3 October 2012
Writing About Literature
On Danielle DeVoss' "Plagiarism and the Web"
Plagiarism. That nasty old word we're somehow still talking about. We've all done it. We've all been expelled off countless universities and dealt with lawsuits for the intellectual property of others, spent the time in jail for the crime. Well, no not really. Hopefully no student chooses to meddle with infringing with intellectual property for a simple assignment, as these are some things to consider. Though honestly, the mere thought of integrity and acknowledgement of others' original thoughts and intellectual property should be reason enough to abstain from plagiarism. If not, then things like this article by Professors DeVoss and Rosati could light a few more thoughts on why it is important to work honestly as students in the University.
DeVoss explores, through sharing knowledge and experiences of her students' perspectives, why some students resolve to plagiarism, and even the ambiguety that arises from lack of a right approach to encourage original ideas from the university. For instance, through an experience she had of calling all students to her office upon finding that three of them plagiarized, more than half the class went to her not certain if they were responsible of plagiarism, even some admitting guilt when they actually had not plagiarlized. The line of original ideas and using other text as reference to incorporate in the paper of the student is something that is essential to be taught in First year Composition courses. Some students are not clear on where to draw this line. Also, as DeVoss states, although there are policies that are reinforced with punishment, they can have "little to no impact unless we convince students that their written work is valuable and valued". In other words, the encouragement necessary for students to understand the importance of original ideas, of personal insight, of personal development, is a much better catalyst to avoid plagiarism than simple punishment, and as DeVoss claims, institutions can always improve on that. Another reason that she explores is that students are often not familiar with the process of research and use of "virtual space", which is most important for a First-Year Composition course to introduce to students. As she recognizes student academic work "relies heavily" on the use of electronic realms and research, knowledge and development of technique in these fields can make the difference for a student plagiarizing or incorporating material as they develop their own ideas.
An interesting claim DeVoss makes is that institutional policies "define plagiarism only in negative terms", overlooking a "positive activity" she introduces as patchwriting. This, she explains, is when students borrow a text or quote, and manipulate it to blend it into their own thoughts. This is a positive process because it is an experimentation of the student as a writer, and more importatnly; marks a "stage in writing development" (DeVoss, 194). Through patchwriting, students are processing new ideas that eventually lead to their own, as well as a similar effect in their style occurs. This is only acceptable of course, given that the students' next step is to cite their sources. (DeVoss, 195).
As DeVoss explores the reasons why students may plagiarize, it is clear her audience are the professors she aims to guide toward improvement. Whether it may be because students feel their primary goal is to compile information (research, quotes, cite sources) and develop ideas only secondary, because they may have a poor understanding of the assignment, or because they prioritize other assignments and are under pressure, DeVoss comes to a simple conclusion of a suggestion; the teacher can clarify the ambiguous line of original and correct for a student so much more. Sometimes a professor may assign a contradictory task and even encourage the student to plagiarize if the assignment is not clear. For instance, she notes, when a professor asks the students to find both a "correct" and "original" product, the student most likely will be confused at such a self-contradictory assignment. Professors may not realize that at pressuring a student to an ambiguous assignment, the student will respond by turning to appropriating text. Asking for a written product that is "correct" in terms of the literary work, for instance, could mean citing the facts or details of plot, or characters in a work of Shakespeare. However there is no room for originality or creativity when stating facts. Likewise, if a student is asked to provide insightful product or original ideas, there is no need for research. So as DeVoss brings to light, professors must provide clarity in what product they ask of their students, as they encourage insightful thinking and lead them away from plagiarism.
Aside from anecdotes and secondary research, DeVoss explores the impact that the World Wide Web has had on plagiarism, making it more easy and more tempting. Although professors would like to "trust students' understandings of responsibility and authorship", the truth is that the Web provides a "vast, and rapidly expanding research and information-delivery system" that goes without supervision (as qtd. by Kolich, 196). Anyone can enter the electronic realm and practice the common, simple action of cutting and pasting information, and there is no regulation or limitation upon what can be accessed or appropriated. But as the article reads and agreed, there is always a choice, and students must hold to their academic integrity. The danger lies when the students don't realize they are committing plagiarism, which then falls upon the professor to explain that it is a matter of property. Students must understand and respect that the countless content of information at hand is the intellectual property of others, the product of someone else's hard work and research, to be acknowledged and respected. Perhaps it cannot simply be assumed that a student knows this, and instead a professor taking the time to thoroughly explain certain things could make all the difference. Like this idea of intellectual property, which simply means another person's work is their own right to copyright and fair use. A real life situation in the commercial music aspect can help solidify this idea, as discrepancies in appropriation of musical material between artists has come to prove (Vanilla Ice and Queen/David Bowie, Napster, etc.). DeVoss provides a clear way to enhance the students understanding on the importance of the World Wide Web and the acknowledgement of intellectual property.
