Essay Spinner Bypassing Plagiarism
Spinbot is a free, automatic article spinner that will rewrite human readable text into additional, readable text.If you want to remove the ads and captcha requirement, you can also purchase a monthly or yearly subscription that will give you unlimited usage(through the website, not for the API).Having a continuous flow of fresh, human-readable text is the best way for your website or blog to gain search engine exposure.Content is King, as they say.
There are many article spinners in the internet. However, most of them limit number of times that you can scan in a day or for the life of your IP. We offer you unlimited free access in a day. You can complete your research and then scan everything using our paraphrase software. You will love this article rewriter. Overcoming Plagiarism Essay 1247 Words 5 Pages. Plagiarism is an ever-increasing problem throughout the world today, as the internet, along with technology such as Iphones and Tablets, has made accessing another person’s useful work as easy as typing a few words into a search bar. This is for cheating at essays right? Team) conscious of the fact that you you have created a tool that effectively bypasses pretty much all existing plagiarism detection software? What differentiates this from a text spinner?
Part of the following topical collections:.AbstractDetecting contract cheating in written submissions can be difficult beyond direct plagiarism detectable via technology. Successfully identifying potential cases of contract cheating in written work such as essays and reports is largely dependent on the experience of assessors and knowledge of student.
He showcases his artistry as the multi-talented composer, guitarist, lyricist and singer. As a musician he is influenced by various styles of music.
It is further dependent on their familiarity with the patterns and clues evident in sections of body text and reference materials to identify irregularities. Consequently, some knowledge of what the patterns and clues look like is required.
This paper documents how to identify some of the patterns and clues observed in essay and report submissions. Effective assessment design with specific contextual requirements make irregularities easier to detect and interpret. The irregularities identified were confirmed as instances of contract cheating through conversations held with postgraduate students. An essential element of the conversations was the evidence presented for discussion. Irregularities were noted on a pro-forma specifically developed for this purpose. Patterns identified include misrepresented bibliographic data, inappropriate references, irrelevant material and generalised text that did not address the assessment question or grading criteria. The validated patterns formed the basis of identifying potential instances of contract cheating in later submissions.
Timely conversations with students before the end of semester are essential to determining whether the patterns and clues link to poor knowledge of academic writing conventions or classified as contract cheating necessitating the application of appropriate penalties under institutional policies and procedures. Detecting situations where students have not fully authored their own written submissions is an ongoing challenge for educators and institutions. This includes detecting work that is the result of various forms of contract cheating. Contract cheating has extended beyond earlier definitions used to describe students outsourcing assessable work to external parties (Clarke & Lancaster, ) to include other behaviours such as sharing, trading, ghosting and impersonation (Bretag et al. While the range of identified contract cheating behaviours continues to expand, and our understanding of the cause and prevalence of the issue improves, the methods to detect their occurrence is still largely reliant on the person charged with the responsibility for grading the work (Bretag & Mahmud,; Dawson & Sutherland-Smith,; Lancaster & Clarke,; Rogerson,; Rogerson & McCarthy, ).Educators grade assessable student work against rubrics, discipline criteria and task specifications. They are also required to determine if the students’ work is their own.
Due to the continuing and evolving practices of contract cheating, there is a need for an evolutionary approach to enhance assessor evaluation skills beyond discipline related practices and academic writing conventions. What is also necessary is an approach that can streamline the methods of determining irregularities and documenting evidence for evaluation and discussion. Conversation and interpretive skills are also required to distinguish between plagiarised, repurposed, purchased, ghosted or traded work and students whose work is the result of a poor understanding of academic writing conventions (Rogerson & Bretag, ). Differentiating between purposeful misrepresentation of authorship and a genuine lack of academic writing expertise is reliant on the skills and experience of the assessor in addition to their ability to identify and interpret clues and patterns (Rogerson & Bassanta, ).Identifying the patterns and clues in essays and report assessments can be a challenge in itself due to the random and erratic nature of encountering students trying to cheat the system. Studies such as Coughlin ( ) are aligned to post-completion investigations without the benefit of the student voice and where a grade or outcome is already recorded. Dawson and Sutherland-Smith ( ) reported that academics can identify some forms of contract cheating, but again their experiment was outside of the time pressures of providing grading and feedback within sessional requirements, and without the need to discuss irregularities with students.
