HOW TO INTERPRET A TURNITIN ORIGINALITY REPORT

You need to look at the Turnitin plagiarism report and analyze what is there.  To make sense of a Turnitin report, examine each duplicated item carefully.  As a computer generated report, the computer finds some duplication that is plagiarism and some that is not. 

There are certain words commonly used in academe, such as "At the end of this unit, the student should be able to."  Obviously, this kind of duplication is not a problem.

The colored part of your paper shows you words that were found elsewhere in articles, on the Internet, or submitted by students at Park or other universities. There is a number and color coding linked to the sources of duplication.  For any colored section in the report in the body of your paper, you need to the put direct quotation marks or a block quote properly cited in APA style, or totally rewrite the section in your own words.

The duplicated words are color coded to the numbered sources (located at the beginning of the report).  The percentage of duplication is shown for each source. The numbers are cross-referenced to indicate the source where the computer found the original words.

WARNINGS

The source where the original words were found may or may not be where you found the quote.  For example, if another student at another university copied a paragraph from a journal article, and you copied from the same journal article, and the Turnitin system does not have the original journal article in the database, the plagiarism report will mistakenly show the other student as the original source.  You should cite the original article where you found the material, not necessarily the source on the plagiarism report.

If you use material and just change a few key words from the quote, then the words will be similar enough for the computer to catch the duplication.  I understand that sometimes you may want to quote exactly, so in that case make sure you use a block quote (40 words or more) or quotation marks and give the page number. 

Remember, direct quotation should be used sparingly.  Never exceed quoting more than 200 words from an article. 

VALUABLE TOOL

Being able to detect duplication requires access to a networking system like Turnitin (which is extremely expensive) and considerable time and effort on my part. So it's not something I check all the time. Students need to be responsible for making sure they write everything in their own words and cite everything. 

I do check everything submitted to me for publication in my books.  I also check my own work with the software to make sure I haven't accidently missed anything.  

I would hope students use their own words and cite properly in all cases, but anything I ask students to submit for publication needs to be perfect (to ERIC or the graduate thesis).

EXCEPTIONS

Sometimes the duplicated words shown on the report may simply be a common expression or a reference listing, then the duplication is not a matter of copying anyone, and you don't need to make changes.

The parenthetical citations and reference list should NOT be in your own words, but in APA style.  It's normal and correct that you and other people would reference materials exactly the same way in APA style.  So, don't put quotation marks around your reference list items.

Review of Literature

Online Collaboration

I would give myself an

Automatic F for Academic Dishonesty

            In recent years, online collaboration and support have been an areas of research that interest academics in higher education (e.g., Barker, VanSchaik, & Famakinwa, 2007; Curtis & Lawson, 2001; Petrides, 2002; Whatley & Bell, 2003). Online groups provide opportunities for learning and empathy for people who share interests or concerns. In fact, the value of online support groups can be as important to the members as a face-to-face support groups are to their members (Turner, Grube, & Meyers, 2001). This finding suggests that online community may be extremely important to students too.

For online students, e-learning can be successful and provide some advantages (Luppicini, 2007). In fact, some faculty believe that the online format works extremely well for reflection and opinion discussion. Further, the sense of anonymity in the nature of online interaction may actually increase the quality and depth of member responses through personal disclosure, reciprocity, and personal acceptance (VanLear, Sheehan, Withers & Walker, 2005).

Every teacher knows that each class develops a personality. The social construction of the learning collaboration creates something unique based on the people who interact together. This personality or social construction seems less clear in the online environment. Scholars have discussed the need for students and teachers to determine where they will locate themselves in the social space of the classroom (Anagnostopoulos, Basmadjian, & McCrory, 2005). They suggested that not only does the virtual classroom lack the shared expectations and social conventions associated with the face-to-face classroom, it also lacks markers that root it in any particular place. Unlike face-to-face classrooms, virtual classrooms are radically disassociated from the locales in which teachers and students live their everyday lives. Identifying the textual devices teachers and students use to construct social presence in online classrooms is a step towards understanding how teachers and students respond to the delocalized classroom space.  Faculty may be able to create some social conventions and locate the classroom in a space.  One would suspect that a possible outcome, however, might be that unless faculty and students can create a collaborative learning environment, online learning may be less meaningful, less engaging, or less motivating than the face-to-face environment.

