Academia and Text Matching Software Essay Example for Free

Academia and Text Matching Software EssayCritically evaluate the delectation of schoolbook twinned software as an aid to developing estimable scholarship practice admission Academic dishonesty such as plagiarisation has been a major factor in educational activity that has affected students success and academic achievements in recent years. Plagiarism according to Park (2003) is the act of appropriating or copying another persons work and passing them on as ones idea without acknowledging the original source. Park (2003) noted that buccaneering is a growing problem and has been a molest of the physical compositions of another author, their ideas, hypothesis, theories, research findings and interpretations. Furthermore studies by Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) emphasised that the rising trend of plagiarism among students stool be attributed to several factors such as academic literacy, language competence and the technological advancements in the macrocosm today in terms of high speed internet facility available in hostels and calculating machine labs. These factors according to Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) has raise the ability of students to plagiarise a whole assignment by obtaining papers on the internet relating to their assignments which is as easy as copying and pasting.Park (2003) stated that students have 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 unintentional (ibid). This is because some students possess a rational illusion in which they believe they have produced something from their own perspective while infact they are reproducing something which they have demand from another author. The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the effect of text unified software as an aid to developing hefty scholarship practice.This paper will begin by briefly describing what goo d scholarship practise is. In addition the use of text matching software for detecting good scholarship practice will be critically discussed and a conclusion will be do found on the evaluation. dear scholarship practice can be referred to as a dinner dress study which involves academic learning and achievement. It involves acknowledging where information used to support ideas in a particular scene 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 tools 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 detection of plagiarism is difficult because it is time consuming and this is the reason wherefore some tutors are reluctant in pursuing potential c ases of plagiarism.However both the manual order of plagiarism detection and the electronic text matching method 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 only 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 establish documents which could still be plagiarised.Walker (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 c per cent efficient, it merely identifies and matches materials present in a document uploaded to turnitin website to materials available o n the internet. Walker (2010) describes the electronic text matching software as a tool only suitable for detecting newsworthiness for word or direct 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 plagiarism and that only if cannot be used as a basis for judging good scholarship practice. In addition Carroll and Appleton (2001) aver 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 extent to which the author 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 boulevard 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 go through that the best 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 grounds the criteria for academic writing such as the code of conducts which requires them to acknowledge any source from where data is derived when writing academically. References Barrett, R. Malcolm, J. (2006) Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment process, International Journal for Educational Integrity, Vol. 2, nary(prenominal) 1, pp. 38-45. Bretag, T. and Mahmud, S. (2009) A object lesson for determining student plagiarism Electronic detection and academic judgement., Journal of University Teaching and Learning 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 Reducing 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 Abandoned Good Scholarship? , The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.17-23. Park, C. (2003).In Other (Peoples) Words plagiarism by university students books and lessons, Assessment Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 472-488. Scaife, B (2007) IT Consultancy Plagiarism Detection Software cover for JISC Advisory Service. On line. Retrieved fromwww. 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.