CCR 720: Anson (2008): "The Intelligent Design of Writing Programs"

Anson, Chris M. "The Intelligent Design of Writing Programs: Reliance on Belief or a Future of Evidence." WPA: Writing Program Administration 32.1 (Fall 2008): 11-36.

Informal summary:

· Argues that the discipline of college composition needs to perform research in the field that provides actual evidence, not our own theory based on story-telling (lore, ethnography) of our experiences in the classroom. Get away from essay-driven articles and towards evidence-driven articles.

· Shows how one critic of composition classrooms (although not grounded in evidence either) has great power in damaging the discipline (in the sense of public opinion) (cites Nan Miller’s report, 2006).

· Likens our disciplinary dilemma to historical court case (State of Tennessee vs. John Scopes) where it was eventually overturned by the Surpreme Court (by way of technicality) that evolution theories be abolished in public schools over the Divine Creation of Man. Aruges, therefore, that we’re a discipline of intelligent design and not of evolution and

o “intelligent design theory is not ready for parallel treatment in the schools because it is based on belief, not on a preponderance of evidence. Current practice—in the teaching of science or the teaching of writing—needs to be supported not by hunches buy by the best that the research traditions of these tow disciplinary areas can provide us, with the understanding that their very existence depends on an openness to challenge and a spirit of continual inquiry” (20).

· Argues for six movements in our discipline

o Foundational research and synthesis (24)

o Replications and extensions (26)

o Graduate education (27)

o Connections with our publics (28)

o Increased scrutiny and critique (29)

o Improved research communities (31)

· Quotable quote:

o “My point is this: if we continue to rely on belief in our pedagogies and administrative decisions, whether theorized or not, whether argued from logic or anecdote, experience or conviction, we do not better to support a case for those decisions than what most detractors do to support cases against them. Instead, we need a more robust plan for building on the strong base of exiting research into our assumptions about how students best learn to write” (11-12).

CCR 720: Ercegovac and Richardson (2004) "Academic Dishonesty...in the Digital Age"

Ercegovac, Zorana, and John V. Richardson, Jr. "Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age: A Literature Review." College and Research Libraries 65.4 (July 2004): 301-318.

Summary:

Ercegovac and Richardson provide a review of five years of literature (1997-2002) on the scholarship published about plagiarism occurring through copying/pasting from internet sources. The authors provide some useful search instructions for studies on plagiarism, including definitions, databases, and websites. They highlight (a) how theorists have defined academic dishonesty (304), (b) how researchers have suggested teachers cope with issues of plagiarism (306), and (c) how the literature is lacking ways to predict academic dishonesty through investigations of moral reasoning (310).

Notes:

· Although the authors attempt to give only a review of literature, there are instances where they make claims regarding what should be taught as well as who are the most important contributors to the scholarship.

· They highlight a few studies that consider students’ individual characteristics as predictors to plagiarism. They suggest that socioeconomic status, age, and sex are indicators (so if you’re an impoverished male under 18, you’re more likely to cheat). This makes me uncomfortable. I don’t see the relevancy in garnering suspicion of certain demographics in instructors. Seems dangerous.

· “Collaboration” is treated negatively and frowned upon. The authors cite collaborative working habits as being influential to plagiarism (311).

· It’s understandable that the authors could not develop discussions of every text they cite, seeing how so many authors are mentioned in their review. Still, noticing how Howard and Pennycook are not fully represented lead me question whether the authors give the most accurate accounts of the literature they cite. Howard, for example, is only mentioned as being responsible for the term “patchwriting” and for suggesting that lots of students do this. Pennycook is mentioned as asking that plagiarism be understood more complexly. Both of these are true. However, both of their major arguments and calls for reimagining our definitions of authorship are missing.

CCR 720: Valentine (2006) "Plagiarism as Literacy Practice"

Valentine, Kathryn. "Plagiarism as Literacy Practice: Recognizing and Rethinking Ethical Binaries." College Composition and Communication 58.1 (Sept. 2006): 89-109.

