Essay-Trouble identifying-prioritizing and executing appropriate-Initial Draft:
Scott Jaschik discusses various situations of plagiarism in college in his article, “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism,” in order to argue that there are more efficient solutions to prevent plagiarism. Having his article published in an online news source, Inside Higher Ed, allows for Jaschik to have an audience of first year English and college instructors interested in learning about higher education. Jaschik writes in general to an audience who is interested in academic integrity and those who want to either stop or learn more about plagiarism. Jaschik employs various situations such as an online student discussion board and an assignment to purposely plagiarize in order to highlight common issues with why students plagiarize. Jaschik wants his audience to see that there are more efficient ways of preventing plagiarism, such as being more open-minded, rather than just punishing students. Jaschik uses illustrations, formal diction, and expert testimonies to effectively argue that teaching students about plagiarism is more effective than just punishing them.
Throughout the article, Jaschik employs illustrations in order to support his purpose of informing the audience of a better solution to prevent plagiarism. He describes the situation in which a first year writing instructor assigns her students an assignment to purposely plagiarize (Jaschik 262) By using this example, Jaschik strengthens his argument, allowing the instructors to really understand and grasp a better idea of the unintentional struggles of plagiarizing by students. This situation appeals to the instructors because it shows them that sometimes students plagiarize unknowingly rather than just being lazy. Jaschik also describes an online student discussion board where students discussed how they felt about plagiarizing (Jaschik 263). This example also strengthens Jaschik’s argument in that it appeals to the first year writing instructors by giving insight on various students’ opinions on plagiarizing This is appealing to the instructors because it allows them to learn why students plagiarize, such as being overloaded and not having enough time. By receiving insight on student perspectives and why they plagiarize, first year writing instructors can then see why being open minded to plagiarism could be more effective than just punishing them.
Jaschik’s use of many illustrations of plagiarism in college is persuasive to his intended audience of first year writing instructors, because it allows for them to understand the students’ perspective and also how being more open-minded is more efficient. Having many examples makes his point clear to the audience while also supporting his reasoning by giving example after example. Jaschik also incorporates formal diction in the article in order to effectively establish his credibility to his audience, which mainly consists of educators. Since his audience consists of other professors and writing instructors, using a more formal language gives him credibility to a higher educated audience. Jaschik writes, “several people quipped” (262), which is persuasive to the audience because it is an example of how Jaschik uses more intellectual words in order to appeal to his audience of first year writing instructors. Jaschik chooses to use the word, “quipped,” instead of a more familiar word like “joke.” By having a more intellectual word choice, it establishes credibility by showing he is educated to other professors. Jaschik also says, “nuanced tricky demonstrations” (262), which appeals to his higher educated audience with the specific word choice of “nuanced.” It is persuasive because the average person would not use the word, “nuanced,” so this word choice was intended for Jaschik’s first year writing instructors . First year writing instructors have a more sophisticated word choice than students, so the formal diction is appealing to the instructors. Coming from an outside perspective as a journalist, Jaschik must also use formal diction in order to establish himself as an authoritative expert to the writing instructors and educators. By using a higher intelligence word choice, it establishes to his audience that he is educated, which allows them to believe that he is educated enough to know what he is talking about. Before Jaschik can persuade his audience of more efficient solutions of preventing plagiarism, he must first convince them that his reasoning is reliable with the use of expert testimonies that specialize in studies of plagiarism. Jaschik uses expert testimonies in which he quotes other professors, such as “an editor of one of the new books on plagiarism” (264), in order to strengthen his argument. By having one of his sources be an editor of a book about plagiarism, it helps support Jaschik’s argument by making him more credible because he uses a source that specializes in the area of his argument. He states his sources credentials such as, “an instructor in the first-year writing program at North Carolina State University” (264), in order to appeal to the first year writing instructors by giving them a source they can relate to. Having a source who is also a first year writing instructor is effective because it helps connect Jaschik’s intended audience to his argument by giving them a source who they can directly relate to. Since Jaschik’s audience contains other professors and educators, using sources that specialize in plagiarism is extremely effective in strengthening his reasoning. All of Jaschik’s sources are either educators or professors who have an experience or situation with plagiarism But that doesn’t necessarily make them experts on plagiarism.. Since Jaschik has an outside perspective as a journalist, having expert testimonies who specialize in the studies of plagiarism establishes his argument to be more credible in that he has sources who have experience that he lacks with plagiarismYou have already established that he is a credible source.. By having expert sources that all are educators or professors, it strengthens Jaschik’s purpose of trying to persuade first year writing instructors to be more open-minded by giving them sources that are relatable and who also have experience dealing with the struggles of plagiarism. Plagiarism is an ongoing issue for writing instructors and educators as they try to figure out how to deal with it. Jaschik addressed this problem and offered the solution of instructors being more open minded to plagiarism in his article, “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism”. Jaschik uses many rhetorical choices, such as illustrations, formal diction, and expert testimonies in order to argue that, “we also need to make decisions on more than just legalistic approaches”(265), while also trying to teach students more about plagiarism. Jaschik successfully persuades his intended audience of first year writing instructors of why just punishing student’s for plagiarizing is not as effective as being more open-minded and teaching students more about plagiarism.
