|
TLTR MEETING MINUTES
February 19, 2004
Attendance:
Sherry Mellott – Information Technology, Chrissy Le –
TLTR, Todd Simmers – Information Technology, David Valentine
– Computer Science, Aiping Chen Gaffey – Library, Jim
Hathaway – Geography, Geology and the Environment, John
Nichols – History, Jenny Tomal – Communications, Melba
Tomeo – Library, Bette Joseph – Secondary Education,
Juliane Werner – TLTR Graduate
Assistant
I.
Old Business
A.
Report from Information
Technology: Henry Magusiak (SRU Managing Systems
Engineer)
-
SRU Anti-Spam Presentation
1.
GFI Mail Essentials/SMTP
Installed
2.
Highest spam detection rate
(98%) – Bayesian filtering technology
3.
Server based install, no
client software required
4.
Allows users to review mail
marked as spam from junk mail folder
5.
No. 1 server anti-spam
solution
6.
No keyword or subject
scanning is deployed
- SRU
Filtering Techniques
1.
Bayesian Filter
2.
DNS Blacklists
3.
Remote Images only checked in
e-mail
-
Bayesian Filter
1.
Based on statistical
information created by each email sent or received
2.
The whole email message is
taken into account
3.
The filter is self
adapting
-
User Option with Bayesian Filter
1.
Marked emails can be set-up
on client used to segregate legitimate emails from spam email
2.
Outlook, Eudora, Any client
that has the capabilities to create custom filters
-
Outlook Express
1.
Went through the process of
creating a junk email folder and setting filters so junk mail goes
to this folder
-
Mail Filtering Instructions
1.
IT will attempt to have other
examples of mail client filtering techniques created by next
week
2.
Website for filtering
techniques: http://academics.sru.edu/infotech/antispam.htm
B.
Taskforce Update: Jenny
Tomal
-
The Chairs of the taskforce’s were asked
to submit their report of the year’s activities by the end of
March. (This is an extension because several taskforces have
new chairs and need some time to get reorganized and begin their
activities.)
-
Two new taskforce groups were mentioned
1.
Copyright Compliance
Taskforce – Contact Phil Tramdack
2.
Computer Literacy Taskforce
– Contact Paul Mullins
(if anyone is
interested in these taskforces please contact the above people or
the TLTR graduate assistant – Juliane Werner – JMW8223@sru.edu)
II.
Program
A.
Plagiarism Tools – John Nichols
discussed the software programs available
-
Companies
1.
CopyCatch – www.copycatch.freeserve.co.uk
2.
TurnItIn – www.turnitin.com
3.
EVE – www.canexus.com/eve/index.shtml
4.
Plagiarism.com – www.plagiarism.com
5.
Plagiserve.com – www.plagiserve.com
6.
Jplag – www.jplag.de
7.
Surfwax Scholar – www.scholar.surfwax.com
8.
R.Meza (Spanish language
program) –
www.dcc.uchile.cl/~rmeza/proyectos/detectaCopias/index.html
-
Most suitable software was found to be TurnItIn
, Eve, and Surfwax
-
After using the software programs it was found
that Eve and Surfwax give very mixed and non-dependable
results.
-
It was highly recommended that the University
fund TurnItIn as the next software program that everyone at the
university could use.
B.
Plagiarism Tools – David
Valentine demonstrated what he found out about the software
programs from uploading his students papers
-
David Valentine teaches a writing intensive
course that deals with legal, social, and ethical issues in
computing and a 10 page research paper is major part of course
grade
-
In Spring 2003, he submitted 25 papers on the
EVE Software
1.
7 of the 25 papers scored
more than 25% plagiarized
2.
Highest score was 70%
copied
3.
2 of the papers had a high
plagiarism score but were actually ok
4.
4 students received zero for
the assignment
-
In Fall 2004, he again submitted 25 papers on
the EVE Software
1.
Again, 7 received scores
above 25% plagiarized
2.
But, he found at least 3
false positives
-
Issues
1.
EVE Software seems flaky
– not recommended
2.
Scores over 50% are pretty
certain
3.
From 25% - 50% not sure
4.
Cheating did go down
drastically when students knew he was using the software
|