Other studies focus on how to classify the seriousness of incidents and apply consistent penalty decisions once issues such as plagiarism are identified (Carroll & Appleton,; Yeo & Chien, ). Studies such as these improve our understanding of some issues related to contract cheating, yet do not capture nor examine the cheating behaviours as and when they occurred within a teaching session, nor include student insights.In order to support academic integrity principles, detection of irregularities of potential contract cheating issues is ideally required at the time the student is taking a class. This means identifying, examining and evaluating submissions for indicators of contract cheating before releasing grades to students. Returning work with a grade and feedback indicates to the student that the work has passed the academic integrity test, and where a student has used contract cheating to pass encourages them to risk repeating or even, promote the behaviour. Once a grade is released to a student it is more difficult (but not impossible) to apply the penalties for academic misconduct and change a pass to a fail for a paper, subject or degree.
Retrospective application of penalties leaves the institution open to appeals and public enquiries about standards and processes, all of which are additional burdens in terms of time, resources, and reputation. A more effective and efficient approach is to confront the issue through effective assessment design, communication and to address potential contract cheating issues as and when they occur.This paper takes up the challenge to provide a practical process to identify irregularities and to approach students for conversations that allow a determination of whether the submitted work is actually contract cheating or a genuine poor understanding of academic writing practices. The examples discussed and presented here are the result of irregularities identified during the grading process of some postgraduate coursework submissions. The focus on postgraduates was the consequence of the author’s teaching allocations. The student insights and explanations are the result of conversations held to evaluate irregularities.
Evidence of the irregularities identified during the grading process were noted on a template, which was subsequently used to document relevant insights resulting from conversations held with students about their submissions. Retrospective ethics approval was granted to examine the notes and evidence once the material was matched and de-identified, and all students had completed their course of study or had left the university.
Detecting if a student submission involves contract cheating – What do I look for?Manual observation skills and academic judgement are required to assess written work in order to detect unoriginal submissions (Bretag & Mahmud, ). Detection of unoriginal materials in essays and reports through manual observation is reliant on the identification of irregularities or patterns of concern (Rogerson, ) as at this time technology can only detect some but not all cases of plagiarism and contract cheating (Dahl,; Rogerson & McCarthy, ). There is also the issue that some instances of contract cheating may appear on the surface to be very similar to instances of poor academic practice (Dick et al., ). Consequently, a process approach is required to identify, document, and investigate irregularities using technological, interpretive, and conversational means. A practical process approach augments many of the methods already used by individuals grading assessment submissions but incorporates them in a more systematic way. Figure depicts a process that is a continuous cycle where the areas of preparation, examination and grading of submissions, and the evaluation stage feed into each other.
The approach outlined in Fig. Was developed and refined by the author using an action research approach to address a cohort situation where a larger than normal number of irregular submissions were identified (see Rogerson, ). Action research in education seeks to improve teaching strategies as well as institutional practices (Kember & Gow, ) incorporating steps of planning, action, observation and evaluation of strategies tried out in practice (Lewin, ). This approach includes reflection as people learn from their own experiences (McTaggart, ).
1Process for assessment preparation, grading and evaluationThe method outline in Fig. Was and continues to be successful in identifying, examining, evaluating and confirming cases of contract cheating, and differentiating allegations of contract cheating from cases where there is a poor or underdeveloped understanding of academic writing conventions. Ongoing use of the cycle establishes a spiral of continuous improvement and refinement. The stages do not and cannot prevent students from cheating, but can discourage the practice while being successful in reducing the use of contract cheating behaviours.
Using combination of process and reflecting on experience has resulted in contract cheating behaviours becoming more obvious and therefore easier to detect. Preparation phaseThe preparation phase is essential to set meaningful assessment tasks that deliver learning outcomes. It is a starting point but as indicated in Fig., it should draw on observations and on insights gained through previous sessions, student interactions, data analytics, training and development, reflection and feedback.
This phase involves reviewing assessment tasks, grading criteria ensuring that any refinements align with curriculum, in addition to institutional polices and assessment strategies. Review assessments, criteria and curriculumAssessment and curriculum design can have an influence contract cheating behaviours (Hrasky & Kronenberg, ). Other influences include the frequency, volume and scheduling of assessment tasks within the session (Bretag et al.,; Gijbels, van de Watering, & Dochy, ). When a series of assessment tasks are due on a similar date/time, students are required to be more diligent in their scheduling and time management. The self-scheduling skills necessary in higher education are not necessarily developed in different educational environments such as the transition from high school to university.
