Awareness and
Use of Turnitin software
by Academic Staff in Ensuring Academic Integrity
in Nigerian Universities
Opene Sunday Ozonuwe (CLN)
Crawford University Library,
Igbesa, Ogun State, Nigeria
openeozonuwe@crawforduniversity.edu.ng
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7792-7304
David Ehizojie
Ighodalo (PhD)
Department of
Administration and Management,
Crawford University,
Nigeria
ighodalodavid71@gmail.com
https://orcid.org0009000398339749
&
Elizabeth Bukunola Lateef (CLN)
Crawford University Library,
Igbesa,Ogun State, Nigeria
bukkylateef@crawforduniversity.edu.ng
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1873-8572
Abstract
This study examines the awareness and use of
Turnitin among academic staff in ensuring academic integrity in universities in
South-Western Nigeria. The study was motivated by the growing concern over
plagiarism and academic misconduct in higher education, particularly in the
context of increased access to digital information resources. A descriptive
survey research design was adopted, and data were collected from 132 academic
staff across five universities: Lagos State University, University of Ibadan, Ogun
State University (Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ekiti State University, and Osun
State University. The findings reveal that although awareness of Turnitin is
relatively high, its consistent use among academic staff remains low. Most
respondents utilize the software primarily at the final stages of research
evaluation rather than as a continuous instructional tool. The study also shows
that while Turnitin is widely perceived as effective in detecting plagiarism
and improving students’ academic writing, its role in promoting academic
integrity and discouraging plagiarism is considered limited. Key challenges
identified include misleading similarity reports, insufficient institutional
support, technical difficulties, and poor internet connectivity. Furthermore,
respondents emphasized the need for improved integration of Turnitin with
learning management systems, stronger institutional policies, enhanced internet
infrastructure, and continuous training for both staff and students. The study
concludes that while Turnitin is a valuable tool for supporting academic
integrity, its effectiveness depends largely on proper usage, user competence,
and institutional support. The study recommends a holistic approach combining
technology, policy enforcement, and capacity building to enhance its impact in
Nigerian universities.
Keywords:
Turnitin;
Academic Integrity; Plagiarism Detection; Nigerian Universities; Academic
Staff; Technology Adoption
Introduction
Academic integrity
has emerged as a fundamental core
value of higher education systems globally, especially in an era defined by the rapid advancement
of digital technologies and unprecedented access to online information
resources. The transformation of the academic landscape through the internet, digital libraries, open-access
repositories, and artificial intelligence tools has significantly reshaped how
knowledge is created, stored,
disseminated, and used. While these technological developments have enhanced
learning opportunities and facilitated research productivity, they have
simultaneously introduced complex challenges related to the ethical use of
information.
In today’s academic environment, students and researchers are no longer
limited to physical libraries; instead, they operate within a cavernous digital
landscape where information is readily available at the click of a button.
While this convenience enhances access to to information and knowledge, it also change the line between originally conducted research work and the reuse of
existing ideas and concepts, increasing the risk of academic misconduct, particularly plagiarism.
As a result, institutions now face growing challenges in
monitoring, maintaining and upholding standards of originality and proper citation, given how
easily digital content can be copied, modified, or reused without
acknowledgment.
According to Olujuwon and Ojo (2024), plagiarism
is the exploitation of another person's intellectual work without giving due
credit, which damages academic institutions' reputations and lowers the calibre
of research products. The problem is especially severe in developing nations
like Nigeria because of structural issues like poor research training, lax
enforcement of academic rules, and a lack of knowledge about moral scholarly
conduct.
The situation is made worse by students' and faculty members'
differing degrees of digital literacy. While some are adept at using digital
resources ethically, others are not well-versed in scholarly writing styles,
citation techniques, and paraphrasing. As a result, incidents of plagiarism might not
necessarily be deliberate but instead result from a lack of knowledge of the
fundamentals of academic integrity. However, such actions compromise the
integrity of intellectual work and the validity of academic credentials,
whether intentional or unintentional.
