Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism?

被引:52
作者
Rogerson A.M. [1 ]
McCarthy G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, 2522, NSW
关键词
Academic integrity; Internet tools; Machine translation; Paraphrasing; Paraphrasing tools; Patchwriting; Plagiarism; Turnitin;
D O I
10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
A casual comment by a student alerted the authors to the existence and prevalence of Internet-based paraphrasing tools. A subsequent quick Google search highlighted the broad range and availability of online paraphrasing tools which offer free 'services' to paraphrase large sections of text ranging from sentences, paragraphs, whole articles, book chapters or previously written assignments. The ease of access to online paraphrasing tools provides the potential for students to submit work they have not directly written themselves, or in the case of academics and other authors, to rewrite previously published materials to sidestep self-plagiarism. Students placing trust in online paraphrasing tools as an easy way of complying with the requirement for originality in submissions are at risk in terms of the quality of the output generated and possibly of not achieving the learning outcomes as they may not fully understand the information they have compiled. There are further risks relating to the legitimacy of the outputs in terms of academic integrity and plagiarism. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the existence, development, use and detection of use of Internet based paraphrasing tools. To demonstrate the dangers in using paraphrasing tools an experiment was conducted using some easily accessible Internet-based paraphrasing tools to process part of an existing publication. Two sites are compared to demonstrate the types of differences that exist in the quality of the output from certain paraphrasing algorithms, and the present poor performance of online originality checking services such as Turnitin® to identify and link material processed via machine based paraphrasing tools. The implications for student skills in paraphrasing, academic integrity and the clues to assist staff in identifying the use of online paraphrasing tools are discussed. © 2017 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]  
Ambati V., Vogel S., Carbonell J.G., Active learning and crowd-sourcing for machine translation, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), (2010)
[2]  
Atkinson D., Lim S.L., Improving assessment processes in Higher Education: Student and teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of a rubric embedded in a LMS, Australas J Educ Technol, 29, 5, pp. 651-666, (2013)
[3]  
Baggaley J., Spencer B., The mind of a plagiarist, Learning, Media and Technology, 30, 1, pp. 55-62, (2005)
[4]  
Bailey C., Challen R., Student perceptions of the value of Turnitin text-matching software as a learning tool, Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 9, 1, pp. 38-51, (2015)
[5]  
Bodie G.D., Cannava K.E., Vickery A.J., Supportive communication and the adequate paraphrase, Commun Res Rep, 33, 2, pp. 166-172, (2016)
[6]  
Bretag T., Mahmud S., A model for determining student plagiarism: Electronic detection and academic judgement, 4APFEI Asia Pacific Conference on Education Integrity APFEI, (2009)
[7]  
Bretag T., Mahmud S., Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use?, J Academic Ethics, 7, 3, pp. 193-205, (2009)
[8]  
Bretag T., Mahmud S., A conceptual framework for implementing exemplary academic integrity policy in Australian higher education, Handbook of Academic Integrity, pp. 463-480, (2016)
[9]  
Burnett A.J., Enyeart Smith T.M., Wessel M.T., Use of the Social Cognitive Theory to Frame University Students' Perceptions of Cheating, J Academic Ethics, 14, 1, pp. 49-69, (2016)
[10]  
Callison-Burch C., Flournoy R.S., A Program for Automatically Selecting the Best Output from Multiple Machine Translation Engines, (2001)