I decided to get this week's blog entry early as I plan on rioting in the streets on Wednesday to protest the LATEST Bush coup-Don't worry -I'll still make sure you guys get pizza:
On to Howard's 74-page defense(?) of "patch writing"
Frankly, this is the first time I've heard of this practice called this-so this article was most illuminating:
We are introduced to her definition of this in the introduction: "copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical strcutres, or pluggin in one synoym for another." She says the standard reaction to this is to label it plagiarism and she says that when she first encontered it, she gave people an "F" and a chance to revise.
In her first chapter, she talks about the problems of plagiarism in terms of definition, punishment and finding. Although, it's much easirer to find plagiarism with the Internet (since most students apparently think we are idiots who have never seen a computer). In terms of punishment, she talks about the problerms of suspension-for students who will galdly serve it out and then apply to a different school. We are then introduced to her introduction to patchwriting when students liberally substituted in writing about an assignment (pp.4-5). We are then told how she learned to stop worrying and love the patchwriting(I'll credit my source here as being Stanley Kubrick). She says that the revision of other's work is not disrespect, or theft, but, the recognition tha the patchwriter, "recognizes the profoundity of the source and strives to join the conversation in which the source participates(p.7)." In chapter two, we are introduced to a definition of whom pagiarism hurts, which is the writer, from whom the transgressor has stolen (p. 18). But, if the patchwriter is merely joining the conversation, how can there be transgression. In Chapter 3, we learn that the academy does not look at patchwriting as a collaboration, which apparently Howard does as collaboartion apparently reuqires both Autonomy, which is close to the romantic notion of authorship (p.36) and originality (p.47). In the final chapter of his reading ,we are introduced to territory we have trod well in this class: the historical development of authorship from the pre-modern in which certain sources were acknowledged as being authors and the desire to imitate them, such as Dionysius of Helicarnasus who thought that the classical period whcih had passed was intellectually superior to his own (p.63). We go on through the Medieaval era, in which those who wrote were inspired by God and to the beginnings of the modern period and the emergence of the author. We also find out that there are uses for knowing about the 1710 Statute of Anne (p.70). I'm not alone.
I found my introduction to patch writing interesting and wondered aloud why Howard ignores the area in which it is most prevalent: Journalism. Journalists patch write all the time. On hundreds of occasions I have produdced writing that has used a report from a wire service, a news release and a newspaper article and perhaps put it together with some m but not always, original reporting. In fact, I have been paid for writing that I have to admit is largely patch-wriitng. In fact, with the classes kind indulgence, I will bring a recently published article to class that is largely patch-written.
Here's my question: Can the class think of any other professions in which patchwriting is the norm?
See you on the barricades.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
A quote for Kristen and Mary's project
From the article Laure summarized:
". . . the reader is no longer simply spectator . . . but co-author of what he reads, a second write and active partner. He can enter *into* the landscape of meaning and modify its architecture as he wishes. Once monologue, the text becomes dialogue . . . It is no longer a static invariant, a road traveled in a given direction, recorded once and for all. Rather, it is a moving mosaic [. . .], an unpredictable sequence of bifurcation, a non hierarchical unpredetermined crossroads where each reader can invent his own course along a network of communication nodes . . ." Regis Debray *The Book as Symbolic Object*
Sounds like a possible leaping-off point!
". . . the reader is no longer simply spectator . . . but co-author of what he reads, a second write and active partner. He can enter *into* the landscape of meaning and modify its architecture as he wishes. Once monologue, the text becomes dialogue . . . It is no longer a static invariant, a road traveled in a given direction, recorded once and for all. Rather, it is a moving mosaic [. . .], an unpredictable sequence of bifurcation, a non hierarchical unpredetermined crossroads where each reader can invent his own course along a network of communication nodes . . ." Regis Debray *The Book as Symbolic Object*
Sounds like a possible leaping-off point!
