1. Reflections on the Use of SafeAssign to Prevent and Detect Plagiarism Timothy W. Kirk, PhD Assistant Professor of Philosophy 1© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

2. Session Goals Explain SafeAssign Discuss one sample report Explore benefits and limitations Reflect on the role of SafeAssign in the larger assessment process 2© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

3. Goal 1 Explain SafeAssign 3© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

4. What is SafeAssign? Plagiarism detection software Built into Blackboard v 8.0 and newer Search engine which, at the discretion of the professor, can screen all essay submissions via Blackboard 4© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

5. Sources Searched “ The internet ProQuest ABI/Inform database … Institutional document archives with papers submitted by students in your institution. For us the institution is CUNY. Global reference database with papers voluntarily submitted by students from Blackboard client institutions.” (Anonymous) 5© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

6. Student Consent You are hereby notified that your instructor has access to all submissions in SafeAssign, including drafts, and may at his/her discretion submit drafts and papers for plagiarism testing through SafeAssign. Please refer to CUNY's Policy on Academic Integrity. SafeAssign checks your work against both an institutional and a global database. "Institutional database" refers to submissions to a CUNY-wide database only. "Global database" refers to submissions by a global community of SafeAssign users. Submitted papers (not drafts) will automatically become part of the institutional database. Submission to the global database is global and irrevocable, but it may provide greater protection for your work from infringement by others. 6© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

7. What you get A SafeAssign “report” - percentage of paper that matches searched sources - phrases/sentences linked to matching sources 7© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

8. Goal 2 Discuss One Sample Report 8© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

9. Sample Score 9© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

10. Sample Report 10© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

11. Sample Report 11© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

12. Goal 3 Explore Benefits and Limitations 12© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

13. Benefits Automated searching replaces manual searching upon suspicion Easy identification of likely sources Increased detection rates (Hill & Page, 2009) Hypothesized deterrent effect (Bretag & Mahmud, 2009; Hill & Page, 2009; 13© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

14. Benefits Draws student attention to proportion of quoted material in essay Well-formatted evidence if it is plagiarism 14© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

15. Limitations significant false positive rate [25%] (Hill & Page, 2009) requires careful, nuanced examination of identified passages can be manipulated by students Unlike TurnItIn, cannot exclude directly quoted material 15© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

16. Sample Report 16© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

17. Limitations Cannot discern intent ( Bretag & Mahmud, 2009) Draft issue Question of intellectual property Question of trust dynamics (Evans, 2006; Hill & Page, 2009) 17© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

18. Goal 4 Reflect on the Role of SafeAssign in the Assessment Process 18© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

19. Limited Role in Assessment If used, only a starting point Maintain careful investigation & one- on-one discussion Careful explanation of tool to students Awareness of manipulative potential 19© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

20. Sources Anonymous. “Notes on SafeAssign.” Available online at. Accessed 1 April 2010. Bretag, T. & Mahmud, S. “A Model for Determining Student Plagiarism: Electronic Detection and Academic Judgment.” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 6, no. 1 (2009): 49-60. Evans, R. “Evaluating an Electronic Plagiarism Detection Service.” Active Learning in Higher Education 7, no. 1 (2006): 87-99. Hill, J. D. & Page, E. F. “An Empirical Research Study of the Efficacy of Two Plagiarism-Detection Applications.” Journal of Web Librarianship 3, no. 3 (2009): 168-181. 20© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk

21. Thank You timothy.kirk@york.cuny.edu 21© 2010 Timothy W. Kirk