Plagiarism. It is not enough to say "don't do it", but as DeVoss has skillfully provided and suggested, there are many ways that professors can fill the gaps of ambiguety in their students about the topic and educate on the importance of original material. To encourage insightful, creative, original and individual thinking is a most important task for a professor, and it is an essential step to the development of students as independent writers, and most importantly, aware, free-thinking individuals. As students hold to individual integrity and aim to become better writers, we can all take this article to heart and outrule the possibility of plagiarism with better habits, respect for intellectual property, and appreciation for an individual thought.
DeVoss explores, through sharing knowledge and experiences of her students' perspectives, why some students resolve to plagiarism, and even the ambiguety that arises from lack of a right approach to encourage original ideas from the university. For instance, through an experience she had of calling all students to her office upon finding that three of them plagiarized, more than half the class went to her not certain if they were responsible of plagiarism, even some admitting guilt when they actually had not plagiarlized. The line of original ideas and using other text as reference to incorporate in the paper of the student is something that is essential to be taught in First year Composition courses. Some students are not clear on where to draw this line. Also, as DeVoss states, although there are policies that are reinforced with punishment, they can have "little to no impact unless we convince students that their written work is valuable and valued". In other words, the encouragement necessary for students to understand the importance of original ideas, of personal insight, of personal development, is a much better catalyst to avoid plagiarism than simple punishment, and as DeVoss claims, institutions can always improve on that. Another reason that she explores is that students are often not familiar with the process of research and use of "virtual space", which is most important for a First-Year Composition course to introduce to students. As she recognizes student academic work "relies heavily" on the use of electronic realms and research, knowledge and development of technique in these fields can make the difference for a student plagiarizing or incorporating material as they develop their own ideas.
An interesting claim DeVoss makes is that institutional policies "define plagiarism only in negative terms", overlooking a "positive activity" she introduces as patchwriting. This, she explains, is when students borrow a text or quote, and manipulate it to blend it into their own thoughts. This is a positive process because it is an experimentation of the student as a writer, and more importatnly; marks a "stage in writing development" (DeVoss, 194). Through patchwriting, students are processing new ideas that eventually lead to their own, as well as a similar effect in their style occurs. This is only acceptable of course, given that the students' next step is to cite their sources. (DeVoss, 195).
As DeVoss explores the reasons why students may plagiarize, it is clear her audience are the professors she aims to guide toward improvement. Whether it may be because students feel their primary goal is to compile information (research, quotes, cite sources) and develop ideas only secondary, because they may have a poor understanding of the assignment, or because they prioritize other assignments and are under pressure, DeVoss comes to a simple conclusion of a suggestion; the teacher can clarify the ambiguous line of original and correct for a student so much more. Sometimes a professor may assign a contradictory task and even encourage the student to plagiarize if the assignment is not clear. For instance, she notes, when a professor asks the students to find both a "correct" and "original" product, the student most likely will be confused at such a self-contradictory assignment. Professors may not realize that at pressuring a student to an ambiguous assignment, the student will respond by turning to appropriating text. Asking for a written product that is "correct" in terms of the literary work, for instance, could mean citing the facts or details of plot, or characters in a work of Shakespeare. However there is no room for originality or creativity when stating facts. Likewise, if a student is asked to provide insightful product or original ideas, there is no need for research. So as DeVoss brings to light, professors must provide clarity in what product they ask of their students, as they encourage insightful thinking and lead them away from plagiarism.
Aside from anecdotes and secondary research, DeVoss explores the impact that the World Wide Web has had on plagiarism, making it more easy and more tempting. Although professors would like to "trust students' understandings of responsibility and authorship", the truth is that the Web provides a "vast, and rapidly expanding research and information-delivery system" that goes without supervision (as qtd. by Kolich, 196). Anyone can enter the electronic realm and practice the common, simple action of cutting and pasting information, and there is no regulation or limitation upon what can be accessed or appropriated. But as the article reads and agreed, there is always a choice, and students must hold to their academic integrity. The danger lies when the students don't realize they are committing plagiarism, which then falls upon the professor to explain that it is a matter of property. Students must understand and respect that the countless content of information at hand is the intellectual property of others, the product of someone else's hard work and research, to be acknowledged and respected. Perhaps it cannot simply be assumed that a student knows this, and instead a professor taking the time to thoroughly explain certain things could make all the difference. Like this idea of intellectual property, which simply means another person's work is their own right to copyright and fair use. A real life situation in the commercial music aspect can help solidify this idea, as discrepancies in appropriation of musical material between artists has come to prove (Vanilla Ice and Queen/David Bowie, Napster, etc.). DeVoss provides a clear way to enhance the students understanding on the importance of the World Wide Web and the acknowledgement of intellectual property.
Plagiarism. It is not enough to say "don't do it", but as DeVoss has skillfully provided and suggested, there are many ways that professors can fill the gaps of ambiguety in their students about the topic and educate on the importance of original material. To encourage insightful, creative, original and individual thinking is a most important task for a professor, and it is an essential step to the development of students as independent writers, and most importantly, aware, free-thinking individuals. As students hold to individual integrity and aim to become better writers, we can all take this article to heart and outrule the possibility of plagiarism with better habits, respect for intellectual property, and appreciation for an individual thought.
