Running head: TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND?

Turnitin or Turn it Around?: An Analysis of

Text-Matching Software in Higher Education

Paige McClelland

University of British Columbia

December 15, 2016

ETEC 511 64B

Instructor: Dr. Francis Feng

TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 2

Abstract

Text matching software (TMS) is a relatively new phenomenon that sheds light on important

questions about the traditional notions of scholarly writing and researching as well as academic

integrity in higher education. Turnitin is just one example of TMS, although it is likely the most

popular and profitable software. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the implications of using

Turnitin, a black box technology, in Canadian postsecondary schools. Because quantitative

research is lacking, little is known about the long-term implications of using Turnitin for

teaching and learning purposes. In fact, academic writing seems to be evolving as swiftly as the

technology developed to stymie plagiarism in postsecondary schools. Plagiarism is a hot-button

topic, sometimes coined as a “new” problem that becomes overgeneralized. This paper seeks to

expand the narrowed definition of this problem to a complex discussion about the co-constructed

definition of plagiarism, the social shaping of technology, and some of the social, ethical, and

political considerations of using Turnitin within the learning environment.

Keywords: Turnitin, academic integrity, postsecondary, social constructivism, black box

technology, social shaping, Web 2.0, educational technology

TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 3

Introduction

The use of text-matching software (TMS) is a contentious issue, yet many Canadian

postsecondary educators seek guidance from Turnitin. Research on this software has illuminated

disputes over the nature and definition of plagiarism even though Turnitin does not claim to

identify plagiarism but does highlight copied text. Plagiarism may be difficult to define, but it is

an academic integrity violation that seriously undermines students’ “writing and analytical skills

necessary to produce evidence of progress in mastering course content” (Grohe, Schroeder, &

Davis, 2013, p. 23). With the rise of information technology and Web 2.0, educators must

consider the most effective methods to foster academic integrity and facilitate appropriate

writing practices for postsecondary students. Can educators respond to these demands and

prepare students for writing and researching in the digital age with TMS?

Although Turnitin does not claim to identify plagiarism, it is typically introduced to

combat the student problem of plagiarism. However, the nature of plagiarism is complex, so it is

the responsibility of students and educators to co-construct a definition of plagiarism to use

Turnitin’s results. As well, students and educators must understand the software’s embedded

values and assumptions for ethical and productive use. Like any technology, Turnitin has social

and political implications that are important for users to be aware of. Therefore, we must

examine the nature of plagiarism for students, the social shaping of technology in the learning

environment, present-day implications of automated software, pedagogical limitations and

benefits of Turnitin, and the significance of using black box technology for the purpose of

transmitting knowledge. With these insights, we can discern that a) a social constructivist

approach is crucial to shape students’ and educators’ mutually understood definition of

plagiarism, and b) when using Turnitin, emphasis should be placed on the evolving social
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 4

process of scholarly research and academic writing rather than a punitive approach to plagiarism

in order to align with using educational technology tools responsibly and beneficially.

Academic Integrity in the Digital Age

Online and offline, students must adhere to institution-wide academic integrity policies

that may differ from what they have become accustomed to. As Lang (2013) argued, students’

perception of citation varies greatly from that of academic citation: “[students] regard the cutting

and pasting of pastiche as evidence of originality and creativity, they embrace the notion of

collaboration in writing, and they question the possibility of originality in ideas” (p. 14). Howard

and Davies and Pfannenstiel (as cited in Evering and Moorman, 2012) found that students do not

automatically have the “skills, knowledge, and expertise to locate, navigate, and evaluate

information in an ethical manner” when they enter postsecondary (p. 37). A serious disconnect

appears between what students have personally derived from engaging in research and writing,

and how they are expected to ethically behave in a scholarly setting. Ma, Wan, and Lu (2008)

reasoned, “Social interaction between students, and with their surrounding environment, is

crucial for students’ development of ethical concepts” (p. 199). Students are social beings who

co-construct knowledge, including the definition of plagiarism and notion of ethical research

gathering that may differ from institutional and instructional norms. Thus, students should have

the opportunity to co-construct a mutually understood definition of plagiarism with educators in

the learning environment, especially if TMS is implemented. Some may argue that a socially

constructed definition is not needed because academic integrity policies explain the violations.

