This blog is the shared writing space for ENG 592A, Rhetorical Theories and the Teaching of Writing, a graduate seminar in English at Ohio University.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Post-Discussion Reflection
Looking back, I think (hope!) that discussion went well. I feel we did a good job unpacking various parts of Rebecca Moore Howard's article, including some gender/sex/power metaphors associated with plagiarism and how some are accurate while others are problematic. To be quite honest, I was worried discussion would stray at various points (like literary property and the rape metaphor), but all of us very maturely handled discussion. Yay! I wish we could have spent longer discussing this powerful article. If I could go back, and have more time, maybe I would have put us into groups and assigned each group a metaphor from RMH's article. Then, each group would unpack the metaphor, talk about its strengths and weaknesses, and present their discussion results to the class. I also would have liked more time to brainstorm about other terms that would be more free of political, ethical, and cultural concerns than plagiarism (like most in the class, I think "fraud" is a loaded word). Also, more time would have enabled us to make more connections between RMH, Bridwell-Bowles, Reynolds, and Sanchez-Casal & Macdonald before moving to discussion on them. Luckily we have a forum to keep discussing the article! What are your continuing thoughts on discussion and RMH's article?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We should also come up with some new metaphors...hell, why not have our students do that. How do THEY see plagiarism?
ReplyDeleteGood point. One problem that I had with the article (and that many voiced in class, if not "in so many words") was that the students' voice was absent from the article. Although I enjoyed reading it for its "historiographical" approach; I also thought that Brianna presented the argument very nicely.
DeleteThanks Jon!
DeleteI'd like to have seen student voices as well, but to play devil's advocate, maybe RMH felt that students did not understand the intricate metaphors on plagiarism that were essential to her argument. If some of us felt that RMH went "too far," I doubt our students would even give her argument the time of day (other than to poke fun). But introducing her article with a student understanding/misunderstanding of plagiarism would have been a nice lead-in to how we do not have a solid definition.
Great discussion. I agree with Hillery and Jonathan that it would be interesting to hear some student voices on this. In the first assignment I gave my students this quarter on writing constructs, several students researched and wrote about plagiarism. While they did not question the term, they questioned the definition and the inconsistency of definitions. (None of them cited RMH).
ReplyDeleteFraud seems more precise and less loaded than plagiarism because it names the most heinous intentionally deceptive act. I think it has potential for that. I think students understand it and so long as we treat it like a serious academic crime, then why not use a criminal term?
ReplyDeleteI am less clear about RMH's other terms, but they are a beginning.
Yes, I can see where you're going with fraud. It's a scary word, but that might not be such a bad thing since it describes the worst sort of misrepresentation. I can understand "insufficient citation," but what does "excessive repetition" even mean? I'm disappointed that RMH didn't at least offer an overview or definition of her terms, I guess she just assumed we would understand what they meant.
Delete