Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Copyright and Plageriasm

Both copyright and plagiarism are one of the controversial issues that face intellectuals in universities, especially teachers of 101 courses. The problem is that publishers put restrictions on the amount of material researchers can use, which constitutes a source of difficulty and challenge for students who are always required to do research and make response papers for the material they take in their classes. These students will also be confronted with the fact that they should sift other sources to build their arguments and provide a sophisticated discourse that meets the requirements of academic standards, as they believe. DeVoss and Rosati argue that

they feel that assembling sources, citations, and quotes is the primary goal of writing a paper—and that their original ideas are secondary…Students may stumble toward plagiarism when they fail to cite properly because they don’t entirely understand the point or argument of a primary work, or in a struggle to define what “common knowledge” means, they struggle to identify which information merits a citation.

In spite of all what was said in the readings and in spite of the fact that writing occurs in a discourse the elements of which are articulated in a way that makes it possible that each element affects it, I do believe that out teaching practices inside classrooms exacerbate plagiarism and copyright problems that our students encounter.

As teachers, we always confuse our students with the myth of academic discourse vs. home discourse. We always tell them that they should use a sophisticated language, one that they do not use in their daily home discourse. This split, in my point of view, drives students to believe that their lexical repertory and rhetorical power are vulgar and feeble and that they should go through other sources to ameliorate their writing. In so doing, students will fall victims of a cut/paste process by borrowing phrases, sentences and sometimes paragraphs to meet the requirements. In fact, composition teachers should understand that in both discourses (home and academic) students can engage in conversations by posing arguments and counterarguments and providing evidences.

In addition, the type of assignments that we give to our students may negatively contribute to the problem. Although writing is a creative process in which people unleash their imagination and ideas, teachers tend to ask students to write papers by answering one or two questions, which, I think, restrict students’ imaginative and speculative abilities. Reluctantly students will try to visit websites and other sources to do the assignments, which will make them commit the same mistake (plagiarism and violating copyright laws) It will be more practical for teachers to engage students in symbolic-analytic work which should push students to sort and synthesize information(Johnson-Eilola).

Finally, since our teaching practices are part of writing, we need to change them to cope with our postmodern era and our technological advancement. As teachers of composition, we should criticize and correct ourselves before we blame our economical and ideological practices.

5 comments:

  1. because i completely agree with you that we in academia tend to prioritize one type of rhetoric over another, i do not agree that it is a "myth." myth implies that it is not real, and whether or not it is good or okay, the divide between academic and home discourse is very much real. we've made it so. our culture reinforces and validates that assessment because we tend to privilege those who are college educated over those who are not. those who are middle class over those who are not. those who are white over those who are not. and so, to call it a myth is to ignore, i think, the power of the problem. i don't necessarily think that is what you meant to do by calling it a "myth," but i think it's an important clarification to make all the same.

    that being said, i think that we're trying to move beyond this. i know in my class i talk about rhetorical agency and awareness and try to get my students to understand that they have choices to make, and they are their own, and they will have to deal with the consequences of each decision. but to tell them that they can use a "home discourse," whatever that looks/sounds like, in an academic setting - i think it is a disservice to the students. not because i think that an academic discourse is better, or superior, but because i know exactly how this world works and i know exactly how they need to write in order to pass that junior writing portfolio. to tell them differently i think would set them up for a failure that is not at all fair. simply because i disagree with the politics of the system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By myth, I mean " constructed", the term raised by Bathes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The difference is constructed. It is we who made it. Simply speaking, the difference is just a matter of formal and informal words. Formality and informality is not inherent in words. We created them. A myth is not real but constructed by people. The difference is not real but created by us. By the way, this difference is a discriminatory term, which was raised by White male subjects in the 18/19 century to distinguish themselves from female White subjects and other races. I will talk about this in details.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ::"This split, in my point of view, drives students to believe that their lexical repertory and rhetorical power are vulgar and feeble and that they should go through other sources to ameliorate their writing."::
    Anwr - you said this and all I can think of is one student I have, who shall remain nameless who is obsessed with his vocabulary. He and I had a discussion regarding pulling language from the articles they are using for their current assignment and his main concern was that his vocabulary was too simplistic (and that this caused his argument to sound weak). I'm curious what you would say to a student like this...I was muddled.

    ReplyDelete
  5. good point:

    "As teachers, we always confuse our students with the myth of academic discourse vs. home discourse. We always tell them that they should use a sophisticated language, one that they do not use in their daily home discourse. This split, in my point of view, drives students to believe that their lexical repertory and rhetorical power are vulgar and feeble and that they should go through other sources to ameliorate their writing."

    I've run into this in my classes, particularly w/ students for whom academic discourse is a serious challenge. I feel very differently about dealing w/ these students than I do dealing w/ lazy privileged students who "get it" but just don't care enough to use to.

    This, of course, calls into question what I prioritize and why...hmm.

    ReplyDelete