Response to 4/7 Readings

This is the spoof trailer referred to in "Plagiarism, originality, assemblage."

“Plagiarism, originality, assemblage”
Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Stuart A. Selber

In their article Eilol and Selber fight for a change in attitude regarding what constitutes plagiarism, arguing that a new context should be defined. They begin their paper by discussing remixing and assemblage, and “the ways that composition might adopt remixing practices common in areas such as music and architecture.” (Eilola and Selber 376)

Eilol and Selber look at commonly held attitudes in the composition field concerning remixing. They believe that instructors look down upon papers that use too many quotes and outside material, which in turn may lead to students hiding their sources. The authors seek to “dispel the romantic image of the writer as a solitary genius.” (Ibid 378)

The anecdote regarding the 2006 CCCC convention made me laugh; I’m sure we’ve all noticed that the same plagiarism warning gets reused year after year. These were used as examples of “ethical plagiarism”, and the presenter, John Porter, “argued for an ethical middle ground that promotes filesharing and fair use rather than surveillance and policing behaviors.” (Ibid 378)

I really enjoyed the section regarding electronic assemblage. I had actually seen (and laughed at) the video they reference. I have to admit, a good portion of scholarly articles dealing with the internet and new technology that I’ve come across while researching seem out of touch. This article was refreshing in that I actually believe the authors understand trends and practices on the internet. In other words, they didn’t sound like aging baby boomers trying desperately to stay relevant.

Another segment of this article that really interested me is the section pertaining to assemblage communities. I am a member of several of these on the internet, or at least I would consider them assemblage communities. Many news websites on the internet either never or rarely write their own news stories, instead they gather related stories from numerous sources.

I agree with Eilol and Selber’s methods and attitudes regarding assemblage, I think that the ability to integrate and synthesize material and information from numerous sources is essential to forming vital critical thinking skills. I also believe that given the ease of accessing information in today’s society, and the different social structure found on the internet, composition courses today need to evolve based on this.

Intertexuality and the Discourse Community
James E. Porter

When I started reading this, and noted the author’s name, I realized that it was the same author (or maybe someone with an identical name) referenced in “Plagiarism, originality, assemblage”, the one who had noted plagiarism is rampant in plagiarism warnings. So when I started reading this, I already liked the author.

Porter’s paper discusses the fact that all texts rely on previous texts, and indeed, that all text is interrelated in some way. As Porter puts it “[t]he traditional notion of the text as the single work of a given author, and even the very notions of author and reader, are regarded as simply convenient fictions for domesticating discourse.” (Porter 35)

Porter separates intertextuality into two types: iterability and presupposition. Iterability includes allusions, quotations, clichés and traditions. Presupposition is the conjectures that a text or author makes in regard to the readers.

The segment regarding “discourse communities” interested me, and I saw many new areas it could be applied to. Internet forums and blog communities came to mind immediately after I read this section. Internet forums have very specific (and often times unstated) rules of conduct that new users have to ascertain through trial and error. Older forums and communities often ignore “unqualified” new users, that is until they have established they possession the knowledge necessary to converse in that particular discourse community.

"The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction"
Walter J. Ong

I was happy to see we had another Ong article to read this week, I learned a lot from the assigned article last week. In "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction", Ong addresses the common advice given to students, to write for their audience.

Much like in "Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought", Ong's article that we read last week, Ong shows his immense range of historical knowledge. As before, Ong spends a large portion of his essay looking at oral traditions, and chronicling the evolution of both written and spoken rhetoric.

Ong outlines the differences between writing and speaking, the foremost being that "[f]or the speaker, the audience is in front of him. For the writer, the audience is simply further away, in time or space or both." (Ong 57) He notes that often, success in writing is due to the writer’s ability to fictionalize his/her audience. I thought Ong’s section on Hemmingway’s writing style was relevant by outlining methods of creating a close relationship between reader and writer.

I wonder how Ong might revise his statement “[w]ritten or printed narrative is not two-way, at least in the short run. Readers reactions are remote and initially conjectural [..]” (Ong 66), given the blogs and message boards of today. Comments tend to be almost instantaneous, and authors can immediately revise their writings.

“Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’”
Kenneth A. Bruffee

Bruffee discusses the effectiveness of using collaboration as a learning tool. He argues that it “engage[s] students more deeply with the text […]” (Bruffee 415). Bruffee discusses various methods of collaborative learning, and lists peer tutoring as one of the most effective methods.

One of the aspects of this article that I found applied to my current work at the writing center was the segment concerning mandated programs. Recently, the lab coordinator for the Biology 100 labs made it compulsory for all of the students in the labs to attend the writing center twice. Many of the students who are forced to attend have been unresponsive and rushed through the session. In addition to this (although it is unrelated to the topic at hand), we do not have the manpower to service all these students (over 250 students, attending twice, over the span of three weeks); many of them who are unable to make an appointment are bitter and facing a grade lowered by 30%.

Another area that Bruffee addresses is that of the academic communities. He maintains that collaborative learning teaches students the methods and practices they will need, should they enter academia, or a scientific community. I agree with this, as social discourse and appropriate interactions are a vital part of the community.



Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning
John Trimbur


Although I found this article somewhat verbose, it definitely does a great job summarizing both conflicting and agreeing schools of though in collaboration. Trimbur investigates two schools of thought regarding consensus in collaboration: those who argue it is dangerous (and fascist apparently?), and those who believe it produces and validates knowledge.

One aspect of Trimbur’s argument that I agree with is that of “organizing students non-hierarchally so that all discursive roles are available to all the participants in a group […]” (Trimbur 476). Although I have yet to teach a class, as a student I have often seen domineering personalities in group exercises take control, all the while insisting that only they have the correct answer or viewpoint.