However, the fact that TMS is in existence makes it clear that students’ misinformed application

of academic integrity policies is a serious problem. As well, the traditional ways that we explain
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 5

plagiarism must be reconsidered while at the same time addressing the misconceptions around

technology and academic dishonesty.

While it may prove easy to extrapolate data from research on academic integrity and

conclude that plagiarism is on the rise because of digital technology, this is not necessarily the

case. In fact, it is more beneficial to focus on the implicit features of technology and the learning

environment to better understand how to combat academic dishonesty rather than attribute the

problem of academic integrity violations to technology. Plagiarism is certainly a serious issue,

but it is erroneous to say that students are plagiarizing any more than they did in the past or that

plagiarism occurs more because of access to technology (Evering and Moorman, 2012, p. 37;

Lang, 2013, pp. 14-15). Much of the present research focuses on the dispositional features of

cheating or plagiarizing, but Lang (2013) acknowledged that contextual factors, such as the

learning environment, are also critically important to understand cheating (pp. 16-17). He

theorized that there are “four features of a learning or competing environment that may pressure

individuals into cheating: 1) an emphasis on performance; 2) high stakes riding on the outcomes;

3) an extrinsic motivation for success; 4) a low expectation for success” (p. 35). While Lang

provided some salient reasons why cheating or plagiarizing occurs, he barely addressed

technology’s role in the learning environment but stated that “the future of cheating also includes

the future of technology to prevent and reduce cheating,” and that technology such as Turnitin is

“constantly evolving in response to new cheating techniques” (2013, p. 226). Recognizing the

social shaping and embedded values and assumptions of TMS are essential to understand how

academic integrity, plagiarism, and even scholarly research will evolve. Simply acknowledging

that technology changes is a passive view that limits our ability to actively shape technology and
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 6

understand how incorporating Web 2.0 tools can educate students about the complexities of

writing and researching for scholarly audiences while potentially minimizing plagiarism.

Social Shaping of Technology

So far, we have identified that the interpretation of plagiarism is socially constructed and

both students and educators play an active role in mutually defining this term; as well, plagiarism

is not inherently a digital technology problem. Thus, it is important to ask, how do students and

educators play a role in the social shaping of TMS when it is introduced into the classroom? In a

way, the theory of technological determinism aptly recognizes that technology plays an

important role in social change (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999, p. 3), such as minimizing

plagiarism. However, the theory fails to recognize that technology and society do not operate in

separate spheres and that technology is far from neutral (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999, p. 5).

Therefore, subscribing to any technology requires users to critically interpret the use and

influence of the technology in specific contexts. Bromley (1999) expanded this view by

emphasizing the need to ascribe agency to people rather than technology, avoid detached

acceptance to technological evolution, and acknowledge the embedded design functions of

technology (pp. 3-4). To understand the embedded values of technology, the social context in

which the technology was designed must be assessed (p. 4).

Interestingly, the goals of Turnitin’s creator, John Barrie, were to minimize the rise in

“rampant cheating” and amount of cut-and-paste plagiarism, assuming this is the most common

form of plagiarism (Vie, n.d., para. 1-2). However, many students do not plagiarize intentionally,

and the cut-and-paste method is one of many forms of plagiarism. A closer look reveals other

important insights: Turnitin’s emphasis on cut-and-paste plagiarism favours native speakers and

use of the software enacts “legitimate” or “illegitimate” writing practices (Introna, 2016, p. 38).
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 7

In fact, using Turnitin without understanding the embedded values of the software can lead to

assumptions that international students are plagiarists (Introna & Hayes, 2008, p. 1). Turnitin

does not understand the learning environment that entices people to cheat in the first place, nor

can it consider the learning environment from which the paper was submitted. Yet, Turnitin

undoubtedly shapes acceptable and unacceptable academic writing practices. The key point is

recognizing that Turnitin is a black box technology, with inherent design biases and seemingly

little social input from outsiders not involved in the design process. The danger of incorporating

Turnitin into Canadian postsecondary institutions is when educators view the technology as

neutral and passively submit papers into the black box without engaging in critical discourse

about the technology or the results of submission. Although technological determinism will

continue to influence the implementation of technology in education, as it has done in the past,

we must recognize that plagiarism is socially constructed, not technologically determined. Thus,

the problem will not be solved by introducing technology into the classroom, despite the

education system’s long history of expecting technology to fix complex social issues. Students’

and educators’ role in the social shaping of technology is an important responsibility that

includes acknowledging but broadening the scope from the theory of technological determinism.