In response to the
growing threat of academic dishonesty, educational institutions, especially universities are increasingly
adopting technological
tools such as Turnitin, a web-based plagiarism detection software designed to
promote originality and uphold academic standards. Turnitin software works by
comparing submitted texts against a wide range of sources, including academic
publications, internet content, and previously submitted papers. This process
allows educators to detect similarities in text and identify potential cases of
plagiarism.The integration of such technologies into higher education reflects
a broader shift toward the use of artificial intelligence and digital systems
in safeguarding academic integrity (Njoku et al., 2025).
Regulatory bodies in
Nigeria, particularly the National Universities Commission, have advocated for
the integration of plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin into university
systems as part of broader quality assurance practices in teaching and research (Abduldayan, Yusuf, and
Olatunde 2019). The author
added that this policy direction reflects a clear recognition of
plagiarism as a significant threat to both the credibility of academic
qualifications and the reputation of institutions.
Existing research
indicates that the effectiveness of these tools largely depends on how well
academic staff and students understand, accept, and use them appropriately.
However, the level of awareness, accessibility, and effective use of Turnitin software among academic staff
may vary significantly. While some lecturers may lack adequate training or
institutional support, others may not fully integrate the software into their
teaching and assessment practices. It is against this backdrop that this study
is being conducted.
Research Objectives
The
general
objective of this study is to
examine the awareness and use of Turnitin software by academic staff in
ensuring academic integrity in universities in South-Western Nigeria.
Specific Objectives
- To
determine the level of awareness of Turnitin software among academic
staff.
- To
assess the extent of use of Turnitin software in teaching and assessment.
- To
evaluate academic staff perceptions of the effectiveness of Turnitin in
ensuring academic integrity.
- To
identify the challenges faced by academic staff in using Turnitin
software.
- To
suggest strategies for improving the use of Turnitin in promoting academic
integrity.
Research Questions
- What is the level of awareness of
Turnitin software among academic staff in universities in South-Western
Nigeria?
- To what extent do academic staff use
Turnitin software in their teaching and assessment practices?
- What are the perceptions of academic
staff regarding the effectiveness of Turnitin in ensuring academic
integrity?
- What challenges do academic staff
face in the use of Turnitin software?
- What strategies can enhance the
effective use of Turnitin in promoting academic integrity?
Literature Review: Conceptual, Theoretical and Empirical
Academic integrity
is a fundamental principle in higher education that emphasizes honesty, trust,
fairness, and responsibility in teaching, learning, and research processes
(International Center for Academic Integrity, 2021). It ensures that scholarly
work is original and properly acknowledges sources, thereby preserving the
credibility of academic qualifications (International Center for Academic
Integrity, 2021). However, the increasing availability of digital resources has
contributed to rising cases of plagiarism in universities, particularly in
developing countries like Nigeria, where weak enforcement mechanisms and
inadequate awareness persist (Bretag, 2013). Awareness and users’ perceptions of these technologies are
key factors influencing their adoption and effective use (Kashada, Li, and
Koshadah, 2018).
Plagiarism, defined
as the presentation of another person’s ideas or work without proper
attribution, remains one of the most prevalent forms of academic misconduct
(Purdue Online Writing Lab, 2020).
The introduction of
plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin, which analyze submitted work
against extensive databases to identify similarities and promote academic
integrity, has been widely adopted as a solution to plagiarism (Vrbanec &
Merovic, 2020). However, their effectiveness is often limited because many
educators have only a basic understanding of how the system works and struggle
to properly interpret similarity reports. According to Garba (2018), the
consistent use of such software in academic evaluation is further hindered by
inadequate training and insufficient institutional support.To combat plagiarism
and enhance students’ academic writing skills, many universities have adopted
plagiarism detection tools like Turnitin (Kokkinaki, Demoliou, and Iakovidou,
2015) as a means of reducing instances of academic dishonesty.
窗体底端
Vrbanec &
Meštrovic (2020), the emergence of plagiarism detection
technologies such as Turnitin has been widely adopted to address this challenge
by comparing submitted texts with extensive databases to identify similarities
and promote originality in academic writing.
