Turnitin Instructors' Workflow Training

Turnitin Instructors' Workflow Training

Published | July 8, 2026

On July 3, 2026, an online training session on Turnitin was conducted and hosted by the Onboarding Consultant MOs. Ninya Victorio. The session began with 78 participants and concluded with a total attendance of 100. The training focused on the effective utilization of Turnitin’s similarity detection tool.

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

The training then 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 may be unintentional and can be remedied through guidance and education, whereas other cases may necessitate further investigation in accordance with institutional academic integrity policies. She emphasized Turnitin’s role as a formative tool to support teaching and learning rather than as a punitive measure. Participants were guided on how expectations regarding similarity scores vary according to the nature of assignments; for creative writing tasks, such as short stories, lower similarity scores are anticipated due to the originality of language and ideas, whereas research-based assignments, including theses and dissertations, typically exhibit higher similarity scores because of the inclusion of cited sources, thereby requiring proper referencing.

The session also covered the interpretation of similarity reports, presenting example reports with similarity scores of 0% and 100%. 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 may arise from essay questions, citations, common phrases, and reference lists, and that a high similarity score alone does not constitute evidence of plagiarism. Emerging artificial intelligence (AI) detection tools were also introduced, with Ms. Victorio emphasizing that these tools serve as aids to support informed decision-making and align with 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, including addressing queries about uploading files directly from Google Docs. Participants were instructed to use filters to exclude certain elements from similarity calculations and were informed about current limitations in detecting images in 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, underscoring that AI scores should be used to inform decisions, and encouraging open dialogue with students when AI-generated content is detected; the session was recorded for sharing with the Turnitin administrator, along with supporting guides and resources, and participants were invited to provide feedback through a survey to support continuous improvement of future training sessions.