According to a survey done to assess the effectiveness of Turnitin, users seem to agree that the tool has helped them significantly to perfect their writing skills as well as avoid plagiarism in their work. The survey engaged a wide range of users in different countries worldwide and specifically sought to understand the perception of the students vis-à-vis to how they use the tool, its benefits, and areas that need improvement. Notably, most of the participants (39 percent) indicated that they use Turnitin for English and Humanities course, followed by Math and Sciences (24 percent), and lastly Business and Economics (18 percent). Also, a significant number of them (69 percent) say that Turnitin has helped them to cite their work correctly, ensuring that they perform better in school work (Turnitin.com, 2015). However, some say that the tool would be more efficient if more algorithms were added to allow for the exclusion of proper nouns, and if it gave feedback promptly.
I tend to share most of the sentiments regarding Turnitin’s efficiency more so on avoiding plagiarism and improving one’s writing skills. My experience with Turnitin has been somewhat positive; first, the program has ensured that I learn to use sources in the most appropriate manner and in the course of using the tool, I have learned to focus on the originality of my work. Accordingly, my writing skills have improved over time, and this has contributed to my improvement in class work. I also tend to prefer feedback through Turnitin’s online grading features to traditional pen and paper; the former allows me to track my professors’ feedback, it is easier to understand, and it supports better instructions. Thus far, I can conclude that Turnitin has been integral to my improved school work and writing skills, and therefore I can recommend it for all students as well as professors.
Week 2 discussion post
Nowadays, students are engaging in shallow research methods where they have turned to the use of incredible sources at the expense of professional and credible resources; a recent survey conducted by Pew Research Center indicates that students are inclined to use internet-based search as compared to traditional research methods. Among the sources that fail the credibility test is Wikipedia. The site cannot be used for classwork for various reasons; it has a loose editing policy where anyone can edit its content, and this casts doubt on its credibility and the source of its content (Batista, Carrega, Rodrigues, & Filipe, 2014). Also, its structure is flexible which means the information therein can be disorganized. Furthermore, Wikipedia is vulnerable to vandalism and spam due to the ease of its accessibility. There is also the possibility of one posting misleading information that can consequently affect one’s research. This proves that Wikipedia is not qualified for professional and academic research.
In addition to books and journals found in Trident’s Library, there are other means to find quality and credible sources; one can use online peer-reviewed and scholarly journals on the internet; professionals in specific fields write these journals, they are edited professionally and cannot be tampered with as compared to most of the sources such as Wikipedia (Sparks & Rapp, 2017). Also, the internet has credible online sources that are written by approved institutions. Some of the sites in this category are Mayo Clinic, Sage, Project Gutenberg, and Springer. One can also use physical books and journals found in bookshops and libraries; they tend to be quite resourceful and original because once written they cannot be tampered with at all. Additionally, they tend to incorporate profound research on specific topics, and this makes them more credible. The internet also contains websites such as enotes (www.enotes.com) which also include well researched and referenced content.
References
Batista, H., Carrega, D., Rodrigues, R., & Filipe, J. (2014). Context-based Disambiguation using Wikipedia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Information Retrieval.
Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2017). Reader Inferences From Credible and Noncredible Sources. PsycEXTRA Dataset.
Turnitin.com. (2012). What’s Wrong with Wikipedia.
Turnitin.com. (2015). What Do Students Think of Turnitin?