Works Cited Jaschik, Scott. “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism.” Inside Higher Ed. 2008: Rpt. in First Year Writing. Seventh Custom Edition. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. 261- 266. Print.
Later Draft:
Scott Jaschik discusses various situations of plagiarism in college in his article, “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism,” in order to argue that there are more efficient solutions to prevent plagiarism. Jaschik published this article in Inside Higher Ed, which is an online news source, that he cofounded, targeting first year English and college writing instructors. In the article, he explores different ways of preventing plagiarism and emphasizes the importance of academic integrity. By drawing on different instructor perspectives, he employs various situations such as an online student discussion board and an assignment to purposely plagiarize in order to highlight common issues with why students plagiarize. Jaschik wants his audience to see that there are more efficient ways of preventing plagiarism, such as being more open-minded, rather than just punishing students. Jaschik uses illustrations, formal diction, and expert testimonies to effectively argue to first year writing instructors that teaching students about plagiarism is more effective than just punishing them.
Throughout the article, Jaschik employs illustrations in order to support his purpose of informing the audience of a better solution to prevent plagiarism by showing different examples of how some writing instructors are dealing with plagiarism. He describes the situation in which a first year writing instructor assigns her students an assignment to purposely plagiarize. Jaschik describes how, “Hagopian said that the assignment is always greeted with ‘uncomfortable laughter’ as the students must pretend that they never would have thought of plagiarizing on their own” (262). By using this example, Jaschik strengthens his argument, allowing the instructors to really understand and grasp a better idea of the unintentional struggles of plagiarizing by students. This situation appeals to the instructors because it shows them that sometimes students plagiarize unknowingly rather than just being lazy. With this illustration, it supports Jaschik’s purpose by showing that in this particular situation it was more effective to teach the students more about plagiarism rather than just punishing them. Although there still was some unintentional plagiarizing, the open-minded conversation between Hagopian and her students was more beneficial and effective for the students because it taught them the, “difference between deliberate fraud and failed apprenticeship” (Jaschik 262). This example strengthens Jaschik’s idea by specifically illustrating how first year writing instructors being more open minded towards plagiarism can be more beneficial for the students. Jaschik also describes another example with Roy Stamper, an associate writing director, who followed an online student discussion board where students discussed how they felt about plagiarizing which led Stamper to discover that “there was also a strong, intense reaction from other students – much of it critical” (263). Jaschik uses this to illustrate how “his lurking online raised many questions” and whether, “an intense workload puts an emphasis for students on efficiency as opposed to quality” (263-4). This example also strengthens Jaschik’s argument in that it appeals to the first year writing instructors by giving insight on various students’ opinions on plagiarizing. This is effective to the instructors because it allows them to learn some reasons why students plagiarize, such as being overloaded and not having enough time. Even Stamper himself asks, “Should writing instructors be looking to peer teaching – and specifically peer pressure – as a new tool to promote integrity” to suggest that perhaps more teaching would be beneficial to the students in trying to reduce the urge to plagiarize (264). By receiving insight on student perspectives and why they plagiarize, first year writing instructors can then see why being open minded to plagiarism could be more effective than just punishing them. Having many examples makes Jaschik’s point clear to the audience while also supporting his reasoning by giving example after example.