A lack of preparation and planning may see students seeking short cuts leading to the use of contract cheating practices. Tight scheduling, large classes, and other workload requirements also places pressure on individuals grading work who have limited time to turn around student submissions. Consideration of some of these aspects when designing assessments and curriculum can benefit both the students and the academics.Assessment task questions should be refreshed each session and cross-checked on the Internet in addition to removal requests (as per DMCA protocol). This means Googling proposed assessment questions, in addition to checking for uploaded assessments on file-sharing sites such as.com,. Where responses are found, it indicates that the question needs changing, reframing, or contextualisation. The inclusion of contextual factors (such as specific criteria and/or situations) makes it more difficult for sites selling assignments to address. Bretag et al.,( ) reported that the inclusion of contextual or individualised requirements and outlining specific instructions reduces the motivation for students to outsource assessable work which can be detected by Turnitin®.
A reliance on or use of textbook questions, or the repeated use of a particular case study from session to session has a greater potential for previously submitted assignments to be reused by students. It should also be noted that instructor’s guides with model answers are readily available for purchase or access on the Internet, therefore, using questions from set texts is more likely to lead to a student being tempted to cheat. Embedding discussion in lectures and tutorialsAs a further step in preparation, embedding discussion to educate students about criteria, assessment requirements and in lectures and tutorials can contribute to limiting attempts to cheat Bretag et al., ( ). Embedding skills for students sees observations from previous sessions used to establish preventative measures in current or future sessions (Kelley, Tong, & Choi, ). This approach establishes an authentic learning environment (Meyers & Nulty, ) and is considered as best practice in developing student capabilities (McWilliams & Allan, ). When embedded learning elements are complemented by information about known cheating behaviours in lecture and tutorial based discussion it can lead to a reduction attempts to cheat (Dick et al., ), particularly when information about the severity of penalties is included (LaSalle, ).Some skill development sessions can embedded into lectures and tutorials including how to identify and cite quality reference sources, in addition to exercises on academic writing conventions such as structuring arguments and paraphrasing.
Academic skill development is shown to be effective as a deterrent to contract cheating behaviours when embedded in course material (Divan, Bowman, & Seabourne, Jones & Maxwell; ), but is also dependent on students engaging with classes either online, or through actual attendance. Class discussion about assessment requirement should also include highlighting when and what type of collaboration is and is not permitted within the class and/or assessment task (Seals, Hammons, & Mamiseishvili, ). Clarifying complex terms such as collusion counteracts another form of academic misconduct covered in more recent institutional policies, as some terms are not necessarily understood by students (Gullifer & Tyson, ). Annotated exemplars accompanied by explanatory dialogue assist students in understanding the relationship between submitted work, grading criteria and descriptors (Bell, Mladenovic, & Price, ). Providing students with exemplars discourages students from searching the Internet, or posting questions on private Facebook® groups in attempts to see what an assessment response looks like.It is also beneficial to discuss how to use originality checking software such as Turnitin®. Spending a short time discussing what Turnitin® originality reports show has reduced instances of direct cut and paste plagiarism (Buckley & Cowap,; McCarthy & Rogerson, ). It can also lead to some interesting questions about “free” plagiarism checking software promoted on the Internet.
For example: the Viper program is promoted as a free plagiarism checker. However, the software is accessed from sites known to sell assessments such as UK Essays ( ). UK Essays retains a copy of any assignment checked by Viper and after a period (currently three months) publishes the essay in their free resources section.“When you scan a document, you agree that 3 months after completion of your scan, we will automatically upload your essay to our student essays database which will appear on one of our network of websites so that other students may use it to help them write their own essays.” Source:Unless students read the fine print closely under the terms and conditions, they will actually contribute to contract cheating resources. Class discussions tied to assessment tasks also provides an opportunity to highlight to students that using free “resources” such as those promoted by UK Essays ( ) are not a reliable or credible reference source, and that institutions know this type of site exists.Embedding academic literacy activities and initiating short discussions about contract cheating in lectures and tutorials has an additional benefit.
