetti/4.

  6. Clanton, C. (2009). A moral case against certain uses of plagiarism detection services. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23(1), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Colvin, B. B. (2007). Another look at plagiarism in the digital age: Is it time to turn in my badge? Teaching English in the Two Year College, 35(2), 149–158. ProQuest Education Journals, ProQuest. Web. 31 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Department of Education. (2007, November 13). Letter to the Catholic University of America of November 13, 2007. Retrieved 25 March 2010, from http://www.counsel.cua.edu/FERPA/FPCO/Turnitin%202007.pdf.

  9. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (2008 December). Final rule. Retrieved 25 March 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2008-4/120908a.pdf.

  10. Fiedler, R., & Kaner, C. (2010 Winter). Plagiarism-detection services: How well do they actually perform? Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 29(1), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Grayson, K., Johnson, D., & Chen, D.-F. R. (2008). Is firm trust essential in a trusted environment? How trust in the business context influences customers. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 45(2), 241–256. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 31 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Horovitz, S. (2008 January). Two wrongs don’t negate a copyright: Don’t make students use Turnitin if you won’t give it back. Florida Law Journal, 229, 229–275.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaner, C., & Fiedler, R. A. (2008) Cautionary note on checking software engineering papers for plagiarism. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(2), 184–188 Retrieved 30 March 2010 from http://www.kaner.com/pdfs/KanerFiedlerIEEEReprint.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Keuskamp, D., & Sliuzas, R. (2007). Plagiarism prevention or detection? The contribution of text-matching software to education about academic integrity. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 1(1). Retrieved 30 March 2010, from http://www.journal.aall.org.au/index.php/jall/article/view/29.

  15. Kleinman, M., & Kilmer, B. (2009, August 25) The dynamics of deterrence. Proceedings of the National Academy Science USA, 106(34), 14230–14235. Retrieved 30 March 2010, from http://www.pnas.org/content/106/34/14230.full.pdf+html.

  16. Martin, D. F. (2005). Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of Education for Business, 80(3), 149–152. Business Source Premier. EBSCO. Web. 29 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  17. McKeever, L. (2006). Online plagiarism detection services—Saviour or scourge? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 155–165. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 31 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Regan, J. (2008). Curing the cold but killing the patient? Turnitin.com, online paper mills, and the outsourcing of academic work. Plagiary-Cross Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 3(2), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Reilly, R., Pry, S., & Thomas, M. L. (2007). Plagiarism: Philosophical perspectives. Teaching Philosophy, 30(3), 269–282. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 29 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rhee, A. (2010). Re: Questions. Email to Bastiaan Vanacker. 15 November 2010.

  21. Sadler, B. J. (2007). The wrongs of plagiarism: ten quick arguments. Teaching Philosophy, 30(3), 283–291. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 29 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Story, L., & Stone, B. (2007, November 30). Facebook retreats on online tracking. New York Times. Retrieved 1 March 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/technology/30face.html.

  23. (2010a). Turnitin: Key Questions students ask. Turnitn.com. Retrieved 30 October 2010, from http://www.Turnitin.com/resources/documentation/Turnitin/sales/Turnitin_Quick_Facts.pdf.

  24. (2010b). Turnitin: Questions and answers. Turnitn.com. Retrieved 30 October 2010, from http://www.Turnitin.com/resources/documentation/Turnitin/sales/Turnitin_FAQ_Questions_and_Answers.pdf.

  25. (2010c). Turnitin: Quick facts. Turnitn.com. Retrieved 30 October 2010 from http://www.Turnitin.com/resources/documentation/Turnitin/sales/Turnitin_Quick_Facts.pdf.

  26. (2010d). Turnitin: Instructors manual. Turnitn.com. Retrieved 30 October 2010 from http://www.Turnitin.com/resources/documentation/Turnitin/training/en_us/Instructor_Manual_en_us.pdf.

  27. (2010e). Turnitin: Answers to common legal questions about Turnitin. Turnitin.com. Retrieved 30 October 2010, from http://www.turnitin.com/static/pdf/us_Legal_Document.pdf.

  28. (2010f) .Turnitin Help Center: Repository options for assignments. Turnitin.com. Retrieved 30 October 2010, from http://www.turnitin.com/static/knowledge_base/repository_options.html.

  29. Vanacker, B., & Belmas, G. (2009). Trust and the economics of news. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24(2/3), 110–126. Communication & Mass Media Complete. EBSCO. Web. 31 March 2010.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the students of my Spring 2010 Digital Ethics class whose input helped me shape my ideas about this issue. I further would like to thank Dr. William “Bo” Brinkman for generously sharing a draft of a paper he presented at the 2009 Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Annual Conference. His work introduced me to the ethical issues surrounding plagiarism detection software.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bastiaan Vanacker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vanacker, B. Returning students’ right to access, choice and notice: a proposed code of ethics for instructors using Turnitin. Ethics Inf Technol 13, 327–338 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9277-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Plagiarism detection software
  • Turnitin
  • Plagiarism
  • FERPA
  • Copyright
  • Information ethics
  • Data privacy
  • Fair information practices