Editing Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity (section)

=== HU-162: Use of Turnitin to screen student work and retention of student submissions in Turnitin's third-party repository ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| POSSIBLE. Turnitin use and the presence of other students' papers in the comparison database are CONFIRMED by the screenshot; the absence of prior consent or knowledge is the reporter's concern and requires verification against the course syllabus, course pages, academic catalog, the enrollment agreement, any Turnitin click-through agreement, and Herzing's Turnitin repository setting.
|-
! Issue type
| Use of a Third-Party Plagiarism-Detection Service (Turnitin) and Retention of Student Work in Its Repository, Without Disclosed Prior Consent or Notice (transparency, FERPA, and intellectual-property concern)
! Date added
| 2026-06-06
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Office of the Registrar and FERPA compliance; MSN-DE Program Chair (Dr. Raywattie Prashad); course faculty; institutional academic-integrity and data-privacy administration
|}
'''Finding.''' A screenshot of Turnitin Feedback Studio shows a NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation (author displayed: Student A) processed through Turnitin with a 19 percent overall similarity score. The matched sources are other institutions' student papers stored in Turnitin's repository: Capella University (13 percent), Faulkner University (6 percent), and Dublin City University (2 percent). This confirms that Turnitin is used to screen student work in this program and that the service retains and reuses student submissions as comparison sources. According to the tracker, the reporter states that Turnitin is used without prior consent or knowledge of students and that student content is uploaded to Turnitin's database without consent. The Prelicensure Student Handbook reviewed does not mention Turnitin, plagiarism-detection software, similarity reports, or the submission or retention of student work in a third-party repository, and its consent provisions address patient or client information rather than student data or intellectual property (Herzing University, 2026). Whether students received notice or consented through the syllabus, course pages, the academic catalog, the enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through agreement is not established by the available evidence and requires verification. This entry documents a transparency, notice, and consent concern and does not assert a settled legal violation.

'''Evidence.''' Turnitin Feedback Studio screenshot: NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation, 19 percent overall similarity; match sources listed under Student papers as Capella University 13 percent, Faulkner University 6 percent, and Dublin City University 2 percent, captured June 6, 2026. The Prelicensure Student Handbook reviewed contains no reference to Turnitin, plagiarism detection, similarity scoring, or third-party repository submission of student work; the only consent provisions concern patient or client information (Herzing University, 2026). Source Group: Screenshot of Turnitin Feedback Studio showing a NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation (author displayed: Student A), 19 percent overall similarity, captured June 6, 2026; Prelicensure Program Student Handbook (SICCED09255468); provided by the reporting student. The concern is program-level (Herzing's use of Turnitin for student submissions), not specific to one student.

'''Reported statement.''' <blockquote>Turnitin report header: 19% Overall Similarity; match sources listed as Student papers from Capella University (13%), Faulkner University (6%), and Dublin City University (2%). The reporter states Turnitin is used without prior consent or knowledge of students, and student content is uploaded to their database without consent.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): institutions must annually notify students of their rights and of the practices affecting their education records, and disclosures of education records to third parties are regulated; whether submitting and retaining student work in a commercial repository is disclosed and consistent with FERPA notice is the question raised. Institutional transparency and academic integrity: HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, ethical and responsible conduct) and HLC Criterion 2.E (clear, fairly applied academic-integrity policies) support disclosing the tools used to evaluate student work. Intellectual property and consent context: the leading federal case on Turnitin, A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009), held that Turnitin's archiving of student papers was a fair use and that a click-through agreement was enforceable consent; the copyright and fair-use question is therefore largely settled in Turnitin's favor and consent can be effected through a click-through, so the live concern here is whether Herzing provided clear notice and obtained or relied on such consent. This entry frames the matter as a disclosure and consent concern and a FERPA-notice question, not as a settled violation. Cross-reference {{HU|HU-159}} (FERPA and records integrity), {{HU|HU-155}} and {{HU|HU-156}} (NSG 521 exam and proctoring), {{HU|HU-092}} (third-party platform integration).

'''Impact.''' If student work is submitted to and retained in a third-party commercial repository without clear notice or disclosed consent, students may be unaware that their intellectual work is stored and reused to evaluate others, and the institution's FERPA notice and transparency obligations may be implicated. Conversely, if the syllabus, catalog, enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through disclosed and obtained consent, the concern is largely addressed; that disclosure is not present in the handbook reviewed and has not been verified elsewhere. Because the concern is program-level and the documenting student is enrolled in NU725 this term (see {{HU|HU-159}}), it may affect his own submissions as well, pending verification of the disclosure and repository settings.

'''Notes.''' Verification recommended: whether the NU725 syllabus, course pages, academic catalog, enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through agreement disclose Turnitin use and the submission or retention of student work in Turnitin's repository, and whether students consented; Herzing's Turnitin repository configuration, specifically whether submissions are stored in the standard paper repository, an institutional repository, or set to no repository; whether and how students may opt out or request removal. Scope note: this is program-level evidence; the screenshot shows another student's NU725-7I assignment (author displayed: Student A), and the documenting student's enrollment in NU725 is context. Recommended follow-up: request the institution's Turnitin and academic-integrity policy and its FERPA annual notice; request the repository setting; preserve the screenshot as an exhibit. The matter is framed as transparency, notice, and consent, with the copyright and fair-use question already resolved in Turnitin's favor by A.V. v. iParadigms (4th Cir. 2009). Cross-references: {{HU|HU-092}}, {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-156}}, {{HU|HU-159}}. APA 7 note: the screenshot and the reporter statement are treated as personal communications, cited in text only and not in a reference list.

<span id="HU-185"></span>