2025-2026 MELA Minutes

• Previous RFPs were reviewed for questions and criteria regarding features and functionality. • Processes similar to the current purchasing structure were sought. • Grand Rapids was forthcoming and had a similar process, grading on a technical gateway where cost was a factor, but not the predominant one. ii. Bias and Product Needs • There is bias because of the partnership with Turnitin since 2009. • It is important to address what the product is trying to achieve and whether it is still meeting the need. • Focus should be on the need a product fulfills, not the specific product itself. • Challenges that the product addresses should be shown so that competing products can be considered. iii. Support and Contract Agreements • Support from the product was a need that came up in the survey. • Turnitin is not providing the support needed. • Multi-year agreements are preferred for better buying power, with at least two years being considered. iv. Turnitin vs. Copyleaks Comparison • Both Turnitin and Copyleaks offer full plagiarism detection, checking internet sources and other databases. • Both can monitor institutional submissions to compare student papers. • Copyleaks has a student-facing side that shows the AI score, unlike Turnitin. • Copyleaks allows for adjusting or filtering the AI component. v. Additional Features and Functionality • Copyleaks has more user-friendly admin reporting. • Copyleaks' plagiarism framework is similar to the current Plagiarism Framework. • Copyleaks will have instructors build a comment library for document markup. • Copyleaks has a scan tool for teachers to check snippets of text for plagiarism.