Openly discussing the issue reduces the excuses students can proffer in the evaluation phase about the lack of originality of their work as assessment criteria, requirements and academic integrity principles are made explicit. Examination and grading phaseIn the examination and grading phase, it is important to note any observed irregularities. Making notes while grading provides a basis for comparing observations within a cohort. To facilitate this, a template can form the basis of note taking, which also provides a basis for evidence should it be required for a future conversation with a student to examine irregularities. Based on previous experiences in identifying unoriginal work where a detailed examination of a range of irregularities within a particular student cohort was required (Rogerson, ), a template process was trialled and implemented.Due to the large number of irregularities identified when grading an assessment task in one session, the author created a template to document irregularities as they were observed.
An example of the template created is provided as Additional file (page 1) and Additional file (page 2). Common irregularities are listed with yes/no responses for ease of circling (Turnitin® matches, differences in English expression; referencing and citation issues) with an “Other” category to capture any other issues of note. Areas on the form include space for listing examples of the irregularities observed (For example: percentage of match, page numbers, and citation details). The template facilitates note taking about any irregularities identified, which are useful in the evaluation phase. The template only takes a few minutes to complete including noting the student details, circling irregularities and brief notes about examples.
It is only used in situations where irregularities are observed. The next sections outline some of the irregularities observed during grading process working through the areas in an ordered way. Identifying concerns using technologyThe promise of technological means of detecting unoriginal written submissions is partially effective in cases where text is directly taken in whole or in part from publicly accessible Internet sources, reused by a student, or shared between subject instances. However, as Ellis ( ) highlights, the widespread use and adoption of “digital detection tools” can establish an over-reliance on them as the sole means of detecting cheating at the expense of trusting personal judgement (Ellis, p.50).
Consequently, some knowledge of the practices of students, in addition to the more subtle means of detecting irregularities using text-matching technology can be useful to identify instances of potential contract cheating. Turnitin® similarity reports and originality percentagesTurnitin® is one company providing a suite of online educative and evaluation tools ( ) including an area that checks for originality of work submitted to the system.
Materials such as written assessments and presentations uploaded to Turnitin® are checked against a database of assignments lodged in previous sessions in addition to other published and Internet based works. Turnitin® generates a similarity percentage score to indicate the amount of material in the submission matched to other sources. An accompanying report highlights where the matches are in the submission, the percentage of individual match, and indicate the source of the match. The reports are an indicator but require interpretation as there may be false positives (Baggaley & Spencer, ) and may miss some types of contract cheating (Lines,; Rogerson,; Rogerson & McCarthy, ).A common question asked by students in discussions about the use of Turnitin® is “what is a good score to aim for?” The most common misconception about Turnitin® is that a zero similarity percentage score (0%) is good, inferring that no plagiarism is identified. The reality is an overall similarity score of 0%, or an unusually low score is a cause for concern and an indicator that some irregularity is evident (Lines,; Rogerson, ). For example: A good quality reference list or bibliography using academic journals will match to the original sources and result in an overall similarity index somewhere in the range of 20%–30%, or even higher depending on the number of citations/references included and the ratio between word and citation counts. A zero score can indicate issues such as falsified reference material, use of paraphrasing tools, or inappropriate use of embedded files.
Other situations with zero or low scores may be cases where.jpg or.png images of texts or reference lists have been included in a document. Text matching algorithms cannot currently detect these embedded file types. It is a deliberate form of deception to hide direct copies of materials.
In order to identify this type of deception, documents uploaded to Turnitin® need to be downloaded and reviewed. Where submissions are lodged as portable document format (PDF) documents, it is necessary to unlock the PDF to open the original text for review of properties (to see who actually authored the document) and body text elements.
Documents without authoring information may be the result of a purchased assignment where all tracking information has been removed. Reviews of this nature have also revealed unacknowledged and inappropriate embedded items such as paragraphs, pages and/or bibliographic entries.Discussions with institutional colleagues have indicated they prefer to exclude references/bibliography checks from the calculations so that students do not see higher scores resulting from reference material matches. However, experience has demonstrated that it is better to have the references/bibliography included. Firstly, to highlight to the student where good quality references have been used, and secondly, identify where students have either shared, or used a reference list previously used by another student in a previous session. Switching off the matching function may reduce the initial score, but would mean that shared or copying of reference lists are not identified. An example of this found in a later session where two students had matching reference lists, but no Turnitin® matches in the body text of the assessment task.
