Plagiarism is a growing problem for universities. A Daily Telegraph headline (Barrett 2011) highlighted “the cheating epidemic at Britain's universities” with “thousands of students caught plagiarising, trying to bribe lecturers and buying essays from the Internet.” Higher education institutions (HEIs) have met concerns over the increasing problem of plagiarism with a range of measures, particularly electronic detection systems. The UK national licence for Turnitin was only introduced in 2002/3 but by 2009 the software was used by over 95% of HEIs [Barrie 2008 cited in Badge and Scott (2009)] and is now used worldwide by over 10,000 institutions in 126 countries (iParadigms 2012). SafeAssign, launched by Blackboard in 2007, processed one million papers in its first year (Blackboard 2008). None of the systems available actually detect plagiarism, they merely detect and flag up non-original text (text that matches to another source), which may well be legitimate, e.g. correctly cited direct quotations.

Detecting non-original text is one issue but defining plagiarism is another. As de Jager and Brown (2010) point out, plagiarism is complex and can involve a number of different behaviours, ranging from deliberate dishonesty or negligence to ignorance of what plagiarism is or an inability to deal with it. In the West, plagiarism is usually defined as taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own: in an academic context plagiarism is regarded as dishonesty or cheating, and penalties can be severe. Definitions of plagiarism have varied over time and differ between cultures. Historically painters and others were encouraged to copy the works of the masters – it was even thought presumptuous for writers to invent their own plots – and in some cultures it is still seen as a mark of respect to incorporate someone else's work into your own (Hayes and Introna 2005, p. 215).

On the question of detection, Woessner (2004) says that unless the penalties and consequences of plagiarism are made clear to students, detecting plagiarism will offer no deterrent but there is a growing view that not all incidences of plagiarism are the same, and treating them all as academic misconduct may not be appropriate as some students struggle to acquire the skills of academic writing. English as a foreign language and science students often use the “mosaic technique” (Ashworth, Bannister, and Thorne 1997, p. 201) or “patchwriting” (Howard 1999) (weaving together a paper from different sources, properly referenced, but where the writer's input is merely to thread the material together) to learn the academic writing style of their discipline through imitation (Eckel 2010). This may not be deliberately deceptive (Howard 1999; Pecorari 2003) and may be regarded as acceptable by students who can be confused by what teachers actually mean by plagiarism (Ashworth, Bannister, and Thorne 1997).

Plagiarism has become more of an issue in recent years (Larkham and Manns 2002, and others), partly through the increase in university student numbers, often without a corresponding increase in resources, but mainly through the growth of the Internet with the easy availability of essays for purchase and other ways in which students can “cheat”. “… after Google's launch in 1998 the Internet became a public elixir of information of increasingly dubious origin, seemingly meeting steadily rising student demand” (Mainka, Raeburn, and Earl 2006, p. 13). The availability of information on the Internet also makes it more difficult for academics to identify plagiarism, which was easier when students tended to access just a few significant texts that were well known to staff.

There is no common view of how plagiarism should be handled and as McGowan (2005) points out “One of the consequences of stating or implying that “all” plagiarism is “unacceptable” is that the default situation is necessarily a disciplinary rather than an educational one” (p. 3). Procedures and penalties related to plagiarism vary significantly across UK HEIs – Carroll (2007) makes the point that not all institutions have policies and strategies in place to deal with it. In their survey, Tennant, Rowell, and Duggan (2007) found a large minority of HEIs using policies that give only limited guidance regarding penalties to be applied but if individual teachers can interpret the policy and respond in different ways “it puts students in a perilous situation, and undermines the efforts of the university community to create a culture of honesty, featuring a set of shared values and shared standards for judging transgressions against those values” (Pecorari and Shaw 2010).

Ninety-three of the 100 HEIs that responded to a survey in 2007 (Tennant, Rowell, and Duggan 2007), reported 9,229 cases of plagiarism, equivalent to 7.2 cases per 1,000 students, with wide variation between institutions, from 3.1 to 13.7 cases per 1,000 students. Larger institutions reported proportionally more cases of plagiarism and stricter penalties.