Food for the remainder of the semester
11-3 Jon
11-10 Laure (Comm students are at NCA)
11-17 Mary
11-24 Off for Thanksgiving, work on major projects
12-1 Kelly
12-8 Kristen
12-15 Hand in day, no class
11-10 Laure (Comm students are at NCA)
11-17 Mary
11-24 Off for Thanksgiving, work on major projects
12-1 Kelly
12-8 Kristen
12-15 Hand in day, no class
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
And Here I thought I was going to beat Josh in the "poky-little puppy sweepstakes" Oh, well here's my abtract and blog entries for the week
Copy-Lefting The News
This paper examines that part of the copy-left movement which produces copy-left news information. Copy-left is the spiritual opposite of the notion of copyright. Those who produce copy-lefted works intend for them to be copied and modified as people wish. Copy-left news challenges the notion that news information can and should be proprietary. This paper will examine the Asheville Global Report a print and online publication that uses “mainstream” news sources in a fair use fashion to essentially construct new news stories that highlight facts that may not have been the main gist
of the original story, but highlights important facts. This paper will examine how the
Asheville Global Report fits into the notion of copy-left and how it challenges the traditional concept of news.
and now, for the blog...........Among things were blogging about.............................................................
Deborah Halbert tries to make the argument that "textual poaching" is a distinctly feminist enterprise anf frankly, misses by a mile. poaching is the idea that people can and should apporiate texts and modify them for their purtposes. Her essay is long on assertion and short of evidence. She puts forth such bold assertions as,"Authorship was a method of establishing paternity over a text, the male creation" (p.113). I'm curious as to why she cites the Koons case (p.115) to prover her point, when Koons wasn't a woman (p.115). The seminal (and how's that for a masculinzation!) work on poaching of TV culture by Jenkins shows that while women are involved in such appropriated works as the Kirk/Spock texts, men approporaiate. Frankly, this essay is the sort of leftist-academic codswallop that makes people want to belt leftist-academics.
The essay by Clark deals with her surprise that Autralian academics foun the type of writing centers now common to American campuses to be "sanctioned plagiarism" (p.155). This essay also looks at survey research (!) condcuted at USC on the subject of plagiarism and Writing Centers. The survey results showed that the Biology, English, and Poli. Sci. departments all flet that plagiarism was a significant, while Expository Writing, largely did not (p. 163). The only department wich wasn't ambivalent about the helpfulness of the writing center was the English Department-70-% ofthe faculty in that department felt that the writing center WOUDL help the students. There s an interesting note toward the end of this piece, that CLark believes that Writing Centers are held to a very high standard of not being overly interventionist in helping students with their work. She notes the degree to which writers receive suggestions on their work (216). She then asserts (probably from experience that writing centers cannot do this and our seen as overly interventionist. A lot of the same ground is covered by Shamoon and Burns. They say that they opt for a social and rhetorical construct of the issue and say that instead of building walls around the issue people such as they "engage" it (p.192). I found these essays interesting, because I teach writing and it would never occur to me that helping my students was enabling plagiarism. I guess I jsut don't understand why Writing Centers got rapped with this.
My Question for the week is:
How interventionist are you in teaching writing and do you see yourself at all as a plagiarism enbabler?
This paper examines that part of the copy-left movement which produces copy-left news information. Copy-left is the spiritual opposite of the notion of copyright. Those who produce copy-lefted works intend for them to be copied and modified as people wish. Copy-left news challenges the notion that news information can and should be proprietary. This paper will examine the Asheville Global Report a print and online publication that uses “mainstream” news sources in a fair use fashion to essentially construct new news stories that highlight facts that may not have been the main gist
of the original story, but highlights important facts. This paper will examine how the
Asheville Global Report fits into the notion of copy-left and how it challenges the traditional concept of news.
and now, for the blog...........Among things were blogging about.............................................................
Deborah Halbert tries to make the argument that "textual poaching" is a distinctly feminist enterprise anf frankly, misses by a mile. poaching is the idea that people can and should apporiate texts and modify them for their purtposes. Her essay is long on assertion and short of evidence. She puts forth such bold assertions as,"Authorship was a method of establishing paternity over a text, the male creation" (p.113). I'm curious as to why she cites the Koons case (p.115) to prover her point, when Koons wasn't a woman (p.115). The seminal (and how's that for a masculinzation!) work on poaching of TV culture by Jenkins shows that while women are involved in such appropriated works as the Kirk/Spock texts, men approporaiate. Frankly, this essay is the sort of leftist-academic codswallop that makes people want to belt leftist-academics.
