Property Values
Alex Pankiewicz
A student writer sat down with me for a session, several weeks ago. We went through the normal steps in a tutoring session—getting comfortable with each other, establishing the main idea behind the paper, identifying specific concerns, and reading the paper aloud. As she read on, I noticed she had at least five citations in every paragraph. I told her to hold on, and asked her to tell me the idea behind a particular paragraph. “Oh, well, I’m talking about how women can perform the same jobs as men,” she says. “No,” I said, “Your sources’ talk about that. I don’t see a single phrase that isn’t cited or quoted here.” She had no ideas, no opinions, and no creative concepts she could call her own. This scenario defines the issue of ownership in many college essays. Maintaining paper ownership is an important concept behind the writing process, which most students either overlook or are not aware of in the first place. Ownership of a paper is often lost when students resort to plagiarism, or focus on writing for a grade without actively trying to understand their topics. However, creating instructional rubrics with instructors or tutors, and participating in peer review sessions can help students "own" their papers.
Students often resort to plagiarism for many reasons, particularly online influences, and do not focus on analyzing and interpreting source material to generate their own ideas. Bronwyn T. Williams observes that students plagiarize because they are "deceitful," "lazy," unsure about how to cite and document sources, or have difficulty writing "with new information and new genres" (350). I agree with his points, for the most part; however, it seems students would have to be awfully malicious to deliberately deceive their teachers. From my experience in the Writing Center, the last three seem most likely. Lazy students simply do not want to put forth the effort, either because they do not understand how to compile a research paper, or they do not want to try. Being unaware of MLA guidelines when it comes to citation can easily hurt the quality of a research paper, as they can be confusing for inexperienced writers. Even more complicating is dealing with unfamiliar subjects, overloading students with daunting amounts of new text and ideas. For these reason, students seek ways to avoid honest authorship.
The Internet has become a major influence on what students think about authorship. Students can buy already-written essays online; they can even go to websites like Spark Notes, and copy and paste chapter summaries into their essays. These manners of plagiarism, while appealing because of the little effort involved, do not exist on their own merit. Online activities influence these acts of plagiarism. Peer-to-peer file sharing, using different existing images for self-definition on personal pages, and video collages all skew students' perceptions of authorship (Williams 352). Music sharing clients such as Soulseek and Bearshare allow people to transfer music to each other, and create their own compilations from different artists. Personal pages on Myspace contain images of actors, musicians, artwork, and other graphics to express individuality. YouTube has made itself famous for its collage of videos posted by its members, even though they have no ownership over the material they use. Chances are, most everyone does not pass off these shared songs, pictures, and videos as their own. However, the Internet still breeds a sharing culture, mixing and matching other authors' material. This leads to students thinking little of source material they cite (if they cite it at all) in their papers.
Students need to focus on analyzing source information and synthesizing their own ideas to avoid simply "patch working" papers. As a Writing Fellow, I have learned not to drop pithy quotes into papers, stringing several lines from several sources together. Young writers often attempt to articulate their main argument or purpose entirely with the source material's words. When writers include little of themselves in research papers, they begin to "patch work" the text together. This is similar to making a mix tape, using the compiled songs to express a particular feeling or emotion, without any material from the creator. Williams writes, "We want students to draw on their creativity and create original work, yet we want them to become readers and writers who draw from the ideas of others" (351). From my experience in the Writing Center, however, those seem to be the two extremes student writers lean toward. There is either too much source material, or too many ideas from the student.
Plagiarizing displays a lack of care or concern for one’s writing. This also leads to writing for something besides ease of completion—writing for a grade.
Students tend to write their papers purely for a grade, rather than finding a deeper meaning in a subject, thus limiting their motivations. Williams reasons that a student find little incentive to write for more than a grade unless a paper deals with "their lives, interests, and individual intellectual questions" (353). As I mentioned earlier, students have difficulty working with new subjects. Unless a field of study applies to them, they may not bother putting any of their own opinions and ideas in a paper. This constricts their desire to understand source material and the purpose of the paper becomes nothing but a factor in their grade-point average. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring states students see writing as a "burden" they must deal with because they have never attempted to find meaning behind their writing (Gillespie, Lerner 22). Their essays become just another obstacle in completing a course’s requirements. With little incentive to understand what they write about, writing, itself, becomes uninteresting; students with this mentality may never excel in their writing skills.