Studies have shown
that many academics possess only moderate awareness of Turnitin and limited
knowledge of how to interpret similarity reports, which reduces its
effectiveness in combating plagiarism (Garba, 2018). The author further stated that inadequate training and
lack of institutional support
often hinder the consistent use of the software in academic assessment.
Jereb et al. (2018)
investigated the factors contributing to plagiarism among students in Germany
and Slovenia, identifying the rise of new technologies and widespread internet
use as major influences. Similarly, Kayaoglu et al. (2015) explored
cross-cultural perceptions of plagiarism among Turkish, German, and Georgian
students. Although notable differences existed among the groups, common causes
of plagiarism included misuse of online resources, inadequate citation practices,
weak academic writing skills, and poor time management.
This study is
grounded in three major theoretical frameworks, each contributing distinct
perspectives. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), developed by Fred Davis in
1986 and later validated in 1989, explains how users come to accept and use
technology. The model emphasizes that adoption is primarily influenced by two
factors: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
Deterrence Theory,
rooted in classical criminology, was first articulated by Cesare Beccaria in 1964
in On Crimes and Punishments. He argued that crime can be minimized
when punishment is certain, swift, and proportionate. This idea was further
expanded by Jeremy Bentham, who introduced the utilitarian perspective,
suggesting that individuals act rationally by weighing potential benefits
against possible consequences before engaging in misconduct.
Protection
Motivation Theory (PMT), proposed by R. W. Rogers in 1975 and later revised in
1983, explains how individuals respond to perceived threats. The theory
highlights two key processes: threat appraisal and coping appraisal. It
suggests that protective behavior is influenced by perceived severity,
vulnerability, response efficacy, and self-efficacy.
Collectively, these
frameworks provide a comprehensive basis for understanding technology adoption,
behavioral regulation, and responses to risk. They are particularly relevant in
examining the awareness and use of plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin
in academic environments.
TAM suggests that
academic staff are more likely to adopt Turnitin when they perceive it as
useful for detecting plagiarism and easy to use. This underscores the need for
institutions to provide not only access to such tools but also adequate
training and support to enhance user competence.
Deterrence Theory
complements this by explaining that the likelihood of academic misconduct
decreases when individuals perceive a high probability of detection and
punishment. Turnitin serves as a deterrent by increasing the chances of
identifying plagiarized work, thereby discouraging dishonest practices and
reinforcing a culture of academic integrity.
Similarly, PMT
explains that individuals are more inclined to adopt preventive measures when
they recognize the seriousness of a threat and believe in their ability to
address it. In this context, both students and staff may use Turnitin to avoid
the consequences of plagiarism, driven by their awareness of risks and
confidence in the tool’s effectiveness.
Empirical evidence
supports the application of these theories. A study conducted at the University
of Ibadan found that while Turnitin is widely regarded as a valuable tool for
promoting academic integrity, its effectiveness is limited by technical challenges
and the lack of standardized institutional policies. This highlights the
combined influence of technological, behavioral, and institutional factors on
its successful use.
Furthermore, the integration of TAM,
Deterrence Theory, and PMT offers a holistic understanding of the factors
influencing the adoption and use of Turnitin. While TAM focuses on user
acceptance, Deterrence Theory emphasizes enforcement, and PMT explains
responses to perceived threats. Together, they demonstrate that the effective
implementation of plagiarism detection tools depends on accessibility, user
training, and strong institutional support systems.
Empirical studies
have explored the level of awareness and utilization of Turnitin in higher
education institutions. In Nigeria, a study conducted at Bayero University Kano
found that although academic staff possessed a moderate level of awareness of
Turnitin, its actual use for plagiarism detection remained low, highlighting a
disconnect between knowledge and practical application (Garba, 2018).
Similarly, research
at the Federal University of Technology, Minna showed that despite the
introduction of Turnitin to address plagiarism, both students and staff
exhibited limited understanding of plagiarism and minimal engagement with the
software, which reduced its overall effectiveness (Abduldayan et al., 2019).
