Lyudmila's post on plagiarism

I started to hear the word ‘plagiarism’ when in the 90s Russian singers would imitate U.S. or other Western singers. Then, later I came across with this issue when I first needed to produce an essay in an American college. Plagiarism sounded like a scary word to me as I was not sure how much I could take from the sentence. I remember exhaustingly trying to produce non plagiarized pieces while having not received appropriate information how to do it. I can see how “ignorance and lack of experience, rather than culture, lead to unorthodox textual borrowing” (Casanave, 177). I am glad to hear that we are supposed to use the words and ideas of others while integrating them into our own texts and still managing the piece to be original. The ambiguities in the Western notion of plagiarism are obvious as teachers themselves just vaguely explain it. Instead, more instruction, practice, and explanation is needed on behalf of teachers. In particular, organizing discussions on “the complexities of authorship, notions of originality and plagiarism, and cross-cultural practices of textual borrowing” will raise students’ awareness on the issues concerning textual borrowing. In addition, such exercises as true-false statements which expect answers on the context of the author’s teaching both in students’ countries and in the U.S., open-ended questions about students’ experiences on using source texts and their own interpretation of author and intellectual property, and the purposes of citation practices in English-language academic contexts provide will help students to reflect on their own as well as Western writing (Casanave, p. 183). These are crucial practices that will provide opportunities for writing students to see that the term “plagiarism” is a complex notion, and it relates to “the cultural construction of human identity, [and thus,] accusations of plagiarism may all too easily mask ideological arrogance” (qtd. in Pennycook, 218).

Curt's reflections on plagiarism and textual ownership

The issues involving plagiarism has been problematic for generations and now has been problematized with increasing concern due to the access of the Internet’s World Wide Web by an increasing number of international students whose cultural values are very different in regards to how intellectual property is perceived. “Still, the globalization of the Internet has complicated perspectives on plagiarism by challenging conventional views of authorship and of what constitutes the ownership of intellectual property” (Bloch, 223). He continues with, “For instance, although the Internet remains distinctly “American,” can or should Americans impose their views of intellectual property on all writers, regardless of their geographical location?” (Bloch, 223) These concerns are continued to be debated as finer points from the earlier broad question of, “Does the citing of a text from the Internet carry the same weight as the citing of a text from a print journal?” (Bloch, 222) I have had English 101 students as well as high school students ask that very question. I have used this as a teaching moment to examine citation styles using the very accessible The Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL), which has a great amount of understandable information on the details of citations styles including Modern Language Association (MLA) and American Psychological Association (APA), which are the two most commonly used styles in a broad cross-sections of academic disciplines. I inform students early on that these are only two citations styles from among many. In my syllabus, I provide a short section referring to plagiarism and departmental policies are referenced. In practice, I attempt to setup the writing assignments in a procedural format that helps to dissuade pressures to take “short-cuts” since students turn-in sections of their paper at a time as part of a building process. By using this type of process, I can relate important feedback in a timelier manner as well as help alleviate the temptation of “all-nighter” cram-sessions that can press for “mis-appropriated” filler. By taking this proactive approach, I am attempting to reduce the situations in which acts of plagiarism is likely to occur. I find that by being a proactive teacher is helpful in both L1 & L2 language learning environments. This also has effect of organizing the overall process in a more effective manner that will in turn encourage preparatory questions by the students that increases active engagement while reducing misunderstandings. Sometimes, it helps to problematized potential situations, such as academic dishonesty, before the first day of class, addressing these potential issues in ways that reduce their occurrences. This type of preparation comes with experience. Bloch states, “It is common knowledge that students are often confused about plagiarism. It is important that we understand the sources of this confusion in all their complexity before we attempt to help students engage the issues involved. Otherwise, our solutions may be simplistic and detrimental to their development” (Bloch, 224). This is why it is import to explain such issues early as well as effective strategies for avoiding such situations during the academic term, rather than let it be a “witch hunt chase” after the occurrence. This ideology presents itself in the following: ““If you copy other writer’s words,” teaching materials for first-year Arts Faculty students at Hong Kong University warn, “pretending they are your own, you are engaging in what is known as plagiarism. If you plagiarize in this way, you are guilty of intellectual dishonestly. You will be penalized heavily for this. Take care to avoid it, therefore”” (Pennycook, 1996: 220). Interesting is the part that begins with, “If you plagiarize in this way,” which has a limiting factor about it. However, I must ask if these issues of plagiarism are examined from a preventative measure at least in equal to the punitive measure of this statement. The authors of the articles have primarily focused upon the Chinese students almost to the point of making an exaggerated dichotomy although each author had made statements to the contrary. Joel Bloch, author of “Plagiarism and the ESL Student: From Printed to Electronic Texts” opens his article with the following statement: “The integration of previously published written texts into a new text is governed by a set of rules, the violation of which is called plagiarism” (Bloch, 209). It is interesting to see just how problematic the actual lack of a consistent definition for what actions would actually constitute an act of plagiarism in within a university, let alone a university system.

