2009 - 2011 Report

Ag dAgenda

Progress reportUUsageTraining and supportg2011 survey

New developmentsNew developments

U gCumulative number of

instructorsUsage722

979

800

1000

1200

instructors

362443

607722

400

600

800

36% increase in instructor accounts in 2010-2011

0

200

2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011

Architecture4%

Centre for Applied English Studies

6%

Distribution of instructors Adopted across

all FacultiesArts11% Business &

Economics5%

Science7%

Others6%

a acu t es

5%Dentistry

4%

Education10%

Social sciences

10%

EngineeringMedicine

18%

Engineering6%

Law2%

Medicine21%

Over 60,000 reports generated during the two-year review period!

40000

No. of originality reports

2426525679

34686

25000

30000

35000

14790

20321

15000

20000

25000

0

5000

10000

02006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Red and Orange originality reports

Di t ib ti f O i i lit R t

ghas declined since 2008

100%

Distribution of Originality Reports (2006 - 2011)

70%

80%

90%

40%

50%

60%

20%

30%

40%

2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011No Match 8% 7% 9% 8% 7%

0%

10%

< 24% Match 65% 57% 65% 64% 65%25-49% Match 19% 22% 19% 20% 20%50-74% Match 5% 5% 5% 5% 4%75-100% Match 4% 8% 4% 3% 4%

T i i g d S tTraining and SupportG d t S h l li f Graduate School policy of

compulsory check of RPG theses and research proposals

Graduate School policy of random check of RPG theses(1 January 2009)

Total number of enquiries

(1 January 2011)(1 January 2009)

855

700

800

900

480

338400

500

600

240

144

338

100

200

300

0

100

2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008 2008 - 2009 2009 - 2010 2010 - 2011

45

No. of Turnitin Training SessionsNearly 5-fold increase in

i2025303540

Sess

ions

training sessions offered

2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 -05

101520

No.

of

2006 2007

2007 2008

2008 2009

2009 2010

2010 2011

Student 1 6 6 4 31Staff 2 1 1 4 8

1000

Turnitin Training AttendanceOver 8-fold increase in

attendance

400500600700800900

of u

sers

attendance

2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 -0

100200300400

No.

o

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Student 80 143 143 65 814Staff 39 9 9 45 120

2011 S2011 Survey

Biennial survey on Turnitin@HKUcovering 2009 2011covering 2009-2011Administered in 7 to 23 July 2011y

P fil f R d t (72)Profile of Respondents (72)Respondents by Faculty/ Respondents by status

Architecture3%

ArtsBusiness

and

DepartmentIT staff

4%Others13%

13% Economics4%

Dentistry7%

Education

Social Sciences

28%Faculty member

54%

Administrative staff11%

Education6%

Engineering6%Law

1%

Medicine26%

Science7%

54%

Teaching Assistant/

Demonstrator18%

Years of teaching Years with a Turnitin account

< 2 years8%Not

applicable20%

< 1 year12%

1 to 3

2 >= 5 years32%> 10 years

26%

20% 1 to 3 years16%

3 t 5

Over 5 years

5 >=10 years14%

3 to 5 years8%

y64%

H i it d?Do you use Turnitin on undergraduates or

How is it used?Do you use Turnitin on undergraduates or

postgraduates?

Undergraduates34%

Postgraduates (Research)

34%

Postgraduates (Course-based)

32% Did you arrange your RPG students perform a Turnitin pre-check before

theses submission?

Yes

No38%

62%

H f lHow useful…Rating by Instructors

4.2 4.1 4.1 43.7

3 5

4

4.5

Rating by Instructors

3.5 3.4

3

2 5

3

3.5

um =

5)

1.5

2

2.5

core

(Max

imu

0.5

1

5S

The Originality Reports were

Detect plagiarism in

student assignments

Do you want to use Turnitin in

Would you recommend

this software to The Statistical Reports were

Foster a better understanding of plagiarism and how to

Turnitin is easy to use

Decide on student

0

useful assignments with more

confidence?

the future? your colleagues?

useful and how to avoid it among

students

to use grades?

Score 4.2 4.1 4.1 4 3.7 3.5 3.4 3

S itt tSome written comments…

The turnitin is no longer as effective as in the past because es

s

pstudents learn how to beat the system.

eful

nWhile the system may not be perfect, it

does deter plagiarism toUse

does deter plagiarism to some extent.

f i dlI find the Turnitin pretty user-friendly. The report generated is although complicated but in general usefulbut in general useful.

Can the Library suggest otheres Can the Library suggest other simpler software to check plagiarism? … Turnitin required me to create at

ure

p g qclass and make many other procedure to check a single paper. Fe

a

n of

s

Interpretation of originality reports is very important and not simple. The single figure

atio

npo

rts originality score can be extremely misleading.

It should NOT be the duty of supervisors and teachers to bepret

ae

rep

It should NOT be the duty of supervisors and teachers to be catching students about plagiarism. I think this is yet another

waste of time thing imposed on faculty. The computer or nter

pth

e

g p y plibrary staff should be the ones responsible for catching plagiarism So

In

responsible for catching plagiarism. So do not bother faculty with Turn-It-In!

R t D l tRecent Developments

Joint renewal with HKU SPACE (2011-2014)2014)

Independent Turnitin Administrator at HKU SPACE Training to be provided by HKULTraining to be provided by HKUL

R t D l tRecent Developments

Originality check for research fund proposals (October 2011)proposals (October 2011)

Concerns that the research proposals be disclosedInterpretation of originality reportsInterpretation of originality reports