On March 20, 2025, an online training session on Turnitin was conducted and hosted by Onboarding Consultant Ms. Ninya Victorio. The session initially commenced with 24 participants and concluded with a total attendance of 33 individuals. The training focused on the effective utilization of Turnitin’s similarity detection tool.

Ms. Victorio began the session by clarifying that Turnitin served as a similarity detection tool rather than a plagiarism detection tool, emphasizing the critical distinction between similarity and plagiarism. She illustrated how Turnitin highlighted matching words or phrases within student submissions, while underscoring that the ultimate determination of plagiarism rested with the instructor. To facilitate understanding, Ms. Victorio provided practical demonstrations using four different student work samples to show how to accurately interpret similarity matches.

The training further addressed the importance of proper citation and the use of quotation marks in academic submissions to prevent plagiarism. Ms. Victorio explained that certain instances of missing citations might have been unintentional and could be remedied through guidance and education, whereas other cases might have necessitated further investigation in accordance with institutional academic integrity policies. She emphasized Turnitin’s role as a formative tool aimed at supporting teaching and learning rather than serving as a punitive measure.

Participants were guided on how expectations regarding similarity scores varied according to the nature of assignments. For creative writing tasks, such as short stories, lower similarity scores were anticipated due to the originality of language and ideas. Conversely, research-based assignments, including theses and dissertations, typically exhibited higher similarity scores owing to the inclusion of cited sources, thereby requiring proper referencing. Ms. Victorio engaged participants in a discussion regarding appropriate similarity score ranges for such research assignments.

The session also covered the interpretation of similarity reports, presenting two examples with similarity scores of 5% and 30%. Participants were asked to evaluate which report warranted greater concern, with the majority identifying the higher score as requiring closer scrutiny. Ms. Victorio clarified that legitimate matches could arise from essay questions, citations, common phrases, and reference lists, and that a high similarity score alone did not constitute evidence of plagiarism.

Emerging artificial intelligence (AI) detection tools were introduced, with Ms. Victorio emphasizing their function as aids to support informed decision-making based on institutional policies rather than as definitive indicators of academic misconduct.

Technical guidance was provided on setting up Turnitin accounts, navigating the user interface, managing submissions, and deciding whether to store papers in Turnitin’s database. Queries regarding uploading files directly from Google Docs were also addressed.

Ms. Victorio elaborated on the process of investigating similarity reports, including identifying tactics students might have employed to manipulate similarity scores, such as using hidden text or replaced characters. She stressed the importance of confirming intentional misconduct before taking action and encouraged collaboration with academic integrity officers or ethics committees when necessary.

Participants were instructed on the use of filters to exclude certain elements from similarity calculations and were informed about the current limitations in detecting images within submissions, with suspicious cases flagged for further review.

The training concluded with an overview of Turnitin’s AI writing report, clarifying distinctions between AI-generated text and paraphrased content. Ms. Victorio underscored that AI scores should have been used to inform decisions and encouraged open dialogue with students when AI-generated content was detected.

The session was recorded and was to be shared with the Turnitin administrator, along with supporting guides and resources. Participants were invited to provide feedback through a survey to facilitate continuous improvement of future training sessions.