Child pages
  • 2011-06-14 Turnitin- Discuss Current and Future Integration Options (BoF)
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Title of Session


Birds of a Feather


Alan Regan, Pepperdine University
Dave Wu, Turnitin
Steven Githens, IU


Tuesday, June 14


3:45 PM - 4:45 PM


Santa Barbara A


Let's review the existing integration options and the new opportunities for incorporating Turnitin within Sakai. At our university, faculty are asking for an option to submit papers on behalf of students for the Originality Check process. Also, Turnitin has two additional tools, GradeMark and PeerMark, that show promise for addressing needs that Sakai tools do not currently meet. If your institution uses Turnitin with Sakai, let's discuss the existing roadmap for Turnitin integration and options for new development.

Complete description:

  • Slides
  • Videos
  • Link1


We had great attendance and great questions and contributions. Thank you to everyone for attending and offering your thoughts and concerns. Also, thanks to everyone that is working on improving the integration service, from Cape Town to Indiana, Marist to Longsight, and Turnitin to all the other great and active contributors. (I apologize if I missed anyone!)


  • If your institution is using Turnitin, please sign up here:
  • Call for action: please QA the content review portion of Assignments2 for the Assignments1 tool. This feature should be available for the Assignments1 tool, but it needs to be tested.
  • Marist modified a recent patch to address an issue with an error code. This needs to be QA'd and reviewed for trunk (question) .
  • Marist developed a nice display of any error messages to help users understand when there was a problem with a submission, such as an invalid file type.
  • Marist modified the Assignments UI slightly so that the Turnitin content review features are only visible if the correct assignment type is selected in the dropdown.
  • Turnitin is working on a new set of APIs to improve the integration options with the service.
  • Turnitin is open to GradeMark and PeerMark functionality, but a Sakai institution needs to lead the charge in this development. Turnitin will work with the developer, but since Turnitin is not an expert in the Sakai architecture or tools, a Sakai expert needs to work on this development.
  • Turnitin suggested 3 ways for Sakai and Turnitin to communicate regarding the other tools, GradeMark and PeerMark:
    • Use the existing process of routine calls from Sakai to check for changes.
    • Provide web services mechanism for Turnitin to communicate directly to the Sakai tools.
    • Provide an integration mechanism for Turnitin to report to Sakai when activity has happened or updates are available (such as report finished, assignment graded, etc) and then Sakai could process that report or make the necessary calls to grab the information.

Call to Action

  • Need institution(s) to QA test the mod to Assignments2 to see if it can be added to Assignments1.
  • Need institutions to discuss integration options for tools like GradeMark and PeerMark to talk back to Sakai based on user interactions on the Turnitin service. GradeMark would be easiest, since it would be taking the numeric grade added into GradeMark and transferring it to the Assignment tool (either TII-to-Sakai push, Sakai scheduled grab from TII, or TII notify/Sakai grab or process).
    • AR: Certain logic/checks would be necessary – is the assignment grade type set to point value? Is there a date check (last updated on Assignments, last updated on Turnitin, include the most current number). Would we need a grade history log in Assignment1 to address any grading questions, especially if a course has multiple graders? I'm sure there would be other items, but just brainstorming here...