Beyond Nigeria,
studies across other African institutions indicate that while Turnitin is
widely adopted to enhance academic writing and detect plagiarism, several
challenges persist. These include insufficient training, misinterpretation of
similarity reports, and overdependence on the software (Nketsiah et al., 2023).
Furthermore, recent findings highlight certain limitations of Turnitin, such as
false positives and difficulty in detecting paraphrased or non-English content,
which may affect its reliability in maintaining academic integrity (Ilori,
2025).
Generally, the
literature suggests that although Turnitin plays an important role in promoting
academic integrity in Nigerian universities, its effectiveness depends largely
on users’ awareness, proper training, and consistent application. The observed
gap between awareness and actual use, along with institutional and technical
constraints, emphasizes the need for continuous capacity building, stronger
policy enforcement, and better integration of Turnitin into teaching and
research practices.
Methodology
This study adopts a descriptive survey research
design to investigate the awareness and use of Turnitin among academic staff in
ensuring academic integrity in universities in South-Western Nigeria. The
population of the study consists of 132 academic staff drawn from selected
federal and state-owned universities in the region, namely Lagos State
University, Ekiti State University, University of Ibadan, and Ogun State
University (Olabisi Onabanjo University and University of Osun State. A
purposive sampling technique was employed to select academic lecturers across
faculties in each of the identified institutions, ensuring that respondents
have adequate exposure to teaching, assessment practices, and academic writing
processes.
Data for the study were collected using a
structured questionnaire designed to elicit information on respondents’ level
of awareness, extent of use, perceptions of effectiveness, challenges
encountered, and strategies for improving the use of Turnitin software. The
questionnaire comprises closed-ended items measured on a Likert scale. The
instrument was validated through expert review, and its reliability was
established using a pilot test with a small group of academic staff outside the
sampled universities, yielding a satisfactory reliability coefficient.
For data analysis, responses were coded and
analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages were used to answer the
research questions.. The findings are presented in charts for clarity. Ethical
considerations, including voluntary participation, confidentiality, and
anonymity of respondents were strictly observed throughout the study.
Presentation
of Results
Fig.1
The distribution
of respondents across the selected universities shows a fairly balanced
representation, with slight variations in participation levels. Lagos State
University (LASU) contributed 24 respondents, accounting for 18.2% of the total
sample. University of Ibadan (UI) had a slightly higher representation with 29
respondents (22.0%), while Osun State University (OSU) recorded the highest
participation at 30 respondents, representing 22.7% of the sample. Ekiti State
University (EKSU) contributed 26 respondents (19.7%), and Osun State University
(UNIOSUN) had the lowest proportion with 23 respondents, accounting for 17.4%
of the total. Overall, the sample size of 132 respondents is
relatively evenly distributed across the five institutions, with each
university contributing between approximately 17% and 23% of the total
responses. This near-uniform distribution enhances the representativeness of
the data, reducing the likelihood of institutional bias and allowing for more
balanced comparative analysis across the universities. Although OSU has the
highest proportion and UNIOSUN the lowest, the differences are marginal,
suggesting that no single institution disproportionately influences the overall
findings of the study.
Fig. 2
The table indicates that the respondents in the
study are predominantly highly educated, with the majority holding advanced
degrees. Specifically, 68 respondents, representing 51.5% of the sample,
possess a PhD, making it the most common qualification. This is followed by 55
respondents (41.7%) who hold a Master’s degree. In contrast, only 9
respondents, accounting for 6.8%, have a first degree as their highest
qualification. Overall, the distribution suggests that the sample is heavily
skewed toward individuals with postgraduate education, implying a strong
presence of advanced academic expertise among the respondents.
