EDMONTON (CUP) – Text-matching technology is currently under scrutiny at the University of Alberta, with the department of biological sciences\u2019 plagiarism checker the latest subject in a long discussion about academic integrity on campus.<\/p>\n
The mandatory text-matching tool, used by the biological sciences department since September, is inciting controversy after the department\u2019s decision to go ahead with the technology last year left students unhappy with the lack of communication about the service.<\/p>\n
The department\u2019s plagiarism checker is currently the university\u2019s most extensive use of text-matching software. The increased use of text-matching software, and the need to discuss its advantages and drawbacks, was recognized by the Academic Integrity Task Force Report, a 2011 document outlining survey results and recommendations on academic integrity at the U of A.<\/p>\n
The report\u2019s proposed committee on text-matching software, however, is still in the works. Its emphasis on dialogue also seems to have come too late for the biological sciences department, which left all student bodies, including the Interdepartmental Science Students\u2019 Society (ISSS), shut out of the decision-making process.<\/p>\n
University of Alberta Students\u2019 Union vice-president academic Emerson Csorba says he was surprised by the decision to use the software and expressed concern with the lack of consultation between students and faculty.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou want to see the officials going to the representative body before any decision like this is made, something that has the potential to affect a lot of students and has a lot of controversy as well,\u201d says Csorba.<\/p>\n
But University of Alberta discipline officer Chris Hackett, who headed up the Academic Integrity Task Force, argues that the department had no obligation to seek student feedback.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s nothing in the code that says there\u2019s anything wrong with [text-matching software]. There\u2019s no policy that says you can\u2019t use it, so the [biological sciences department] is doing absolutely nothing wrong,\u201d says Hackett.<\/p>\n
The decision was made with students\u2019 best interests in mind, according to senior lab coordinator Maggie Haag, who admits that the checker is imperfect, but is also an effective \u201cguide\u201d for instructors.<\/p>\n
Csorba, however, is worried that the program may be counterproductive in its promotion of incorrect perceptions about plagiarism among students.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy concerns with anti-plagiarism programs are the presumption of guilt, the fact that a student has to send in the biology report even when that student hasn\u2019t plagiarized and disagrees fundamentally with the program,\u201d says Csorba, who says he\u2019d rather see a proactive program instead of a reactive one.<\/p>\n
Hackett admits that the program risks compromising the relationships between instructors and students.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe most powerful tool in dealing with plagiarism is an instructor talking to his students,\u201d says Hackett. \u201cIf [text-matching software] becomes something that makes people complacent, that\u2019s one of the dangers that I would worry about.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Haag feels that there\u2019s plenty of opportunity for dialogue in the biological sciences department, and stressed that the program is still an imperfect process that is only the first step in teaching students about intellectual property and the processes surrounding it in the field.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe whole point is to get the students to think like a scientist, write like a scientist, and do all the processes like a scientist,\u201d Haag said. \u201cWe\u2019re trying to ingrain that from year one.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
EDMONTON (CUP) – Text-matching technology is currently under scrutiny at the University of Alberta, with the department of biological sciences\u2019 plagiarism checker the latest subject in a long discussion about academic integrity on campus. The mandatory text-matching tool, used by the biological sciences department since September, is inciting controversy after the department\u2019s decision to go […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,72],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-campus","category-april-4-2012"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2999","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2999"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2999\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3000,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2999\/revisions\/3000"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nexusnewspaper.com\/newsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}