Approaches to developing a programme for educatingstudents (and staff) about academic conduct and misconductusing Turnitin

Hazel Owen

Introduction

Sensitive consideration of general guidelines at the planning and subsequent stages of implementing innovations, as well as the development of associated programmes can lead togreater uptake (Bonk, Cummings, Hara, Fischler, & Lee, 2000). This report considers someunderlying considerations when designing new programmes and then suggests and critiques twoapproaches to developing a programme for educating students (and staff) about academicconduct and misconduct using Turnitin.

The Issue at Unitec

Plagiarism is a global issue, and one strategy that has been adopted by Unitec is the use of the plagiarism detection software, Turnitin (Allan, Callagher, Connors, Joyce, & Rees, 2005).Although a few academic schools use the software, uptake has tended to be

ad hoc

with onlyinterested schools holding licenses. Research would be required to identify reasons for thistendency (Stockley, 2006), but such a study is not within the remit of this report.

Discussion

Research conducted initially by Moore (1991) indicates that the adoption of innovation andchange rates vary, and can be placed on a bell curve (see Figure 1). Figure 1 illustrates that afew departments and faculty will always be fascinated by new innovations (the innovators).Once the potential of the innovation is recognised others become interested (the early adopters).Subsequently, if convinced by the results of the innovators and early adopters, as well as givensufficient incentives, the more pragmatic may be attracted to form an early majority of users(Woodellby, & Garofoli, 2002). Cummings (1995) indicates that effectiveness and rate of adoption, as well as shifts in attitude, need to be motivated by convincing reasons. Motivationcan include ‘reward’ such as release and development time, and technical support, as well asintrinsic motivation such as the enhancement of learning (Zemsky & Massy, 2004). Unlessreasons are compelling the adoption process can become stalled in the ‘chasm’ (Bonk et al,2000).

Hazel Owen

Figure 1:

The Diffusion of Innovation Adoption Bell Curve (Moore, 1991, from Rogers, 1962)

Key to Figure 1

Innovators (I)Enthusiasts who like technology for its own sake.Early Adopters (EA)Those who have vision to adopt emerging technologyThe Chasm (C)Time gap in technology adoption, which is between early adopters and pragmatists.Pragmatists (P) EarlyMajorityEarly majority pragmatists are solid citizens who do not like to take risks of pioneering, but are ready to see advantages of tested technologiesPragmatists (P) -LateMajorityLate majority pragmatists represent about one-third, who dislike discontinuousinnovations and believe in tradition rather than progress.Traditionalists (T)Traditionalists (laggards) do not engage with high technology products - except to block them.

If the use of an initiative is going to be efficacious and enduring (Geoghegan, 1994,Hagner & Schneebeck, 2001) a range of barriers (Owen & Allardice, 2007) need to beconsidered (see Table 1). In particular, ICT innovations must “address pedagogical as well astechnological, economical, societal, and political objectives” (Hoppe & Breitner, 2006, p. 45).

C:\Documents and Settings\Hazel\Desktop\PossProgs_Plagiarism_Turnitin_Critique_Hazel Owenv2.docPage 3 of 12