hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Categorizing students, categorizing texts: will plagiarism detection leave blood on the tracks?
Kristianstad University, School of Education and Environment, Avdelningen för Pedagogik.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4589-8243
Kristianstad University, School of Education and Environment, Avdelningen för Pedagogik. Kristianstad University, Forskningsmiljön Arbete i skolan (AiS).ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7494-6980
Kristianstad University, Forskningsmiljön Forskning Relationell Pedagogik (FoRP). Kristianstad University, School of Education and Environment, Avdelningen för Pedagogik.
2017 (English)Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Within research on examination cheating, a common assumption is that plagiarism in the context of examination is increasing epidemically. A uniform definition of plagiarism does not exist, but plagiarism is the category most frequently used when students at Swedish universities are notified and sanctioned for deception. Text Comparison is frequently presented as an effective technology for addressing plagiarism. Plagiarism Detection Services (PDS) are used for detecting text overlaps, particularly in higher education. While Higher Education Institutions in some countries appear to have uncritically accepted the use of text comparison technology, the reception in other countries have been ambivalent or even critical. The present project studies consequences of the use of text comparison through teachers meaning making regarding the pedagogical task to grade students and the moral task, to report students that try to deceive. We hypothesize that teachers’ epistemological views are contingent on technology and discourses on technology. Text comparison technology, therefore, runs the danger of introducing consequential biases to the assessment of student performance. The material has been gathered in four focus group conversations. Focus has been introduced through the presentation of reports from a Plagiarism Detection System. A topical analysis has been performed on the transcribed conversations. From our results, we conclude that teachers’ epistemological views are contingent on technology and discourses on technology. Text comparison, therefore, runs the danger of introducing a consequential bias to the assessment of student performance leaving students open to the accusation about deception.

 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017.
National Category
Educational Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-17505OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-17505DiVA: diva2:1149536
Conference
Earli 2017 Biennal conference
Available from: 2017-10-16 Created: 2017-10-16 Last updated: 2017-10-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nilsson, Lars-ErikEklöf, AndersKullenberg, Tina
By organisation
Avdelningen för PedagogikForskningsmiljön Arbete i skolan (AiS)Forskningsmiljön Forskning Relationell Pedagogik (FoRP)
Educational Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 25 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf