Though a new program for targeting plagiarizers may soon be implemented throughout the University, an over-reliance on technology could seriously jeopardize the integrity of the current academic process.
The new software program - Turnitin - which the biology department has been experimenting with, has the potential to finally minimize the mundane task of seeking out cheating students.
The software boasts strong credentials, with content available from the numerous sources most likely to be used by plagiarizers and a live Internet search. Additionally, a database is maintained with student papers to prevent the possibility of cheating with inherited work.
One of the major benefits of this program will be that it automatically provides a check against plagiarism. No longer will students be drawn to cheating with the fallacious logic that everyone is participating, and thus cheating is necessary to maintain standing.
Cheating has always existed on campus and may often slip by professors, further propagating the myth that punishment is evitable. For the small cost of only $5,000 a year, the threat of automated screening will vastly discourage those inclined to plagiarize.
The software also has the added benefit of forcing students to adapt innovative writing styles to distinguish themselves from sources. While this may not be the most effective way of teaching writing, so long as students are learning to be creative it serves a purpose, and often helps concretize material in students' minds.
Though the program has so far proven to be a success in the Biology 13 and 14 classes where it has debuted, the implementation of this new tool, University-wide, will require modification of many professors' curricula.
Group work has always been a significant element of a Tufts classroom experience, and this important process will be challenged with the implementation of Turnitin. Cooperation is not synonymous with plagiarism, and it is highly probable that students working together would end up with similar phrasing. This does not necessarily detract from the ultimate goal of learning course material, and in fact contributes to a broader education involving team interaction.
Cooperative work would be threatened because of the use of what Turnitin calls the "Originality Report." A simple numeral is intended to represent how original a piece is, though it could ultimately end up as a biased indicator leading to grading prejudice.
It is feasible for a student to use common phrasing with no malicious intentions - resulting in a poor score - without any instance of plagiarism. In addition by ranking students based on their Originality Report, professors may be likely attribute higher grades to better scores - a phenomenon which could occur completely by chance.
The necessity of this program also reveals a fundamental problem that infests the Hill. It is disappointing that professors must resort to a computer program in order to catch cheaters. More reliable and effective means of reducing cheating include obtaining the respect of students, and indicating a concern for this problem. Ultimately the most reliable means of discouraging cheaters is professors who put time in to carefully read papers.
While the program does much to promote academic integrity, its shortcomings must be accounted for during its implementation. Technology should not replace honor codes and solidarity among honest students; it must only act as a spot check, designed to provide a rough indication of suspect coursework.