Influences of the Teaching Machine

Turnitin has many parallels to Sidney Pressey’s teaching machine, primarily because it is

a conduit for behaviorist reinforcement as well as pricey. Turnitin relies on automated

technology that alerts students of right and wrong writing behaviours without providing any

learning strategies, that is, how to effectively paraphrase, quote, and cite information. Because

Turnitin is expensive, educators may feel pressured to use the software once the institution

purchases a subscription. According to Ferster (2014), most teaching machines have similar
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 8

goals: individualized pacing, mastery of learning, condensed material, rapid feedback, adaptive

learning, and remedial instruction (p. 159). Ease, flexibility, and convenience have always been

important for the teaching machine’s functionality, and these values are reflected in Turnitin’s

(2010) services: “Turnitin is #1 in trust with customers because of the reliability, speed and

security of paper processing and student paper archives” (para. 3). Part of the allure of Turnitin is

that it appears to make educators’ jobs easier in a secure setting. Once educators start to use the

software regularly, it becomes part of their marking and teaching routine, with the potential to

minimize the main task of helping learners develop their academic skills. It is concerning that we

can become more focused on the product rather than the process of writing and researching

through the inappropriate use of technology. Not long ago, Benjamin (1988) claimed that the

early prediction of teaching machines replacing educators has never materialized, and the

teaching machine’s purpose remains largely facilitatory to free up educators’ time (p. 711). In the

present day, there is danger in assuming automated technology simply provides more time for

educators, outweighing all of the limitations and constraints of the technology. Looking to the

past, we can observe how teaching machines both shape and constrain the learning process, as

well as how the embedded values of the teaching machine are present in modern day technology.

Turnitin transforms the writing process, and educators and students need to be aware when they

sign up and turn it in: is the ease, flexibility, and convenience of TMS being used appropriately

to teach academic writing and integrity? While the technology may free up more time, are we

using this time to help students understand the process of writing and researching?

Pedagogical Limitations and Benefits of Using Turnitin

Although Turnitin is not an effective teaching tool by itself, the software does have

pedagogical benefits that make it a valuable tool to use in the classroom. Turnitin (n.d.a) is self-
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 9

described as “a set of web-based tools for feedback and collaboration on written assignments that

supports both students and teachers” (p. 7). Turnitin sends mixed messages to users about the

collaborative and social nature of its services. In fact, many students misconstrue collaborative

academic writing: “The Internet can be viewed as a constructivist learning environment where

students engage in meaningful learning that is relevant to their own personal interests, which can,

in turn, form a social community that encourages plagiarism” (Ma et al., 2008, p. 199). However,

a constructivist online environment is not inherently a bad thing; rather, educators should

embrace this collaborative environment to engage students in critical learning opportunities.

Educators’ roles are essential in supporting students’ writing endeavours but also teaching

appropriate researching and writing strategies that adhere to academic integrity policies. It is no

longer acceptable to teach writing and researching in isolation, or as Purdy (2010)

acknowledged, expect students to pursue these endeavours in isolation with the rise of

information technology and Web 2.0 (p. 55). In fact, researching and writing are dynamic

processes that can be strengthened with Web 2.0 tools. Purdy (2010) recognized that Web 2.0

“can enhance the value of academic research by making these activities more understandable

across a wide audience—and by raising students’ awareness of what constitutes, and what it

takes to do, good research” (p. 55). If a Web 2.0 strategy is to incorporate Turnitin, then

educators must have meaningful discourse with students about using Turnitin’s feedback to

construct appropriate knowledge about the writing and researching process. Many students

misconstrue the social nature of the classroom and the Web, but Turnitin’s results can offer

teachable moments and visual representation of the misconceptions that cause plagiarism to

happen in the first place.

TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 10

Researchers have recognized that Turnitin is not being used for its intended purpose of

eliminating rampant cheating. According to Grohe et al. (2013), some educators have found

success using students’ Turnitin results to discuss the importance of citing sources and finding

credible research, with an emphasis on formative feedback rather than punitive measures (pp. 27-

28). They found that using Turnitin’s feedback can prompt educators and students to have deeper

discussions about plagiarism and writing expectations in the digital age (p. 28). Of course,

Turnitin will not have the same effect in every learning context, so educators and students must

carefully consider the benefits and limitations of using the software in specific learning

environments, like they would with any Web 2.0 tool. As Bromley (1999) put it: “We need to

look at the site where that artifact is put to use. We need to consider who is using it and why,

what goals these people have, and how they’re likely to utilize the technology in pursuit of their

goals” (p. 5). If the goal is for students to construct knowledge about the writing process and

academic integrity, technology alone will not be the answer to bring about transformative student

learning. While Turnitin opens up new and exciting ways to construct knowledge and presents

opportunities for teachers to share information about academic writing, we must avoid eclipsing

the teacher’s pedagogical abilities with that of the software’s abilities.

Case Study

The University of Western Australia set out to use Turnitin as a teaching tool rather than

a tool to enforce plagiarism detection, and equip students with the digital literacy skills to

navigate the complex task of writing at the scholarly level (Stappenbelt & Rowles, 2009, p. 1).

The main goal of using the software was to teach students how to correctly cite their sources and

improve their paraphrasing skills (p. 1). In order for the students to understand the purpose of

using Turnitin, several lectures focused on “proper source acknowledgement, referencing,

TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 11

citation, and the use of Turnitin” (p. 3). Throughout a semester, engineering students submitted

their rough drafts and then worked with the feedback from Turnitin in class, along with the

support of peers and professors (p. 3). Although the study was qualitative and thus restrictive in

the conclusions we can draw, there were important findings. The amount of plagiarism declined

while proper paraphrasing and quoting increased; furthermore, the process of using Turnitin in

class allowed active engagement and the social construction of knowledge between faculty and

students (Stappenbelt & Rowles, 2009, p. 5). A notable takeaway from this study is that students

were successful when they understood why plagiarism should be avoided and used the results of

Turnitin within the context of the learning environment (p. 5). Not only was the software used to

supplement teachers’ pedagogical abilities rather than replace them, but also the use of Turnitin

connected Web 2.0 with scholarly experiences in ways that students could relate to. Despite

these advantages, more research should be done in regards to how educators can uncover their

own biases and assumptions to inform their practice and better support international students

using TMS.

Canadian Universities Turn It In

Some Canadian universities have not had quite the same experience as other successful

ventures with Turnitin, albeit for different reasons. Until recently, the Canadian version of

Turnitin’s (n.d.b) privacy policies adhered to American privacy laws, which meant that Canadian

students’ submitted work could be viewed under the Patriot Act by American officials (pp. 2-3).

This revelation posed significant privacy concerns for Canadian students, even many years after

graduation. In response, Turnitin (n.d.b) collaborated with Miller Thompson LLP to ensure

compliance with Canadian privacy laws (p. 1). Despite the effort of Turnitin to protect Canadian

students’ privacy rights by acknowledging the Personal Information and Protection and
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 12

Electronic Documents Act, there are still legitimate concerns about how and why students’

papers are stored on servers. In 2011, the University of British Columbia noticed that Turnitin

had been saving student papers to American servers, which was a direct violation of B.C.’s

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the university’s agreement with

Turnitin (Cheng, 2011, para. 6). Given the option to stop backing up the data in the United States

or design a more secure connection, Turnitin denied investing in either option (para. 8). In the

next province over, the University of Alberta declined to renew their contract with Turnitin,

partially due to concerns about security and privacy (Campus Law Review Committee, 2013, p.

12). Similarly, CBC News (2011) reported that Dalhousie University severed its contract with

Turnitin after they lost confidence in the company regarding privacy protection (para. 14).

Ironically, Turnitin has been incorporated into many schools from a technological deterministic

viewpoint—as a response to rampant cheating and a catalyst for social change—while shedding

light on bigger societal issues brought about by technology, such as privacy concerns over online

data storage. Obviously there are huge ethical concerns for using Turnitin, along with political

repercussions, but Turnitin will likely continue to be a powerhouse in the academic writing

world. According to Introna (2016), “the algorithmic actor Turnitin is embedded in the

educational practices of 3,500 institutions globally” (p. 31). TMS such as Turnitin is quickly

becoming ingrained into the culture of teaching and learning, so what are the responsibilities of

educators and students who support academic writing and researching with TMS or Web 2.0

tools in general?