References

Aitken, J. E. (2008). Communication. Kansas City, MO: OnlineAcademics.Org. Retrieved June 24, 2009 from http://onlineacademics.org

Anagnostopoulos, D., Basmadjian, K. G., & McCrory, R. S. (2005). The decentered teacher and the construction of social space in the virtual classroom. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1699–1729.

Barker, P., VanSchaik, P., & Famakinwa, O. (2007). Building electronic performance support systems for first-year university students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 243–255.

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. JALN, 5(1), 21-34.

Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35(2), 141-185.

Petrides, L. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69.

Turner, J., Grube, J., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match with in online communities: an exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 231-251.

Valacich, J. S., Paranka, D., George, J. F., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1993). Communication concurrency and the new media: A new dimension for media richness. Communication Research, 20(2), 249-276.

VanLear, C. A., Sheehan, M. A., Withers, L. A., & Walker, R. A. (2005). AA online: The enactment of computer mediated social support. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 5-26.

Whatley, J., & Bell, F. (2003). Discussion across borders: Benefits for collaborative learning. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 139.

Here is the Plagiarism Report

Review of Literature Online Collaboration I would give myself an Automatic F for Academic Dishonesty In recent years, online collaboration and support have been an areas of research that interest academics in higher education (e.g., Barker, VanSchaik, & Famakinwa, 2007; Curtis & Lawson, 2001; Petrides, 2002; Whatley & Bell, 2003). Online 2groups provide opportunities for learning and empathy for people who share interests or concerns. In fact, 2the value of online support groups can be as important to the members as a face-to-face support groups are to their members (Turner, Grube, & Meyers, 2001). [Aitken wrote this information and published on her website. For a course, it's inappropriate to use information submitted for another course, even if the student wrote the information]   This finding suggests that online community may be extremely important to students too. For online students, e-learning can be successful and provide some advantages (Luppicini, 2007). In fact, some faculty believe that the online format works extremely well for reflection and opinion discussion. 2Further, the sense of anonymity in the nature of online interaction may actually increase the quality and depth of member responses through personal disclosure, reciprocity, and personal acceptance (VanLear, Sheehan, Withers & Walker, 2005). Every teacher knows that each class develops a personality. The social construction of the learning collaboration creates something unique based on the people who interact together. This personality or social construction seems less clear in the online environment. Scholars have discussed the need for students and teachers to determine where they will locate themselves 1in the social space of the classroom (Anagnostopoulos, Basmadjian, & McCrory, 2005). They suggested that 1not only does the virtual classroom lack the shared expectations and social conventions associated with the face-to-face classroom, it also lacks markers that root it in any particular place. Unlike face-to-face classrooms, virtual classrooms are radically disassociated from the locales in which teachers and students live their everyday lives. Identifying the textual devices teachers and students use to construct social presence in online classrooms is a step towards understanding how teachers and students respond to the delocalized classroom space. [Although the source is identified, the fact that these are the words of Anagnostopoulous, Basmadjian, and McCrory constitutes plagiarism.  This section needs to be in quotation marks or set off as a block quote, with the page number in parentheses at the end.] Faculty may be able to create some social conventions and locate the classroom in a space. One would suspect that a possible outcome, however, might be that unless faculty and students can create a collaborative learning environment, online learning may be less meaningful, less engaging, or less motivating than the face-to-face environment. References Anagnostopoulos, D., Basmadjian, K. G., & McCrory, R. S. (2005). The decentered teacher and the construction of social space in the virtual classroom. Teachers College Record, 107(8), 1699–1729. Barker, P., VanSchaik, P., & Famakinwa, O. (2007). Building electronic performance support systems for first-year university students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(3), 243–255. Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001). Exploring collaborative online learning. JALN, 5(1), 21-34. Luppicini, R. (2007). Review of computer mediated communication research for education. Instructional Science, 35(2), 141-185. Petrides, L. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 69. Turner, J., Grube, J., & Meyers, J. (2001). Developing an optimal match with in online communities: an exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 231-251. Valacich, J. S., Paranka, D., George, J. F., & Nunamaker, J. F. (1993). Communication concurrency and the new media: A new dimension for media richness. Communication Research, 20(2), 249-276. VanLear, C. A., Sheehan, M. A., Withers, L. A., & Walker, R. A. (2005). AA online: The enactment of computer mediated social support. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 5-26. Whatley, J., & Bell, F. (2003). Discussion across borders: Benefits for collaborative learning. Educational Media International, 40(1/2), 139.

  Here are the identified sources.