It is difficult to make comparisons over time as few institutions have baseline data on plagiarism detection (Badge and Scott 2009). Culwin (2006a, 2006b) and other studies) has undertaken a number of studies considering the use of plagiarism detection tools in his own university. He found that the average percentage of non-originality detected in first year work over four years had increased from 17.2 to 28%. This, he thought, was due to the improvement in plagiarism detection software and the availability of online materials for students to use. He also found a correlation between the amount of non-originality and the likelihood of non-completion of the first year.

	Students		Staff
Have you heard of Turnitin?
Yes	266	72.5%	61	98.4%
No	101	27.5%	1	1.6%
Respondents were given the description of what Turnitin does in relation to originality checking, and asked whether they knew this before:
Knew all about Turnitin	160	43.6%	53	85.5%
Have heard about Turnitin but didn't know much about it	115	31.3%	8	12.9%
Didn't know much about Turnitin	92	25.1%	1	1.6%
Have you heard of the University's plagiarism policy?
Yes	344	93.7%	62	100%
No	23	6.3%	0	0
How well do you understand the plagiarism policy?
Fully understand it	186	52.4%	26	41.9%
Partly understand it	157	44.2%	34	54.8%
Don't understand it all	12	3.4%	2	3.2%
Students were given an extract from the policy in relation to the University's approach to using Turnitin and asked how aware they were of this?
Fully aware	164	44.7%	43	69.4%
Partially aware	134	36.5%	16	25.8%
Not aware at all	69	18.8%	3	4.8%
Students were asked if they had been required to use Turnitin as part of their studies, staff whether they had directed/overseen the use of Turnitin
Yes	166	45.2%	39	62.9%
No	201	54.8%	23	37.1%
How do you view your experience of using Turnitin?
Very positive	50	29.2%	14	35.9%
More positive than negative	66	38.6%	19	48.7%
Indifferent	47	27.5%	5	12.8%
More negative than positive	7	4.1%	1	2.6%
Very negative	1	0.6%	0	0
If you do not currently use Turnitin, how willing would you be to use it in the future?
Fully willing	149	57.1%	18	58.1%
Willing but with reservations	75	28.7%	10	32.3%
Indifferent	28	10.7%	1	3.2%
Not very willing	4	1.5%	0	0
Not willing at all	5	1.9%	2	6.5%

Students who had used Turnitin clearly valued its use:

It allows me to check for plagiarism so that I know I haven't copied anyone's work. The draft facility enables you to double check that all information is appropriately referenced and not plagiarised.

Staff and students who had used Turnitin were asked how it had been used:

	Students		Staff
	N=166	%	N=39	%
For originality checking of students’ work	128	77	35	90
For e-feedback on students’ work	26	16	8	20
For electronic submission of students’ work only	74	44	11	28
Turnitin was discussed with students in a lecture or seminar	111	67	27	69
Tutors showed example originality reports relevant to the subject	88	53	21	54
Information about Turnitin was provided in the programme or module handbook	71	43	22	56
Students had a chance to submit a draft piece of work to Turnitin	98	59	29	74
Students were able to view their own originality report for draft work	89	54	25	64
Students were able to view their own originality report for final submissions	54	32	18	46

Staff were asked why they had used Turnitin with their students, and students were asked why they thought they had been required to use Turnitin:

	Students		Staff
	N=166	%	N=39	%
To detect plagiarism	144	89	26	67
To deter students from plagiarising	98	59	28	72
To help students understand how to avoid plagiarising	82	49	28	72
To help students improve their academic writing skills	61	37	22	56
Other reasons	6	4	3	8

The other reasons given for using Turnitin were all around electronic submission of work, apart from one student who commented:

To make your life difficult

	Yes		No
Staff were asked whether they had any direct experience of Turnitin leading to an alleged case of plagiarism	20	52.6%	18	47.4%

Staff were asked what effect they thought Turnitin had had on plagiarism in the University (up to three responses allowed)
Increased detection by tutors of possible plagiarism	24
Decreased overall amount of plagiarism	15
Increase in actual numbers of plagiarism cases brought	9
No effect on overall amount of plagiarism	6
Decrease in actual numbers of plagiarism cases brought	4
No effect in actual numbers of plagiarism cases brought	4
No effect on detection by tutors of possible plagiarism	2
Increased overall amount of plagiarism	0
Decreased detection by tutors of possible plagiarism	0