The essay by Clark deals with her surprise that Autralian academics foun the type of writing centers now common to American campuses to be "sanctioned plagiarism" (p.155). This essay also looks at survey research (!) condcuted at USC on the subject of plagiarism and Writing Centers. The survey results showed that the Biology, English, and Poli. Sci. departments all flet that plagiarism was a significant, while Expository Writing, largely did not (p. 163). The only department wich wasn't ambivalent about the helpfulness of the writing center was the English Department-70-% ofthe faculty in that department felt that the writing center WOUDL help the students. There s an interesting note toward the end of this piece, that CLark believes that Writing Centers are held to a very high standard of not being overly interventionist in helping students with their work. She notes the degree to which writers receive suggestions on their work (216). She then asserts (probably from experience that writing centers cannot do this and our seen as overly interventionist. A lot of the same ground is covered by Shamoon and Burns. They say that they opt for a social and rhetorical construct of the issue and say that instead of building walls around the issue people such as they "engage" it (p.192). I found these essays interesting, because I teach writing and it would never occur to me that helping my students was enabling plagiarism. I guess I jsut don't understand why Writing Centers got rapped with this.
My Question for the week is:
How interventionist are you in teaching writing and do you see yourself at all as a plagiarism enbabler?
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Synthesis tomorrow
By popular request, tomorrow in class some time will be devoted to synthesizing and reviewing the sources we have read and discussed during the first half+ of the semester. Please bring all of the readings you can bear without breaking your backs. My hope is that this will help prepare everyone for the exam and reinforce all of our developing knowledge regarding authorship.
See you then!
See you then!
Episode IV: A New Blog
I would have to say that the most interesting part of this current crop of readings was the chpater concernign the early collegiate culutre of cheating. Especially when I think we all consider that "students today" find no problem with plagiarism. And I also think that there's a belief that plagiarism started with the Internet. I may be whistfully and naively spinning my wheels, here, but I DO think that most students do understand at least at a most basic level that cheating is wrong and do expect consequences for engaging in it. Knowing something's wrong and acting on the beleif that something is wrong are two different things.
I am referenceing Sue Carter Simmons chapter on "Competing notions of authorship" where she tells us that the cre'me de la cre'me during the time that education was really only for the priveliged, cheating was rampant. Simmons seems to indicate that one of the reasons that students at institutions like Harvard cheated so much, is because they beleived it was the fault of the instructors. The issue was reframed, says Simmons, "as a critique of indaquate teaching (p.46)." Student "themes" were on a small number of accepted topics and the ideas were largely recycled from year to year adn they were collected by disinterested teachers. Communal acts of plagiarism, such as fraternity files were an orchestrated act of rebellion,"plagiarism was one of many activities one might engage in out of responsibility to one's and duty to maintain one's position at college" (p.47). It also appears as though institutionally, plagiarism was not considered all that bad of a crime. Simmons says that plagiarism was adressed very little in texts that students used (p.49). And it seems that this act of rebellion was against the fact that they did not consider themselves authors of largely irrelevant themes, "Consequently even when students wrote thier own papers, they may have felt little ownership of the texts they produced"(p.50). I think many college educators today "plagiarism proof" their classes through such mechanisms as in-class work. They type of classes I like to teach are pretty-plagiarism-proof, you really can tell the difference between student and professional media production. I remember a friend of mine at SIUE was concerned that a student news story for a class was such a great leap forward that it couldn't have been written by the student. I read at and noticed many rookie-writing mistakes, like dangling modifiers. My assessment: It was okay, but NOT THAT good tyo consider it plagiarized.
My question for you all is: to what degree do you consider it your responsibility to plagiarize-proof your classes and what do you do (Pop quiz hotshot-what do you do?-since I'm no plagiarist, I'll credit the screen play for SPEED here).
I am referenceing Sue Carter Simmons chapter on "Competing notions of authorship" where she tells us that the cre'me de la cre'me during the time that education was really only for the priveliged, cheating was rampant. Simmons seems to indicate that one of the reasons that students at institutions like Harvard cheated so much, is because they beleived it was the fault of the instructors. The issue was reframed, says Simmons, "as a critique of indaquate teaching (p.46)." Student "themes" were on a small number of accepted topics and the ideas were largely recycled from year to year adn they were collected by disinterested teachers. Communal acts of plagiarism, such as fraternity files were an orchestrated act of rebellion,"plagiarism was one of many activities one might engage in out of responsibility to one's and duty to maintain one's position at college" (p.47). It also appears as though institutionally, plagiarism was not considered all that bad of a crime. Simmons says that plagiarism was adressed very little in texts that students used (p.49). And it seems that this act of rebellion was against the fact that they did not consider themselves authors of largely irrelevant themes, "Consequently even when students wrote thier own papers, they may have felt little ownership of the texts they produced"(p.50). I think many college educators today "plagiarism proof" their classes through such mechanisms as in-class work. They type of classes I like to teach are pretty-plagiarism-proof, you really can tell the difference between student and professional media production. I remember a friend of mine at SIUE was concerned that a student news story for a class was such a great leap forward that it couldn't have been written by the student. I read at and noticed many rookie-writing mistakes, like dangling modifiers. My assessment: It was okay, but NOT THAT good tyo consider it plagiarized.