Lyudmila's reflections on SLW assessment

It is true that oftentimes lay people critique assessment practices as too demanding, unreal and unjust. Just take a unified state exam (or a standardized state matriculation exam) that has recently (from about 2009) been introduced to graduating High School students throughout the country in order to avoid cheating and corruption. It may have good intentions, but it also brought a lot of criticism from parents and High School students themselves. In addition, the general admission requirements to Russian community colleges include the submission of the results of this unified state exam. ‘Since 2009, EGE is the only form of graduation examinations in schools and the main form of preliminary examinations in universities’ (Wikipedia). A lot of students, parents, and school teachers believe that “the EGE is a poor measure of academic aptitude, and is already having a detrimental effect on learning at schools” (article) There were antiEGE (the name of this exam) movements throughout the country. The main argument is that changing the tests before changing the curriculum is putting the cart before the horse. There is no curriculum for that exam, and teachers really struggle with providing a good preparation for this exam. Also, the questions are believed to be written poorly, and the way the test is composed, which is mainly multiple-choice questions, “discounts imagination, creativity, and other qualities of well- rounded students” (article). Also, “the old Soviet screening system for high-school graduates which was comprised as a mix of school grades, written university entry exams, and oral exams prized as a particularly effective way of identifying talented students” (article). To cut a long story short, an exam on Russian language is also introduced as a multiple-choice test and, according to Hyland, is an indirect assessment. The second and third parts of the exam includes elaborate answers on questions and an essay. The shortcoming of this test is that it is more concerned with accuracy, but not communication. In the past, “every Russian graduate wrote an essay on a literary topic. [In addition], when applying to universities, every applicant wrote additional preliminary exams as set by the institutes of higher education they applied to” (article 2). I can’t say that I know much about this exam but after reading feedback on .org sites , which makes me think the info is credible, I got an impression that the test on Russian language is not quite valid and reliable. As there have been complains that the test does not actually assess what has been taught (validity), and a writing task does not measure consistently the same student on different occasions and the same task across different raters (reliability). Moreover, who are the raters (members of a special exam commission) and why they have the right to decide a student’s life is kept behind the iron door of the officials’ department. Finally, this exam resembles SAT, and I wanted to ask what are the practices of this exam and if you consider this exam as valid and reliable? References: http://www.rferl.org/content/Russias_New_Standardized_Exams_Fail_The_Public_Test/1761799.html http://chalkboard.tol.org/russia-will-the-use-be-useful

Lyudmila's entry on error correction debate

While seeing positive in all types of feedback practices, I appreciate teacher’s written feedback as it gives me an opportunity to come back and reread the comments. I like to keep everything at hand, and if I forgot what helped me to improve a certain paper, going back to it and reanalyzing teacher’s suggestions on the content as well as reflecting on certain grammar corrections helps me considerably in order to answer expectations posited by my current academic and future workplace settings. From my experience, marginal feedback helps me see proximately the exact point in the text where the issue occurred while the end feedback prioritizes key points and makes general observations on the paper. As for rubric, I also find them useful as when reviewing the feedback, it also helps to understand what the teacher values in a particular piece of writing. In addition, after reading about the controversial reaction on grammar feedback, I still think that it is an important part of feedback and should be provided along with focus on content. Certainly, too much red ink is discouraging, but correcting grammar errors that grossly interfere with the successful expression of the idea is necessary. I agree with Hyland, that reinforcing the patterns that were taught when modeling a genre can really help with simultaneous attention to form and meaning. As writing can be a painful process, support from a teacher is very important. I am always looking for a positive feedback not only in my final draft but especially at the beginning as my first draft is my “trying it out,” and if the teacher says ‘A good start! You are on the right track,” I feel encouraged and looking forward to continue my process of writing. Moreover, I support Ferris in her assertion that without explicit instruction and feedback on students’ errors, adult acquirers may fossilize and not continue making progress in accuracy of linguistic form. I doubt I would have achieved accuracy in my writing unless my teachers provide me a feedback on both form and meaning. As a L2 student, I am in dire need of such corrections as it helps me reflect on my writing, improve my writing, and at the same time, mind the structure of a sentence and how I can successfully articulate meanings through the selection of appropriate forms. After having read the article “Students must learn to correct all their writing errors” by Dana Ferris, I discovered for myself that, indeed, by systematically training students in self-editing strategies and making it a lifelong habit to use these skills can be valuable and productive in helping students to produce writing that meets high standards. Second, I realized that there is no magic bullet which will get students to the elusive point B. Rather, identifying individual error patterns and asking students to log errors into appropriate categories on an error chart, identifying and marking errors in student papers, and encouraging students to autonomy will help students to be conscientious about their drawbacks in writing and boost their still-developing linguistic competence.