Discussion of the Changing Transmission of Knowledge

Turnitin or similar software has become a Web 2.0 strategy that many educators and

students turn to for support, sometimes without even questioning the consequences of the
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 13

technology or examining why they are using the technology in the first place. Kahn and

Friedman (1999) offered some wise words that can be applied to our reliance on Web 2.0: we

must “teach students that humans, and often the students themselves, control computer

technology and are responsible for the consequences of computer-mediated action” (p. 159).

They further emphasized, “By controlling computer technology—and choosing wisely—people

have power to effect meaningful and ethical change in educational settings and beyond” (p. 159).

Because technology advances quickly, we often forget that it is people who determine how

technology is ethically used and are ultimately responsible for the consequences. As Adams

(2012) described, habituating to “[any technology] harbours other implications, including

unwitting subscription to its prescriptions, as well as retreat of critical discourse regarding its

presence” (p. 268). If educators decide to use Turnitin in the classroom, they must be aware of

the prescriptions that are attached to the software before papers are even turned over as well as

engage students in critical dialogue about the software. If an educator was unaware that Turnitin

does not detect plagiarism, for example, use of the technology could be very damaging to the

learning process and students’ perception of academic writing because of misled assumptions.

In the 21st century, we have come to rely on the Web for the transmission of knowledge

from “expert” sources. It is concerning when Turnitin has the ability to imbue the expertise and

judgment of a tutor or teacher (Introna, 2016, p. 39). In fact, we could easily rely on Turnitin to

dictate appropriate writing strategies and use the technology to mask the complex problem of

plagiarism. Instead, we must recognize that technology and society are intertwined, and avoid

minimizing the environment in which plagiarism occurs as well as the nuanced cultural and

social practices of writing. Thus, we can apply what we are learning about plagiarism in the

digital age to inform our next steps and demand that educational technology becomes more
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 14

transparent by questioning the embedded values and assumptions of the technology. Students can

use TMS to gain the appropriate knowledge and tools for their research and writing skills, while

at the same time being mindful that technology such as Turnitin can mimic teacher agency and is

not always the most accurate or appropriate “expert” source of information.

Educators must accept that the meaningful transmission of knowledge is not didactic but

socially constructed and apply this understanding to how they incorporate Web 2.0 tools into

their practice and pedagogy. Web 2.0 tools other than Turnitin have the capacity to transform

researching and writing practices and minimize plagiarism. In fact, we are witnessing huge

changes in scholarly writing brought about by Web 2.0: the lines are blurring between

“scholarly” and “non-scholarly” sources, databases are becoming more usable and engaging, and

discussion and collaboration are essential components of writing and researching (Purdy, 2010,

p. 57). The barriers around esoteric scholarly writing are being broken in the digital age, and no

longer are writing and researching operating in separate silos. If we fail to use Web 2.0 tools

appropriately or do not adapt to the new era of writing, not only do we devalue students’

experiences, but also we likely increase the risk of plagiarism as students disengage and fail to

see the relevance of academic research and writing in their own lives. As noted by Purdy (2011),

“when we . . . help students see knowledge production as an iterative, collaborative, evolving

process through engaging with the technologies that embody this notion, we can better prepare

students to see themselves as capable knowledge producers” (p. 57). The results of Turnitin are

just one step in the writing and researching process; it is not the end of the line for students.

Rather, it is a chance to further develop their skills and contribute to the scholarly conversation

as well as receive and make use of constructive feedback.

Conclusion
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 15

For Turnitin to make a significant difference in teaching and learning, both students and

teachers must be empowered by the technology. Thus, it is essential for educators and students to

co-construct the meaning of plagiarism when they employ Turnitin for formative writing and

learning purposes. As well, educators should not assume that students have inherently mastered

the skills necessary to uncover technological design biases and assumptions that influence users’

perception and use of the software. Students and educators share an important role in the social

shaping of technology as well as actively using software responsibly and ethically. Considering

the black box nature of automated learning software, educators must seriously consider the use

of Turnitin before implementing TMS into the learning environment. Although Turnitin has

some questionable features that are shaped by society, history, and politics, this software can be

used effectively and constructively. Like any technology, Turnitin will continue to evolve;

therefore, both educators and students should be part of this developmental process. Turnitin will

likely be replaced by another service or take on new forms and functions; therefore, educators

and students, not just designers, are responsible for contributing to these changes and engaging in

critical conversations for more transparent technological advances in education.

TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 16

References

Adams, C. (2012). Technology as teacher: Digital media and the re-schooling of everyday life.

Existential Analysis, 23(2), 262-274. Retrieved from

http://www.maxvanmanen.com/files/2012/12/2012-Adams-Technology-as-Teacher.pdf

Benjamin, L. T. (1988). A history of teaching machines. American Psychologist, 43(9), 703-712.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/amp/

Bromley, H. (1999). Introduction: Data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational

computing. In H. Bromley & M. W. Apple (Eds.), Education/technology/power:

Educational computing as a social practice [eBrary Reader version] (pp. 1-27). Retrieved

from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/macewan

Campus Law Review Committee. (2013). Report from the working group on text-matching

software for detecting plagiarism in student work [PDF]. Retrieved from the University

of Alberta website:

http://www.osja.ualberta.ca/en/~/media/osja/Documents/TextMatchingSoftwareReport.p

df

CBC News. (2011, August 3). Dalhousie cancels anti-plagiarism site contract [News article].

Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-cancels-anti-

plagiarism-site-contract-1.1041020

Cheng, S. (2011). UBC tries to protect student privacy on plagiarism-checking website, Turnitin

[Newspaper article]. Retrieved from The Ubyssey website:

http://old.ubyssey.ca/news/turnitin999/
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 17

Evering, L. C., & Moorman, G. (2012). Rethinking plagiarism in the digital age. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(1), 35-44. Retrieved from

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1936-2706

Ferster, B. (2014). Teaching machines: Learning from the intersection of education and

technology [eBrary Reader version]. Retrieved from

http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/book/36140

Grohe, B., Schroeder, J., & Davis, S. R. B. (2013). Using online resources to improve writing

skills and attitudes about writing plagiarism of criminal justice students. Journal on

Excellence in College Teaching, 24(1), 23-45. Retrieved from

https://celt.muohio.edu/ject/

Introna, L. (2016). Algorithms, governance, and governmentality: On governing academic

writing. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 41(1), 14-49. doi:

10.1177/0162243915587360

Introna, L., & Hayes, N. (2008). Plagiarism detection systems and international students:

Detecting plagiarism, copying or learning? In T. Roberts (Ed.), Student plagiarism in an

online world: Problems and solutions [eBrary Reader version] (pp. 108-123).

doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-801-7.ch008

Kahn, P. H., & Friedman, B. (1999). Democratic possibilities: When does technology empower?

In H. Bromley & M. Apple (Eds.), Education/technology/power: Educational computing

as a social practice [eBrary Reader version] (pp. 157-175). Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/macewan
TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 18

Lang, J. M. (2013). Cheating lessons: Learning from academic dishonesty. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Ma, H. J., Wan, G., & Lu, E. Y. (2008). Digital cheating and plagiarism in schools. Theory into

Practice, 47(3), 197-203. doi:10.1080/00405840802153809

MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). Introductory essay and general issues. In D. MacKenzie

& J. Wajcman (Eds.), The social shaping of technology (2nd ed., pp. 3-27). Philadelphia,

PA: Open University Press.

Purdy, J. P. (2011). The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and

writing environments. Computers and Composition, 27(1), 48-58.

doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2009.12.001

Stappenbelt, B., & Rowles, C. (2009). The effectiveness of plagiarism detection software as a

learning tool in academic writing education [PDF]. Retrieved from

http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Stappenbelt.pdf

Turnitin. (2010). 7 things educators should know about Turnitin [PDF]. Retrieved from

https://www.turnitin.com/static/resources/documentation/turnitin/sales/Turnitin_FAQ_7_

Things_Educators_Should_Know.pdf

Turnitin (n.d.a). Canadian legal document [PDF]. Retrieved from

http://responsable.unige.ch/assets/files/canadian_legal.pdf

Turnitin (n.d.b). How educators can help students develop both content knowledge and 21st

century skills [PDF]. Retrieved from White Paper website:

TURNITIN OR TURN IT AROUND? 19

https://turnitin.com/static/resources/documentation/turnitin/company/Turnitin_Whitepape

r_21st_Cent_Skills_hires.pdf

Vie, S. (n.d.). Turn it down, don’t Turnitin: Resisting plagiarism detection services by talking

about plagiarism rhetorically [Web page]. Retrieved from

http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/spring2013_special_issue/Vie/histor

y.html