Fig. 3
The table presents the distribution of respondents by academic rank,
showing a diverse representation across different levels of the academic
hierarchy. The largest proportion of participants were Lecturer I,
accounting for 22.7% (30 respondents), indicating that mid-level academics
formed the core of the sample. This is followed by Associate
Professors/Readers at
20.5% (27 respondents) and Senior Lecturers at
17.4% (23 respondents), further emphasizing a strong presence of experienced
academics. Lecturer
II made up 13.6% (18 respondents), while Full Professors
constituted 11.4% (15 respondents), reflecting a moderate inclusion of
senior-most academics. At the lower end, Research Fellows accounted for 7.6%
(10 respondents), and Graduate/Assistant Lecturers represented the smallest
group at 6.8% (9 respondents). Overall, the distribution suggests that the
study captured a balanced mix of academic staff, with a slight concentration in
the mid-career ranks, which may provide a well-rounded perspective on the issues
investigated.
Fig. 4
The table presents
the distribution of respondents’ usage of Turnitin among 132 participants,
showing varying levels of engagement with its features. A small proportion of
respondents, 7 (5.3%), indicated that they consistently utilize Turnitin to
evaluate students’ research outcomes, suggesting limited routine use.
Meanwhile, 26 respondents (19.7%) reported incorporating Turnitin as part of
their instructional practices, reflecting a moderate level of integration into
teaching activities. In addition, 20 respondents (15.2%) stated that they
mandate students to submit their research for Turnitin checks, indicating some
enforcement of its use within academic processes.
The highest
proportion of respondents, 36 (27.3%), rely on Turnitin reports when making
final approval decisions on research work, showing that the software is most
commonly used as a final evaluative tool. Closely following this, 34
respondents (25.8%) reported using Turnitin’s feedback features, such as
comments and grading tools, demonstrating significant engagement with its
formative assessment capabilities. Furthermore, 9 respondents (6.8%) encourage
students to review their similarity reports before final submission, indicating
a smaller but notable emphasis on student self-review and improvement. Overall,
the findings reveal that while consistent use of Turnitin remains relatively
low, most respondents utilize it at critical stages of the academic process,
particularly for final approval and feedback purposes, highlighting its
importance as both an evaluative and instructional support tool.
Fig. 4
窗体顶端
The table presents
respondents’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Turnitin based on 132 valid
responses. The findings show that 28 respondents (21.2%) believe that Turnitin
effectively detects instances of plagiarism in students’ work, indicating a generally
positive perception of its core function. However, only 7 respondents (5.3%)
agreed that Turnitin helps promote academic integrity among students, while 10
respondents (7.6%) felt that its use discourages students from engaging in
plagiarism, suggesting relatively low agreement on the
impact of Turnitin software.
In terms of
reliability and academic support, 24 respondents (18.2%) stated that Turnitin
similarity reports are reliable, reflecting moderate confidence in its output.
A larger proportion, 36 respondents (27.3%), agreed that Turnitin contributes
to enhancing the quality of students’ academic writing, making this the most
frequently reported perception and highlighting its perceived role in improving
writing skills. Furthermore, 27 respondents (20.5%) indicated that Turnitin is
a valuable tool for teaching and assessment overall, showing a generally
favorable view of its usefulness in academic settings. Overall, the results
suggest that while respondents strongly acknowledge Turnitin’s role in
improving academic writing and detecting plagiarism, its perceived impact on
promoting academic integrity and discouraging plagiarism is comparatively
weaker. This implies that Turnitin is viewed more as an evaluative and
developmental tool rather than a direct behavioral deterrent against academic
dishonesty.
Fig. 5
The table presents
respondents’ perceptions of the challenges encountered in using Turnitin
software. The most frequently reported challenge is that Turnitin sometimes
produces similarity reports that can be misleading, with 37 respondents
representing 28.0% of the total responses. This suggests that nearly one-third
of the users question the accuracy or interpretation of the similarity reports
generated by the system.
The second most
common challenge is insufficient institutional support for using Turnitin,
reported by 28 respondents (21.2%). This indicates that many users may not be
receiving adequate administrative or technical backing to effectively utilize
the software. Technical difficulties also remain a notable concern, with 24
respondents (18.2%) indicating they experience such issues when using Turnitin.