Summary:

After demonstrating that plagiarism is often viewed through cultural binaries of honest/dishonest, wrong/right, moral/immoral, high writing/low writing, work/non-work, Valentine argues that composition instructors and university administrators should recognize that plagiarism is much more complicated. She views plagiarism as a literacy practice of academic discourse, one where individuals’ identities are shaped through the conventions of that community. She claims that novices and international students will not understand and effectively practice western rules of plagiarism until they can understand plagiarism as a complicated performance of honesty, one infused with social interaction, textual practices, and cultural values.

Methods and Methodologies:

· She frames her investigation with theories of literacy practices within academic discourses, citing numerous researchers (Barton and Hamilton, Buranen, Howard, Price, Bauman, Gee) to support her analysis of viewing plagiarism as socially and culturally located as a literacy practice.

· She defines plagiarism through binaries (see above)

· She draws on anecdotal evidence of one international students’ experience being accused and punished for plagiarizing. While her methodological approach isn’t really covered (like when and how interviews occurred), she does discuss her involvement with the case.

· She cites one anonymous students’ practice of not quoting in order to avoid plagiarism charges (100).

Quotable Quotes:

· “Plagiarism becomes plagiarism as part of a practice that involves participants’ values, attitudes, and feelings as well as their social relationships to each other and to the institutions in which they work” (89).

· “Within the ethical discourse that informs plagiarism, identity categories are fixed: students may only occupy one—and only one—of two categories: honest or dishonest. This regulating of available identity categories is particularly evident in the treatment of unintentional plagiarism” (95).

· “Students’ opportunities to practice citation and the performance of honesty are closed down when their improper citation is read as a sign of dishonesty, rather than as a sign of an authentic beginner engaged in the work of acquiring a new discourse” (97).

· “Plagiarism policies and many administrators and teachers involved with plagiarism cases often don’t recognize plagiarism as connected to a discourse, as taking on an identity that can’t be taught or acquired just through textual features and teaching of those features or conventions. Because of misunderstandings of citation and plagiarism and because of misrepresentations of students, administrators and teachers often misread what students know and understand about plagiarism, what they need to learn about citation, and the space they need to be given to practice performing the identity that will allow them to get being a student “right,” especially in regard to plagiarism” (105).

CCR 720: McCabe (2005) "It Takes a Village"

McCabe, Donald L. "It Takes a Village: Academic Dishonesty and Educational Opportunity." Liberal Education (Summer/Fall 2005). 2 Dec. 2005. < http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sufa05/le-sufa05feature2.cfm>

Summary:

McCabe argues that what makes a difference in academic integrity in schools is their commitment to creating a culture that values academic integrity by “making academic integrity a clear campus priority and placing much of the responsibility for student integrity on the students themselves” (2). He uses surveys of students to argue that there is a large amount of cheating occurring in universities and suggests that it is because faculty and administrators are not actively educating students and are not reassessing their own policies regarding academic integrity. He calls for treating academic dishonesty as educational opportunities where students can learn about the policies and practices for academic integrity.

Methods:

· Data: 1990 survey of student in 31competetive colleges (47% of students in school with no honor code admit to cheating; 24% of students with honor code admit to cheating; comparison to Bowers (1964) survey; 2001 survey on-line (21% admit to cheating on an exam; 51% admit to plagiarism; 4 of 5 plagiarists copy/paste from online). NO methodology is outlined.

· Anecdotal: even though the author calls on his conducted surveys, the data collection and analysis is not described and therefore often seems anecdotal. He also uses anecdotal evidence of his own experiences and the experience of an anonymous person in the intro and conclusion.

Notable Notes:

· McCabe does not provide details of his methods or methodologies. It’s difficult to assess his interpretations seeing how we don’t learn his modes of analysis.

· It’s interesting that he cites a study of his completed with co-author Trevino, yet he takes sole authorship of the survey: “In 1993 (McCabe and Trevino 1996), I surveyed nine medium to large universities” (2). Note the use of first person.

· Since he advocates that in order to help make our students more responsible regarding academic integrity faculty must set standards and consider academic integrity to be an institutional value, he is assuming that teachers don’t already.

· While his data collection and interpretation is unclear, and while it’s challenging to uphold his claims he makes from this data, I find some merit in his argument that we should use plagiarism as educational opportunities since students often do so out of ignorance and time/stress constraints (5). Still, it is hard to blindly accept his arguments that “strong rules” might help foster idealistic values later.