My question for you all is: to what degree do you consider it your responsibility to plagiarize-proof your classes and what do you do (Pop quiz hotshot-what do you do?-since I'm no plagiarist, I'll credit the screen play for SPEED here).
Monday, October 11, 2004
Buzzflash
An illustration of the utility? of repetition in oral presentations (taken a bit too far). I think you'll find this hilarious.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
To Blog Or Blog Not (A nod to classic films).
Another type of writing group with which I am familiar, from y creative-writing days, the more-or-less compulsory group within which one may be put as part of a class. I am glad that Spiegelman cops to the methodological issues involved with her study. The most salient one is that case studies are lousy for generalizing (p. 123). Having taken some pedagogy classes, it appears that owneership issues may be expressive of learning styles.
For instance, I would say that Edward is an assimilator. For him, authorship is an abstract concept and he does not haveto be connected to the "real world" to be an author. Texts are dependetn, on Edward's view, writing is created by an autonomous, isolationist act (p.125). The word is made manifest by the author (How's that for waxing biblically!!).
I would call the Franklin Writer's group, accomodators. Their style of writing pedagogy for their group is largely accomodator. As, Spiegelman says, "ownership was a dialectical process, an action. something cnstany engaged and neotiated" (p.127). Writing is an action, a sense of doing. This even seemed to be the case with Brian who expressed the most "ownership" over his work.
Andrew seems to be the most accomodator- like in that he acknowledges the intertextaulity of the group work.
I think some of this may refelct my own percpetion of writing. I prefer to work alone and writing is something I am as opposed to something I do. I think this is largely becuase I am an assimilator.
So. my questions for the week are:
Does learning style affect one's conception of authorship?
also
Can A group learning style be fostered as it appears the Franklin Writer's did in establishing an accomodationsist persepctive? Are writing groups inherently accomodationist?
For instance, I would say that Edward is an assimilator. For him, authorship is an abstract concept and he does not haveto be connected to the "real world" to be an author. Texts are dependetn, on Edward's view, writing is created by an autonomous, isolationist act (p.125). The word is made manifest by the author (How's that for waxing biblically!!).
I would call the Franklin Writer's group, accomodators. Their style of writing pedagogy for their group is largely accomodator. As, Spiegelman says, "ownership was a dialectical process, an action. something cnstany engaged and neotiated" (p.127). Writing is an action, a sense of doing. This even seemed to be the case with Brian who expressed the most "ownership" over his work.
Andrew seems to be the most accomodator- like in that he acknowledges the intertextaulity of the group work.
I think some of this may refelct my own percpetion of writing. I prefer to work alone and writing is something I am as opposed to something I do. I think this is largely becuase I am an assimilator.
So. my questions for the week are:
Does learning style affect one's conception of authorship?
also
Can A group learning style be fostered as it appears the Franklin Writer's did in establishing an accomodationsist persepctive? Are writing groups inherently accomodationist?
Monday, October 04, 2004
Summaries
Trickling into your mailboxes you will find my brief comments on your summaries. I have been working on them periodically (albeit slowly) and I hope to soon have them all completed. However, if you don't yet have a response in your mailbox, please don't panic. I'm returning each one when I finish it to give as many people as possible a chance to revise (if desired) as early as possible. I'm finding, even when I've read the article before, I need to reread it to make sure I'm not misremembering the balance of the article.
You will notice that I didn't follow my own guidelines for grading (high pass, pass, fail) on this assignment. Instead, I graded it as a percentage of the 50 points. So, 45-50 is an A, 40-44 is a B, 35-40 is a C, and so on. These may be revised until you are satisfied.
**side note: Josh, could you drop your copy of the Trimbur article in my mailbox so I can easily respond? I will return it to you.
You will notice that I didn't follow my own guidelines for grading (high pass, pass, fail) on this assignment. Instead, I graded it as a percentage of the 50 points. So, 45-50 is an A, 40-44 is a B, 35-40 is a C, and so on. These may be revised until you are satisfied.
**side note: Josh, could you drop your copy of the Trimbur article in my mailbox so I can easily respond? I will return it to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)