In addition, 19
respondents (14.4%) reported that poor internet connectivity restricts their
efficient use of the platform, highlighting infrastructural limitations that
affect access and functionality. Smaller proportions of respondents identified
a lack of adequate training and limited time as challenges, each accounting for
12 respondents (9.1%) respectively. These findings suggest that while technical
and institutional issues are more prominent, user preparedness and time
constraints also contribute to the challenges experienced. The results imply that effective use of
Turnitin software is
influenced by a combination of system-related issues, institutional factors,
and user capacity constraints, with misleading similarity reports and
inadequate support being the most significant concerns.
窗体顶端
Fig. 6
窗体底端
The above table presents
respondents’ views on strategies for enhancing the effective use of Turnitin
software. The most
strongly supported strategy is the integration of Turnitin with learning
management systems, which was selected by 37 respondents, representing 28.0% of
the total. This indicates that many users believe seamless integration with
existing academic platforms would significantly improve accessibility and usage
efficiency.
The next most
frequently suggested strategy is the implementation of institutional policies
mandating the use of Turnitin, with 27 respondents (20.5%) supporting this
option. This suggests that formal enforcement within institutions could play an
important role in ensuring consistent use of the software. Improving internet
infrastructure was also highlighted by 22 respondents, accounting for 16.7%,
showing that reliable connectivity is seen as essential for effective
utilization.
Furthermore, 18
respondents (13.6%) indicated that continuous training would enhance their
proficiency in using Turnitin, emphasizing the importance of ongoing capacity
building. Both the provision of easily accessible technical support and proper
student training were selected by 14 respondents each, representing 10.6%
respectively. These findings suggest that while system-level improvements are
highly prioritized, user support and skill development remain important
complementary strategies.
Overall, the
cumulative percentages show a balanced distribution of responses across the
proposed strategies, totaling 100%. The results imply that enhancing Turnitin
usage requires a combination of technological integration, institutional
enforcement, infrastructure improvement, and user-focused training and support
systems.
Fig. 7
The table presents
respondents’ general attitudes toward academic integrity and the use of
Turnitin software. The most widely
held view is that plagiarism is widespread among students, with 33 respondents
representing 25.0% of the total. This indicates a strong perception that
academic dishonesty remains a significant concern in higher education. Closely
following this, 29 respondents (22.0%) agreed that academic integrity is a
critical issue in higher education, further reinforcing the importance attached
to maintaining ethical standards in academic work.
In addition, 26
respondents, accounting for 19.7%, indicated that digital tools like Turnitin
are essential in modern education, suggesting a substantial recognition of the
role of technology in promoting academic honesty. Meanwhile, 19 respondents
(14.4%) expressed confidence in their ability to use Turnitin effectively,
showing a moderate level of self-assurance among users.
A smaller proportion
of respondents, 14 (10.6%), stated that they are willing to adopt new features
of Turnitin, indicating some openness to technological advancement, though not
overwhelmingly strong. The least selected response was that their institution
encourages ethical academic practices, with 11 respondents (8.3%), which may
point to perceived gaps in institutional support or promotion of academic
integrity.
Overall, the
cumulative percentage reaches 100%, reflecting all responses captured in the
table. The findings suggest that while there is strong awareness of the
importance of academic integrity and the prevalence of plagiarism, there is
comparatively lower confidence in institutional support and moderate readiness
among users to fully engage with and adopt Turnitin’s capabilities.
Discussion of findings
The findings of this study are largely consistent
with existing literature on the adoption and use of Turnitin in higher
education. The relatively low proportion of respondents who consistently use
Turnitin for evaluating students’ research aligns with the findings of Garba
(2018), who reported a gap between awareness and actual utilization of the
software among academic staff in Nigerian universities. Although respondents in
this study demonstrated moderate engagement by incorporating Turnitin into
instructional practices and mandating its use in some cases, its predominant
use at the final approval stage suggests that it is treated more as a summative
evaluation tool than a continuous instructional resource. This pattern reflects
the assumptions of the Technology Acceptance Model developed by Fred Davis
(1986; 1989), which posits that technology adoption is influenced by perceived
usefulness and ease of use. While respondents recognize Turnitin’s usefulness
in decision-making and feedback, limited routine use may indicate challenges
related to usability, training, or institutional support.
