Critically evaluate the use of text matching software as an aid to developing good scholarship practice
Introduction
Academic dishonesty such as plagiarism has been a major factor in education that has affected students’ success and academic achievements in recent years. Plagiarism according to Park (2003) is the act of appropriating or copying another person’s work and passing them on as one’s idea without acknowledging the original source. Park (2003) noted that plagiarism is a growing problem and has been a misuse of the writings of another author, their ideas, hypothesis, theories, research findings and interpretations. Furthermore studies by Chao, Wilhelm and Neureuther (2009) emphasised that
Walker (2010) describes the electronic text matching software as a tool only suitable for detecting word for word or direct plagiarism in electronic form and the refined ones from the paper based sources are not easily detected. Moreover Carroll and Appleton (2001) argued that the turnitin is just an option for measuring plagiarism and that alone cannot be used as a basis for judging good scholarship practice. In addition Carroll and Appleton (2001) insist that the use of electronic software for detecting plagiarism requires human application and interpretation and that using turnitin alone as a medium for plagiarism detection is not proficient. According to Barrett and Malcolm (2006) the electronic text matching software (turnitin) only indicates possible plagiarism without any certainty, it is left to the tutor to determine the extent to which the writer has plagiarised or included some sources in the paper without acknowledging where they were acquired.
In conclusion the concept of plagiarism cannot be overemphasised. It has become a factor that has affected good academic scholarship practice and has created an avenue for educators to develop methods for detecting and dealing with plagiarism. The development of the electronic detection software such as