Curt's reflective response on error correction debate

Ken Hyland’s book Second Language Writing (2003) discusses various attributes and some potentially troublesome aspects of each form of teacher written feedback. I find in my own teaching experiences that I tend to rely more heavily on the rubric in written form of feedback as a method of structuring the objectivity of evaluation; the students have clear access to the rubric well in advance of the writing assignment. Rubrics have long been a staple within the K-12 educational pedagogical curriculum and instructional model both in the United States as well as in many nations abroad. They are very adaptable to the assessment needs of classroom teachers, district requirements, and state standards. My favorite attribute of using well formulated rubrics is that they provide clearer communication as to what the teacher expectations are before rather than after the fact, grade. I have found that the use of rubrics help the English 101 students in their transition into college because they are so adapted to them during their K-12 educational experiences. However, in problematizing the use of rubrics, I have found that rubrics that are poorly or haphazardly made as well as good rubrics that are somehow misapplied can be troublesome for both teachers and students. This is why I customize each rubric to fit the evaluative criteria of larger projects. As I explain the rubric for a given project, I check for student understanding and even at times have invited some input on a particular project from students which in turn requires adjustments to the rubric. In fact, I had adjusted my power point presentation rubric due in part to both adaptions to the text used, Grassroots Writing Research Journal and some student input. The rubric itself is posted in the digital reserve. Another problem is the over reliance on the use of rubrics on the part of the teacher as well as an overdependence on their availability on the part of the student. Rubrics became popular near the dawn of the Industrial Age as an attempt to adapt education to rigors of regularity and even conformity of industrial employment. This regularity comes at the expense of creativity and originality on the part of the students. So in balance, I present the smaller assignments without a rubric, but still with expressed expectations so the students can still understand the expectations and still feel safe to experiment with its forms and/or content a little. Rubrics are interesting in that a teacher can utilize and problematize them at the same time. Verbal feedback in the form of teacher-student conferencing was also discussed by Hyland. I use this interactive form of one to feedback on individual specifics as well as some classroom interactive commentary on the more generalized trends that are occurring in student work. Both the positive and critical elements of the feedback are constructively framed in a here is how it is working well and how to fix what is not working. I have positive responses from students since they want to know how to succeed within the parameters of each project and paper. Hyland states, “The most successful conferences are those in which students are active participants, asking questions, clarifying meaning, and discussing their papers rather than passively accepting advice” (Hyland, 2003: 192). This is perhaps one of the cornerstones of the educational process itself. However, Hyland raises a valid point that can problematize teacher-student interactions with a particular concern with second language students. Hyland states in the following: “While learners have the opportunity to get individual attention and fully discuss their writing face-to-face with their teacher, second language students are not always in a good position to make the most of this. Conferences differ considerably from the typical classroom situation, and some students may lack the experience, interactive abilities, or aural comprehension skills to benefit. Some learners have cultural inhibitions about engaging informally with authority figures, let alone questioning them (Goldstein and Conrad, 1990), and this can result in students passively incorporating the teacher’s suggestions into their work without thought” (Hyland, 2003, 193). Again, the teacher needs to tailor the form of conferences to fit the functionality that the conferences are to serve. For example, specific project conferences differ from midterm or final course conferences, both of which needs to be thoughtfully planned. The third broad area that Hyland discusses in chapter seven is the use of peer review. In examining the use of peer review, a sense of evenly distributed student cohesiveness within the classroom is a prerequisite for its effective use beyond the most superficial of levels. In L2 classrooms, this interactive approach can seem to be so alien of pedagogy that the problems generated will outweigh the possible benefits. I have used this approach sparingly because even when students embrace it, they still tend to focus on surface level forms with generalized statements. To teach students how to go beyond that, the peer review skills become the content of the class displacing time needed for the subject content. In many cases, students resist the acceptance of the use of peer review. The use of classroom peer review certainly has it merits beyond the workshop types of classes of the creative humanities curriculum, but such a type of peer interaction can be problematized in so many ways, including a cultural resistance of second language learners. Teaching experiences in working with key critical issues within the context of English as a second language writing class are shared by Dana Ferris in his article, “Myth 5: Students must learn to correct all their writing errors” (Ferris, 2008: 90-114). Farris outlines a “what we can do” list that truly makes sense quite often for the English as a first language writers as well as a definite list to consider while teaching English as a second language classes. In all, Ferris concludes that good effective writing takes time and it should be valued enough to prompt one to take time for it, and this includes the editing as well. Both the writing and revision processes should be allocated a greater amount of time resources and utilize proofreading strategies as well. Ferris even suggests allowing others to proofread their work as assistance to their own proofreading as having another of eyes reading the text for a first time. Ferris brings in applicable writing and editing strategies and presents them in a clear manner that can be effectively used in a variety of writing instructional situations. Both authors have brought teaching strategies that are helpful in teaching a skill that is notoriously difficult for many teachers to teach and most students to learn.