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.