Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 1

Alyssa Millwood-Donahue and Liyah Lopez

Medina

CTW 1

21 September 2017

Plagiarism- A Learning Tool?

In the article, Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty, Rebecca

Moore Howard emphasizes the idea that universities must revise policies regarding plagiarism in

order to enhance the learning process for students. Howard believes that plagiarism is not a sole

set definition, but rather the idea that various types of plagiarism exist: such as cheating, non-

attribution, and patchwriting. The author suggests the concept that people gather ideas from other

sources they have read in the past, and no writing is unique, so where do universities draw the

line and call it plagiarism? Although some students plagiarize on purpose, the author believes

that others, in fact many others, plagiarize due to an ignorance of citation conventions (788).

This lack of knowledge most often applies to students who patchwrite, or rephrase the authors

words using very similar word choice and sentence structure. Yet, despite the intentions, the

majority of universities punish all plagiarism the same way: suspension or expulsion. Howard

stresses that ignorance can lead to drastic consequences and even an end to ones educational

experience.

Throughout the essay, Howard focuses on the idea that patchwriting is an aspect of

learning, where students are only rephrasing anothers work to gain a clear understanding of the

text. Through rephrasing, students can make sense of the text, yet most students stop there

instead of continuing to work with the text, putting it into their own unique words. Therefore,

universities must educate students on proper citations, whether this be explaining how to avoid
 Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 2

patchwriting all together, or by explaining how to cite other authors when using his/her language

and ideas. In this way, plagiarism could be beneficial, used as an educational tool by universities.

Howard furthers her claim of the benefits of plagiarism through the example of Martin

Luther King, Jr.s use of voice merging. Voice merging is defined as the African-American

folk preaching tradition of patching together unattributed words, phrases, and even extended

passages from theological sources (792). Voice merging is utilized by speakers in order to

connect to their audience and draw instances of recognition to connect the speaker and/or

authors message. In the case of King, Howard insists that through voice merging, King is not

plagiarizing to come by a cheap alternative to originality but rather utilizing it to convey relation

with his audience. Howard uses the example of King in order to convince the reader that even

some of the greatest speakers in history pull inspiration from other sources. Mentioning that we

carry the practices and conventions of one community into another, as King did by engaging in

African-American voice merging when composing his academic and political prose, notes that

in some cases, borrowing writing structure/ideas is necessary for the audience to understand the

message completely (793).

The idea of pulling ideas from other sources in order to create a stronger and more

persuasive piece allows Howard to introduce a broader topic as to whether any idea is solely

developed by an individual. Howard argues that in regards to writing, it ...might be more

accurate to think of creativity, of fresh combinations made from existing sources (798),

explaining that no ones ideas are solely their own but developments of other concepts. Howard

goes on to use a quote by Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede to further develop her claim, ...all

writing is in an important sense collaborative and that common knowledge varies from

community to community and is collaboratively shared (796). Although common knowledge is

 Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 3

not technically considered plagiarism, Howards usage of Lunsford and Edes quote furthers her

claim that no ones ideas are exclusively their own. Individual ideas are formed and influenced

by varying factors broadening the question as to whether there is such a thing as originality.

In explaining the benefits of plagiarism and considering its learning potential, Howard

makes an effort to differentiate the different forms of plagiarism. The differences in each form

allow Howard to explain when plagiarism is okay as well as the academic value of each. Howard

labels them in order from least to most academically beneficial: cheating, non-attributing, and

patchwriting. Howard goes on to indicate that the effectiveness of plagiarism as an educational

tool is reflected by the purity of intention. If a student uses plagiarism to get out of doing work,

they will not reap the benefits. However, if students are plagiarizing to better understand a topic

during a stage of incompetence, Howard claims they may develop a better comprehension in the

end (801).

Howard emphasizes that colleges must revise plagiarism policies and with current

punishment standards, students cannot learn from accidental plagiarism. Howard does not deny

the fact that students must be punished for purposely taking anothers work without proper

citations, which is most often the case with non-attribution and cheating. However, by punishing

students for patchwriting, universities are missing an opportunity to educate students and further

their education. Universities should be educating students on plagiarism conventions to help

students make maximum intellectual use [patchwriting] and then move beyond it (796).

Professors must show students that they must move past the step of paraphrasing in order to

avoid plagiarism consequences.

Howard concludes her essay by giving advice to college students. Addressing her

audience, Howard gives basic citation information to students, hoping this will lower the
 Millwood-Donahue, Lopez 4

likelihood of accidental plagiarism. Noting that over-citation is an error, but under-citation is

plagiarism, she suggests that students learn citation conventions, and if they are unsure, it is

always better to cite and avoid plagiarism (800). By including this section in her essay, Howard

shows her true focus: the education of students. The author desires success for all students, and if

universities will not alter their policies and focus on correcting citation errors, then at least

students can read her advice and begin learning correct citation conventions.

Overall, Howard displays through her essay, Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the

Academic Death Penalty, the significance of plagiarism as an educational tool, and she calls for

teachers, professors, and institutions to reevaluate their policies. Howard suggests that through

varying approaches, plagiarism can work in a students favor rather than a typically viewed

system of cheating. Plagiarism policies should focus on the academic growth of students instead

of condemning potentially positive resources.

Works Cited

Howard, Rebecca Moore. Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty. College

57.7. (1995)