In terms of perceived effectiveness, the findings
support earlier studies that emphasised Turnitin’s strength in detecting
plagiarism and improving academic writing. For instance, Kokkinaki et al.
(2015) highlighted the role of plagiarism detection tools in enhancing
students’ writing quality, which corresponds with the high proportion of respondents
in this study who acknowledged this benefit. Similarly, Vrbanec and Meštrovic
(2020) noted that Turnitin is widely used to identify textual similarities and
support originality in academic work. However, the relatively low percentage of
respondents who believe that Turnitin promotes academic integrity or
discourages plagiarism suggests that its impact on behavior is limited. This
finding aligns with Tracey Bretag (2013), who argued that technological tools
alone are insufficient to enforce ethical academic practices without strong
institutional frameworks.
The findings can further be explained using
Deterrence Theory as proposed by Cesare Beccaria (1764) and expanded by Jeremy
Bentham, which suggests that individuals are less likely to engage in
misconduct when there is certainty of detection and punishment. Although
Turnitin increases the likelihood of detecting plagiarism, the low perception
of its deterrent effect in this study indicates that detection must be
complemented by clear institutional policies and enforcement. Likewise,
Protection Motivation Theory developed by R. W. Rogers (1975; 1983) helps
explain why Turnitin may not significantly influence behavior, as users must
perceive both the severity of plagiarism consequences and their ability to
avoid them. The findings suggest that such perceptions may not be sufficiently
strong among respondents.
The challenges identified in this study, particularly
misleading similarity reports, inadequate institutional support, and technical
difficulties are strongly supported by previous empirical research. Abduldayan
et al. (2019) reported that limited understanding of plagiarism and poor
engagement with Turnitin reduce its effectiveness, while Nketsiah et al. (2023)
identified insufficient training and misinterpretation of similarity reports as
major barriers. Furthermore, Ilori (2025) highlighted issues such as false
positives and difficulties in interpreting similarity indices, which
corroborates respondents’ concerns about misleading reports.
Infrastructure-related challenges, such as poor internet connectivity, also
align with the observations of United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (2017), which emphasized the impact of technological
limitations on digital tool adoption in developing countries.
The strategies suggested by respondents for
improving Turnitin usage are also consistent with the literature. The strong
support for integrating Turnitin with learning management systems reflects the
importance of ease of use emphasized in the Technology Acceptance Model (Fred
Davis, 1989). Similarly, the call for institutional policies mandating its use
aligns with Deterrence Theory (Cesare Beccaria, 1764), which stresses the role
of enforcement in shaping behavior. The emphasis on continuous training and technical
support further supports the findings of Garba (2018), who noted that
inadequate training significantly hinders effective utilization. These results
indicate that improving Turnitin adoption requires a combination of
technological, institutional, and human capacity interventions.
Finally, the respondents’ attitudes toward academic
integrity particularly the perception that plagiarism is widespread are
consistent with global concerns highlighted in the literature. International
Center for Academic Integrity (2021) emphasized the importance of maintaining
honesty and responsibility in academic work, while studies such as Jereb et al.
(2018) and Kayaoğlu et al. (2015) identified factors such as misuse of digital
resources and weak academic writing skills as key drivers of plagiarism. The
low confidence in institutional support observed in this study further
reinforces the argument by Tracey Bretag (2013) that weak enforcement
mechanisms undermine efforts to promote ethical academic practices. Overall,
the findings confirm that while Turnitin is a valuable tool for detecting
plagiarism and enhancing writing quality, its effectiveness depends on
consistent application, proper training, and strong institutional support
systems.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that while Turnitin plays a
significant role in detecting plagiarism and enhancing academic writing, its
full potential in promoting academic integrity has not yet been realized.