In creating instructional rubrics for self-regulation and participating in peer review sessions, students can ensure ownership of their writing. Generally, instructors offer assignment rubrics for essays, stating expected page length, word count, due date, topics available, and so on. These types of rubrics, however, restrict creativity. Earlier, I cited Williams stating the importance of student creativity in essays, and without that creative quality, students' boredom and frustration is reflected in their writing. The loss of ownership from this can be curbed through instructor-student cooperation, though. Students can maintain ownership of rubrics by setting their guidelines and expectations with teachers (Saddler and Andrade 49). Another means of maintaining authorship is through peer review. Bruce Saddler and Heidi Andrade write, "Peer assessment helps students reflect on their writing, recognize dissonances, and create solutions" (51). The purpose of writing centers lies in this statement. When work with tutees, no matter what aspect of writing we focus on, I always direct them to invent their own solutions.
Instructional rubrics allow students to assess their own writing as well as evaluate it. Establishing personal guidelines for an assignment grants students a refreshing freedom, but these guidelines also allow for progressive reflection periods. As students continue through the writing process, instructional rubrics do not just "teach," but they also serve to "evaluate" students' personal performances (Saddler and Andrade 49). A question in my survey regarding text ownership read, “Do you write with a process, i.e. planning, drafting, revising, and editing?” Surprisingly, sixteen out of the twenty students surveyed answered, “No” (Random). Poor instruction, laziness, or other reasons could have contributed to this result, but an entry-level composition class should stress the importance of the writing process’ steps, either way. Instructional rubrics allow students to check and evaluate their progress through each step; taking advantage of personal assessment can only reinforce their ownership of essays.
Peer review helps students find meaning in their work through critical and comfortable assessment of their writing. Saddler and Andrade recognize that students' assessment of their peers' writing is often similar to instructors' assessment (49). This, perhaps, is what makes the Writing Center so successful in working with students. Writing fellows sit in an academic middle ground, somewhere between faculty and students. As a tutor, I easily see the connection tutees have with me, as I have similar “burdens” as them. Besides being well versed in the writing process, tutors qualify for another application. Writing fellows work with student writers to help them find meaning in their writing (Gillespie and Lerner 23). Tutors’ knowledge in the writing process does not just mean they know the steps in writing, but they understand the process’s importance. They understand they own the process; they understand the meaning of authorship.
Students, however, have little understanding of the importance of authorship. As a writing tutor, the short cuts student writers take discourage me. Plagiarism will probably persist for years to come, no matter how instructors and tutors may try to deter student writers from it. Blatant plagiarism is authorship theft; I can only try, inside and outside of the Writing Center, to promote the significance of written word. Maybe if student writers felt more strongly about their own texts, they would take that significance into deeper consideration. Unfortunately, they rarely look past the word count and due date on assignment sheets. Instead of writing to learn, they write to pass a class. A solution to this apathy toward writing could only take a visit to the Writing Center or a ten-minute freewrite, in which they generate ideas on how to relate a topic to their interests. Creating personal, instructional rubrics to assess one's own text periodically, helps maintain authorship. Writing tutors or instructors can work with students to organize their rubrics' guidelines and criteria for assessment. Of course, the effectiveness of informing students of authorship and its importance depends, entirely, on their willingness to learn.
Works Cited
Gillespie, Paula, and Neal Lerner. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004.
Random Sampling of 20 MCCC Students. Authorship Survey. Apr. 2008.
Saddler, Bruce, and Heidi Andrade. "The Writing Rubric." Education Leadership. 62.2 (2004): 48-52. Wilson Select Plus.
First Search. MCCC Lib., Monroe, MI. 16 Apr. 2008. <http://firstsearch.oclc.org>.
Williams, Bronwyn T. "Trust, Betrayal, and Authorship: Plagiarism and How We Perceive Students." Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy. 51.4 (Dec. 2007): 350-54. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. MCCC Lib., Monroe, MI. 16
Apr. 2008. <http://search.ebscohost.com>.
|