Module 7: reading reflection

                                           My Views of Plagiarism in Online Writing Class

            What is plagiarism? Actually I knew nothing about it even when I was studying in high school. The first time I heard about it was when I was studying in university in China, but our teachers still didn’t mention much about it except for our degree paper. Until I came here, studying in MSU, I hear about it everywhere. “No plagiarism” functions as a warning in my mind every time I begin my writing, which keeps reminding me that if I have plagiarism in my paper, then I fail it.

However, I haven’t spent even one minute to do a research about it until today. The first thing I do is to find its definition offered by a website, which is “plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work”. Then I read some materials, one is Turn it Down, Don't Turnitin: Resisting Plagiarism Detection Services by Talking About Plagiarism Rhetorically by Stephanie Vie, and the other is the chapter fifteen of Teaching Writing Online by Scott Warnock. After reading them, I have some questions in my mind: what is the relationship of plagiarism with the online writing class? What are the advantages and disadvantages of electronic plagiarism detection tools in online writing class? As an online writing teacher, what should we do to prevent plagiarism?

As stated in Teaching Writing Online, “if plagiarism is easier to commit because of the internet, it is also easier to catch because of the internet” (152-3), our students get more chances to cheat in writing since they are surrounded with technologies in online writing class, which means they get easier access to others’ writing. However, since everything is public on the internet, it is hard to detect students’ cheating if they “borrow” someone else’s writing. Maybe we can say the internet promotes and suppresses plagiarism at the same time. On the other hand, online writing teachers read much of students’ writing in online class, so they are familiar with students’ writing progress, which inspects students not to cheat because their teacher is clear about their writing level. Generally speaking, students have less tendency to plagiarize in the online writing environment.

            Although the tendency is less, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In Turn it Down, Don't Turnitin: Resisting Plagiarism Detection Services by Talking About Plagiarism Rhetorically, Stephanie points out that “when a student is told that their paper will be compared with documents in that database, a student is then deterred from cheating,” which is one main function of electronic plagiarism detection tools. At the same time, when those detection websites gather writing from others, they make money as well because they offer service to us. Stephanie describes the phenomenon in such a way, “we are better able to examine some of the metaphors Turnitin uses to represent its attitudes toward writing, which thereby serve as windows into tension points that drive the business of higher education today.”  Take “Turnitin” for example, it has been critiqued from many aspects in the society: students object it for it make use of students’ copyrighted writing to make money; teachers object it for it creates tense relationships between teachers and students; institutions are unsatisfied with it for its high cost of service every year.

            Faced with the advantages and disadvantages of those plagiarism detection tools, online writing teachers should take advantage of them rather than discard them because they still have their place in teaching world. As Scott suggests, “technology tools have their place, but they should not supplant good teaching practices” (157), so the more important thing is that how teachers should behave when faced with students’ plagiarism. First, teachers should not take aggressive approaches when suspect it because some students don’t know they already plagiarized even they did it. What’s more, teachers should design intelligent and creative students for students where they can’t borrow or copy others’ writing.  Also teachers should pay close attention to students’ work to learn about their process and how they revise it so that students don’t have chances to cheat them.

            It is a common sense that all students want to keep away from plagiarism in their academic life,  teachers have the responsibility to help them in keep students’ academic integrity by educating them about “plagiarism,” rather than test students’ writing like computer detection system with distrust.

Works Cited

Vie, Stephanie. Turn it Down, Don't Turnitin: Resisting Plagiarism Detection Services by Talking About Plagiarism Rhetorically. N.p., 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Warnock, Scott. Teaching Writing Online: How and Why. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 2009. 152-7. Print.

Module 6 reflection

                                       Building Community in Online Writing Class

            According to Re-embodying Online Composition: Ecologies of Writing in Unreal Time and Space by Ken and Shannon, it shows that there is a debated topic on whether online writing class is good for students to learn writing, “many research indicates that more than 75% of online and hybrid teachers, despite expecting that they would continue to teach in these environments, responded with “near-audible ambiguity” on the success of the endeavor” (p25). What’s more, some faulty believes that students are disadvantaged by the OWI in such areas as the improvement of critical thinking skills (p25). However, setting the primary goal of online writing class at building community by positing way of “making do,” rather than enhancing the technology of online class, students can benefit more from it.

Before we think about how to build community in online writing class, we’d better figure out why we should build community. As mentioned by Ken and Shannon, “in a face-to-face, or “seated,” classroom, we may reasonably expect our learning communities to form organically” (p26), where students get to know each other without conscious awareness of their own or others decisions. In a f2f classroom, students can feel each other as a person through small talk, gesture, voice, or even clothing. On the other hand, in an online writing classroom, community can also be built: students can be encouraged to know each other through simple technologies, such as email, real-time chat that allows for exchange of biographical details, and so on. All of them can help to produce familiarity as in f2f classroom.

            Except for that, the text created by students needs the existence of community in online class. For example, group work, discussion and peer review require students to escape from the tyranny of isolated cognitive process model. Moreover, even an individual essay is created based on a complex ecological web of knowledge formation, rhetorical expectations, and lived experiences. In all, it can be concluded that building community in online writing class is not only beneficial, but also necessary.

            Based on some suggestions initiated in Re-embodying Online Composition: Ecologies of Writing in Unreal Time and Space, I conclude three ways for teachers that can help to build community in online writing class. The first one is to design assignments that contribute to community building. For example, in a group project, students gradually understand “community” as an entity that contributes to knowledge and communication. Even while they join in a small community, students get mutually engaged in a project of creating knowledge and communicating meaningfully about it.  Conducting a questionnaire is also a good way to help to build community, which requires students to think carefully about how their language and assumptions will be negotiated and interpreted by a specific audience. In the process, students become aware of community in class.

            Sharing a general topic is helpful for building community as well. As they negotiate possible topics, students acknowledge their own embodied experience and the relative distribution of their information and knowledge, and connect their distributed knowledge with classmates. Another benefit of this way is that it can be done with very basic technological tools. However, teachers should help student to realize that sharing a topic doesn’t mean giving up their autonomy in learning community.

            There is another interesting way that help to build community mentioned by Ken and Shannon, which is introductory exercises. Although I have never heard about then before, I am attracted by them because they give students a variety of ways to present themselves to one another, and get them to talk. There are many forms of those exercises, such as video recording, taping, or even just a self-introduction blog. In such an exercise, students get empowered to join their online groups from a position of authority.

            When guiding students toward collaborative interactions with their classmates and teachers in online class, they are not only pushed to learn more about writing, they also grasp a deep understanding of social breadth of knowledge. When more and more people will see the advantageous side of online writing class, the goal of re-embodying online composition mentioned by Ken and Shannon can be achieved.

Works Cited:

Gillam, Ken, and Shannon R. Wooden. "Re-embodying Online Composition: Ecologies of Writing in Unreal Time and Space."Computers and Composition 30 (2013): 24-36. Print.