Addressing the identified challenges through improved policies, training,
infrastructure, and institutional support will significantly enhance its
effectiveness in Nigerian universities.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following
recommendations are proposed:
- Strengthen Institutional Policies
Universities should establish and enforce clear policies mandating the use of Turnitin in teaching, assessment, and research processes to ensure consistency and accountability. - Provide Continuous Training
Regular workshops and training programs should be organized for academic staff and students to improve their understanding of Turnitin, particularly in interpreting similarity reports and applying feedback effectively. - Enhance Technical and Institutional Support
Institutions should provide accessible technical support systems and dedicated personnel to assist users in resolving issues related to Turnitin usage. - Improve Internet Infrastructure
Reliable internet connectivity should be prioritized to ensure seamless access and efficient use of Turnitin and other digital academic tools. - Integrate Turnitin with Learning Management
Systems
Universities should integrate Turnitin into their existing digital learning platforms to enhance ease of use and encourage its incorporation into routine teaching practices. - Promote Academic Integrity Culture
Institutions should actively promote awareness of academic integrity through seminars, campaigns, and inclusion in curricula, ensuring that both staff and students understand its importance. - Encourage Formative Use of Turnitin
Academic staff should encourage students to review similarity reports before final submission to promote self-assessment, learning, and improvement in academic writing.
Declarations
Ethics
approval: Ethical review was not
considered necessary in alignment with the Crawford University’s guidance on
the conduct of ethical research.
Conflicts of Interest: The author
declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Funding:
Not applicabl
AI-generated
content: No AI tools were used.
References
Abduldayan, F. J.,
Yusuf, H. I., & Olatunde, A. F. (2019). Perception of undergraduates on use
of Turnitin plagiarism checker in Federal University of Technology, Minna,
Nigeria. Covenant Journal of Library and Information Science.
Bretag T (2013) Challenges in Addressing Plagiarism in
Education. PLoS Med 10(12): e1001574. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001574
Davis, F. D. (1989).
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Garba, K. D. (2018).
Awareness and perception of academicians on the use of Turnitin software in
detecting plagiarism in Bayero University Kano. African Journal of
Education, Science and Technology.
Ilori, K. M. (2025).
Navigating Turnitin’s limitations: Ph.D. students’ perceptions and departmental
strategies for academic integrity at the University of Ibadan. Àgídìgbo:
ABUAD Journal of the Humanities, 13(2), 671–687. https://doi.org/10.53982/agidigbo.2025.1302.16-j
International
Center for Academic Integrity. (2021). The fundamental values of academic
integrity (3rd ed.). https://www.academicintegrity.org/the-fundamental-values-of-academic-integrity.
Jereb, E. et al. (2018). Factors
influencing plagiarism in higher education: A Comparison of German and Slovene
students. PLoS ONE, 13(8).
Kashada, A., Li,
H., & Koshadah, O. (2018). Analysis Approach to Identify Factors
Influencing Digital Learning Technology Adoption and Utilization in Developing
Countries. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(02),
pp. 48–59. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.7399.
Kayaoglu, M. N.,
Erbay, S., Flitner, C., & Saltas, D. (2015). Examining students‘
perceptions of plagiarism: A
cross-cultural study at tertiary level. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014320.
Kokkinaki,
A.I., Demoliou, C., & Iakovidou M. 2015 . Students‟ perceptions of
plagiarism and relevant policies in Cyprus. Int J Edu Integr, 11: 3.
Njoku, M. E.,
Ogbaga, I., Sunday, C. T., & Olusola, J. (2025). Artificial intelligence
(AI) and academic integrity: Challenges, solutions, and best practices. Conference
Proceedings.
Nketsiah, I., Imoro,
O., & Barfi, K. A. (2023). Postgraduate students’ perception of plagiarism,
awareness, and use of Turnitin text-matching software. Accountability in
Research.
Olujuwon, O., &
Ojo, O. J. (2024). Nexus of plagiarism practice and academic integrity in
Nigerian tertiary institutions. FNAS Journal of Mathematics and Science
Education.
Purdue Online
Writing Lab. (2026). Plagiarism overview. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/avoiding_plagiarism/index.html
Rogers, R. W.
(1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal
of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
Vrbanec, T., &
Meštrović, A. (2021). The struggle with academic plagiarism: Approaches based
on semantic similarity. arXiv.
.jpg)