This is highly unusual. Discussions were held with both students where it was revealed that one student had expressed their personal difficulty in understanding faculty referencing requirements. The other student had offered to assist and requested an entire copy of the assignment to enter the reference data. Comparing the two assignments side by side, the placement of the in-text citations was identical, yet there were no matches in the body text of the originality reports.
The student who had “helped” with the referencing had actually taken the assignment and changed all of the sentences (beyond synonym replacement), left the in-text citations in the same places and submitted the work as their own. If the bibliographic measure in Turnitin® had been set to ignore in the default settings, this incident of contract cheating by sharing (Bretag et al., ) would never have been detected except through memorising student reference lists when grading.
To assist students in further evaluating their submissions and originality reports the visual trigger of rainbows in the reference list has been used with great success. A reference list linking to academic journals will show a range of colours matching to sources as shown in Fig. “Rainbows” in the reference list are promoted as a positive indicator for students to understand what their similarity reports are showing (Rogerson, ). This visual clue in addition to the ability to view their reports with and without bibliographic materials in the originality calculation have provided students with assurances of what is and is not appropriate and taken away the pressure to achieve a ‘zero’ percent in the similarity score.
Students are educated in class time how to use the filter functions available on the originality report settings so that they can see the originality percentage with, and without bibliographic input. Providing students with clear referencing criteria (minimum-maximum number, type of references, select sources) gives clear guidelines and expected percentages that can be discussed in class, and highlighting how measures can be switched off and on allowing for student self-feedback prior to due dates.
2Turnitin® Originality Report reference list rainbowsIf there are no reference matches in a Turnitin® similarity report, some other form of plagiarism detection avoidance may have been used. This can include embedded reference lists as images (such as.png or.jpeg file extensions as discussed earlier) or using other cheat approaches where spacing, punctuation additions, hidden or recoloured characters are used to try to circumvent similarity checking algorithms. Turnitin® originality reports can reveal just as much by what they do not show, as what they do show. It comes down to knowledge and building experience in interpreting originality reports. Other referencing and citation irregularities. After reviewing any digital detection tool outputs, the next step is to check for other referencing and citation irregularities.
The quality, range, accuracy, relevance and presentation of referencing and citation data provides a good indicator of what can be expected in the body content of the assessment task. For example: a well-presented reference list with matching in-text citations is representative of attention to detail, where as a poorer presentation may be indicative of a more casual or ill-informed approach to acknowledgement of sources. Table outlines some of the irregularities observed in referencing and citation data. Irregularities in submissions are not a reason to accuse a student of academic misconduct and/or implying that they participate in contract cheating behaviours. Irregularities are clues or flags about what is outside of the disciplinary norm.
Essay Spinner Bypassing Plagiarism Checker
In addition, noting irregularities is a way of identifying evidence for evaluation and potentially discussion with a student to gain an understanding of why the patterns and/or discrepancies appear in the assessment submission. Issues beyond the control of the student may be involved including accepting the student into a course of study that may beyond the level of their individual capabilities or language skills. If the student is accepted into a course beyond their level of capability, the institution should provide adequate and appropriate support to develop the skills necessary for the student to succeed. Where patterns of submission indicate the possibility of broader issues, institutions should ensure that poor assessment design and/or repetition of questions is not a contributing factor.Further studies into detection and detection behaviours are required to build a comprehensive approach to addressing the issue of contract cheating including approaches used to discuss actual cases with students. Implementing this type of study would also be beneficial in determining the influence of conversations on future revisions to assessment tasks and the prevention and detection of contract cheating in written submissions.Moving beyond identification to using the findings to inform students of examples of inappropriate scholarship while improving student academic practice is a positive step in placing boundaries around temptations available to students to participate in contract cheating behaviours. It is not only educating ourselves about the patterns, markers and clues, but also educating students about what is and is not acceptable practice to countermand the use and prevalence of methods of contract cheating in written submissions.
Essay Spinner Bypassing Plagiarism In Hindi
Encouraging a practical and systematic approach to the preparation, grading, examination and evaluation of assessments for evidence of contract cheating as presented in this paper will assist in a proactive way to address contract cheating behaviours at an institutional level.