Jaschik’s use of many illustrations of plagiarism in college is persuasive to his intended audience of first year writing instructors, because it allows for them to understand the students’ perspective and also how being more open-minded can be more efficient at times. Jaschik also incorporates formal diction in the article in order to effectively establish his credibility to his audience, which mainly consist of educators. Sometimes writers write in different styles in order to appeal to different audiences, which is what Jaschik is doing by writing with a more formal diction for his targeted audience of first year writing instructors. Jaschik writes, “several people quipped”, which is persuasive to the audience because it is an example of how Jaschik uses more intellectual words in order to appeal to his audience of first year writing instructors (262). Jaschik chooses to use the word, “quipped,” instead of a more familiar word like “joke.” By having a more intellectual word choice, it establishes credibility by showing he is educated to other professors. Jaschik also says, “nuanced tricky demonstrations”, which appeals to his higher educated audience with the specific word choice of “nuanced” (262). It is persuasive because the average person would not use the word, “nuanced,” so this word choice was intended for Jaschik’s first year writing instructors. Formal diction is persuasive for Jaschik’s purpose of trying to persuade first year writing instructors, because it helps connect to the audience by writing with a similar kind of diction first year writing instructors would use. Journalists tend to write with a less formal diction because their intended audience tends to be a larger general audience, who may not consist of all higher educated people. So by choosing to have formal diction, it shows that Jaschik has a more specific higher educated intended audience. Coming from an outside perspective as a journalist, Jaschik must also use formal diction in order to establish himself as an authoritative expert to the writing instructors and educators. Jaschik employs formal diction in order to establish his credibility and a higher standard of professionalism, while also relating to his intended audience more efficiently by writing like first year writing instructors would write.
Before Jaschik can persuade his audience of more efficient solutions to prevent plagiarism, he must first convince them that his reasoning is reliable with the use of expert testimonies that specialize in studies of plagiarism. Jaschik uses expert testimonies in which he quotes other professors, such as “an editor of one of the new books on plagiarism”, in order to strengthen his argument (264). By having one of his sources be an editor of a book about plagiarism, it helps Jaschik’s argument become more credible because he uses a source that has a great deal of knowledge and experience in the area of his argument. He states his testimonies credentials such as, “an instructor in the first-year writing program at North Carolina State University”, in order to appeal to the first year writing instructors by giving them someone they can relate to (264). Having a source who is also a first year writing instructor is effective because it helps connect Jaschik’s intended audience to his argument by giving them someone who they can directly relate to. Reliability is persuasive for Jaschik’s purpose because it connects the audience better to Jaschik’s ideas by giving them relatable situations which allows for them to have a clearer connection and understanding of what Jaschik is trying to get across to them. All of Jaschik’s sources are either educators or professors who have an experience or situation with plagiarism. Since Jaschik has an outside perspective as a journalist, having expert testimonies who specialize in the studies of plagiarism establishes his argument to be more credible in that he has sources who have experience that he lacks with plagiarism. Another reason why Jaschik employs others’ testimonies is due to the fact that he has an outside perspective and cannot be too blunt in trying to tell first year writing instructors that what they are doing is not effective. If Jaschik wants to successfully persuade his intended audience of more efficient solutions to prevent plagiarism, he must do so by not openly stating his opinions but rather using other source’s opinions who happen to all deal with his argument’s area of interest. By having expert sources that all are writing directors or professors, it supports Jaschik’s purpose of trying to persuade first year instructors to be more open-minded by strengthening his appeal to ethos while also giving them sources who also have experience dealing with the struggles of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is an ongoing issue for writing instructors and educators as they try to figure out how to deal with it. Jaschik addresses this problem and offers the solution of instructors being more open minded to plagiarism in his article, “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism”. Jaschik uses many rhetorical choices, such as illustrations, formal diction, and expert testimonies in order to argue that writing instructors should, “make decisions on more than just legalistic approaches”, while also trying to teach students more about plagiarism (265). Although there is no guaranteed solution of preventing plagiarism, Jaschik shows the pitfalls as well as what writing instructors should not do with the many examples of attempts to prevent plagiarism by other college educators. Jaschik successfully persuades his intended audience of first year writing instructors why merely punishing students for plagiarizing is not as effective as being more open-minded and teaching students more about plagiarism. .
Jaschik, Scott. “Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism.” Inside Higher Ed. 2008: Rpt. in First Year Writing. Seventh Custom Edition. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. 261-266. Print.
Objective: To develop the ability to determine what revisions should be made to an early draft of a document.
Purpose: Most inexperienced writers have trouble identifying, prioritizing, and executing appropriate large scale revisions to a draft. In this assignment, you’ll read both an initial draft and a subsequently revised version of this draft, evaluate the changes made, and make suggestions as to what else might be revised.
For this assignment:
2) Whether the revisions fixed other issues that you hadn’t noticed in the draft
3) Why the revisions are or are not an improvement over the first draft
Should be between 500-650 words total.