To date, the University has not formally recorded the involvement of Turnitin in alleged cases of plagiarism but around half of the teaching staff involved in the research who had used Turnitin had direct experience of it leading to an alleged case of plagiarism. Teaching staff commented that Turnitin helps cut down on the work involved in detection (e.g. Googling) and provides documentary evidence for panels. It is seen as particularly useful in detecting collusion between students, although it cannot apportion blame, which can be frustrating. It was suggested that Turnitin is very helpful in alleged cases of plagiarism because it provides some “evidence” which is a basis for discussion with the student

… it has been useful in identifying substantial plagiarism in a piece of work. The student is denying they plagiarised so this provides clear evidence and a basis for the initial discussion with the student.

Helped to spot all the minor plagiarism in a report with large chunks of copied material. Better evidence. It's unlikely that the case would have been brought to my attention without Turnitin.

The online survey shows that most students who have used Turnitin understand what it technically does and what the University's approach to using it is. Most were aware that the University's approach combines education with detection and punishment but they thought it was more about detection (79%) and deterrence (54%) than education to avoid plagiarism (45%) and helping improve academic skills (33%).

Around two-thirds of students interviewed describe the University's approach to plagiarism as being mainly about standards, definitions and rigour. They referred to the University working to raise students’ awareness and warning them about plagiarism more than actively helping them to avoid it. Other studies (Abasi and Graves 2008; Devlin 2006) have found that university policies on plagiarism contain little if any reference to an educative approach or to helping students improve their academic writing.

My understanding is that the University take a very strong stance when plagiarism is concerned, this can lead to movement through the disciplinary hierarchy, removal of work from submission and of the student from the programme.

I think it is really good that they take it very seriously; some of the talks we had are a bit scary, but students need that so that they don't just “copy and paste” articles and quotes.

The student survey shows a third of students who use Turnitin were able to see their originality report for final submissions but is unclear on their on-going ability to submit drafts. Over half (62%) of students interviewed who use Turnitin reported on-going educational use, e.g. being able to submit draft assignments, representing almost half of the programmes covered. Almost half the students interviewed were able to view the originality report for their final submissions and almost a quarter were able to submit a draft for every assignment. At the time of the study, there was consideration/planning on several programmes for allowing draft submissions beyond the initial formative experience.

From the online survey, most students who had used Turnitin (134) said their help and support had come from tutors, although there was also support from online tutorials and other students. Only half of the students surveyed who use Turnitin (84/166) said they had received help and advice about plagiarism, perhaps suggesting that some students do not fully understand what the Turnitin reports are showing them. Support for staff had come mainly from Faculty Learning Technologists and online tutorials. Tutors said they had given students advice about what plagiarism is (31), helped with referencing (35) and provided other help to improve academic writing (35).

There was clear evidence from the academic staff interviews that those who use Turnitin want to ensure that students have full information about using Turnitin and avoid plagiarism through handbooks, lectures and seminars and discussion. There was a general feeling amongst staff that students received plenty of support, although they would always say that they needed more. It was clear that although a wide range of learning support is offered, not all students engage with this unless it is a compulsory part of their course. Rolfe (2011) suggests that both students and staff need more help in interpreting originality reports, so that they can use Turnitin in a “self-service” way and improve a wider range of academic skills.

The academic staff interviewees who were using Turnitin in their programmes viewed the education of students about plagiarism and the use of Turnitin as very important, introducing it early in programmes as an important element of study skills. A few lecturers saw Turnitin as a tool that works in isolation, not something that they could use within and to support their teaching.

There was a feeling amongst staff that some international students, where quoting from an expert is seen as a mark of respect and an appropriate thing to do, have difficulty understanding the concept of plagiarism. Writing in Australia McCarthy and Rogerson (2009) also found that other nationalities can have a different perspective regarding the sharing of work, a view supported by Hayes and Introna (2005):

many overseas students, on arriving at UK universities, are more familiar with a “textbook based” teaching approach than one that requires them to consult a number of sources. In Asian, Chinese, and Greek universities, lectures often systematically cover the material in the textbook, and the exam requires students to demonstrate that they can recall all relevant material from one textbook and their lecture notes—often verbatim. Often there is minimal or no interpretation or commentary expected from the student. (p. 225)