Academia and Text Matching Software Essay

critically evaluate the use up of text duplicate softwargon as an forethought to developing good scholarship apply Introduction Academic artifice such as plagiarization has been a major factor in education that has affected disciples success and academic achievements in recent years. buccaneering according to ballpark (2003) is the act of appropriating or copying other mortals work and passing them on as ones idea without acknowledging the original source. Park (2003) noted that plagiarization is a development problem and has been a misuse of the piece of musics of another author, their ideas, hypothesis, theories, research findings and renditions. furthermore studies by Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) emphasised that the rising trend of plagiarism among students can be attributed to several factors such as academic literacy, language competence and the technological advancements in the world today in terms of high drive network facility available in hostels and com puter labs. These factors according to Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) has enhance the ability of students to plagiarise a whole assignment by obtaining document on the internet relating to their assignments which is as easy as copying and pasting.Park (2003) stated that students fork up different perceptions towards plagiarism. He noted that students view plagiarism as a minor offence which is different from cheating in exams. He further discovered that plagiarism could be un captiveional (ibid). This is because more or less students possess a mental illusion in which they believe they have produced something from their own perspective while infact they ar reproducing something which they have read from another author. The purpose of this composing is to critically evaluate the effect of text duplicate software program product as an aid to developing good scholarship practice.This melodic theme will begin by briefly describing what good scholarship rehearse is. In addi tion the use of text matching software for detecting good scholarship practice will be critically discussed and a conclusion will be made ground on the evaluation. estimable scholarship practice can be referred to as a formal study which involves academic learning and achievement. It involves acknowledging where information used to support ideas in a particular context is gotten and citing the sources (Locke and Latham, 2009).Britag and Mahmud (2009) pointed out that different strategies whichinclude the use of electronic software musical instruments such as turnitin have been derived for detecting plagiarism with the intent of allowing students take responsibility of their learning and also work hand in hand with their tutors in the drafting stages of their assignments. According to Britag and Mahmud (2009) manual sensing of plagiarism is difficult because it is time consuming and this is the reason why some tutors are reluctant in pursuing potential cases of plagiarism.Howe ver both the manual rule of plagiarism detection and the electronic text matching method acting 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 unless focuses on text matching of paper under review with documents (journals, articles, e-books and conference papers) found on the internet or which has been previously submitted and this is a limitation because the only detection are focused on electronic materials without considering some non-electronic paper based documents which could silence be plagiarised. carriage (2010) stated that with the development of text matching software such as the turnitin plagiarism detection was made easier, however he emphasised that the turnitin detection software is not 100 per cent efficient, it further identifies and matches materials present in a document uploaded to turnitin website to materials available on the int ernet. Walker (2010) describes the electronic text matching software as a tool only suitable for detecting word for word or behave plagiarism in electronic form and the refined ones from the paper based sources are not easily detected.Moreover Carroll and Appleton (2001) argued that the turnitin is just an option for measuring rod plagiarism and that alone cannot be used as a tail for judging good scholarship practice. In addition Carroll and Appleton (2001) insist that the use of electronic software for detecting plagiarism requires human application and interpretation and that using turnitin alone as a medium for plagiarism detection is not proficient.According to Barrett and Malcolm (2006) the electronic text matching software (turnitin) only indicates possible plagiarism without any certainty, it is left to the tutor to determine the end 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.It has become a factor that has affected good academic scholarship practice and hascreated an route 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 outflank 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.Students could also be assisted in understanding the criteria for academic writing such as the code of conducts which requires them to acknowledge any source from where information is derived when writing academically. References Barrett, R. & Malcolm, J. (2006) Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment process, external Journal for Educational Integrity, Vol. 2, N o. 1, pp. 38-45. Bretag, T. and Mahmud, S. (2009) A model for determining student plagiarism Electronic detection and academic judgement., Journal of University Teaching and acquirement Practice, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 50-60. Chao, C. , Wilhelm, W. J. , Neureuther, B. D. (2009. ) A Study of Electronic Detection and Pedagogical Approaches for cut down Plagiarism, 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 Have Its Attackers dispose Good Scholarship? , The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.17-23. Park, C. (2003).In separate (Peoples) Words plagiarism by university studentsliterature and lessons, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 472-488. Scaife, B (2007) IT Consultancy Plagiarism Detection Software cover up for JISC Advisory Service. Online. Retrieved f romwww. plagiarismadvice. org/documents/resources/PDReview-Reportv1_5. pdf Accessed 24th 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.