The topic of plagiarism becomes one of the most critical issues in writing. In the context of the modern technology-driven world, the concept of plagiarism acquires new perceptions and definitions. In their articles, Neims (2015) and Goldsmith (2011) consider plagiarism in writing as the idea of repurposing and learning opportunity. Even though the mentioned authors focus on plagiarism from different perspectives, their views are similar in emphasizing the necessity to plagiarize, using it as the opportunity to express one’s personality, and understanding its inevitability in writing.
The students should be encouraged to use plagiarism in their academic writing as it stimulates learning on trial-and-error and revisions. Neims (2015) states that as a teacher, he used to punish students for plagiarism that irritated him a lot, yet the understanding of its importance came later. The mentioned author declares that it is necessary to provoke plagiarism to explain to students how their work may be improved. In other words, Neims (2015) suggests that it should be considered not as a deed but a mistake that is prone to adjustments.
Consistent with the above author, Goldsmith (2011) makes an attempt to promote the idea of uncreative writing that refers to being non-original. The essence of this approach is engaging students in considering the existing texts and improving them, for example, Wikipedia articles. As noted by Goldsmith (2011), the results of such a method are convincing since the classroom environment becomes more democratic and involved. This can be explained by the fact that even though students do not produce something new, they still seem to be creative as the reconsideration of the available literature also requires its synthesis.
The digital world presents too many texts, and a person can express himself or herself by adapting them as opposed to adopting them. This statement is also may be traced in the works of both authors, who discuss the notion of a student’s personality and expression of self. It should be stressed that Neims (2015) assumes that student plagiarism may be a sign of their development as writers. For example, when a novice writer tries to create something compelling, he or she is likely to copy someone’s words and expressions to make the writing look more intersecting. While teaching students how to write their thoughts, the educators should be sensitive to such issue as patchwriting, defined by Neims (2015) as “weaving the language of one or more source texts into one’s own text without adequately citing the source(s)” (para. 18). In his turn, Goldsmith (2011) also pinpoints patchwriting as a conceptualization machine that students use to synthesize the literature and integrate it into the context of writing.
One should stress that the ideas provided by both authors are innovative to writing as they reconstruct the very understanding of plagiarism. For example, Goldsmith (2011) notes that many teachers and educators encourage their students to avoid plagiarism in any case, even though it cannot be completely eliminated. In this regard, the author argues that a brilliant work may be prepared by a student who used patchwriting in his or her essay (as cited in Fink, 2015). Furthermore, it is critical to revise the papers and work on mistakes, thus creating academic essays with proper citations from the scholarly literature. At the same time, the views of Neims (2015) seem to be corresponding to those presented earlier in this paragraph.
In terms of the contemporary environment that presents a vast majority of texts of any kind, it is impossible to avoid plagiarism in writing. There are several reasons for such a situation, each of which depends on certain conditions. For instance, Neims (2015) identifies difficulties encountered by students, including unintentional, intentional, and institutionalized plagiarism as well as poor time management. According to the views of this author, students may lack a clear understanding of what plagiarism is, or they can allegedly use it to resolve their problems such as difficulty with finding a balance between learning and personal ethics, a lack of self-motivation, et cetera.
In his turn, Goldsmith (2011) also provides some convincing arguments to the inability to avoid plagiarism, focusing on the different aspects of the problem. Namely, the author states that there are already too many texts, and some students may not be willing to add something new. Instead, they would like to concentrate on the improvement of existing texts, thus developing their cognitive and writing skills. Indeed, it seems that such an approach is also effective to equip students with relevant learning tools and guide them on their journey to successful writing.
In conclusion, it seems essential to emphasize that the reviewed articles focus on plagiarism from an unusual point as they provide convincing arguments in favor of using it in practice. Neither Neims (2015) nor Goldsmith (2011) denies the fact that plagiarism levels should be reduced in academia. However, they offer a new mindset that seems to be rather effective in making sure that students understand the concept of plagiarism and have tools to produce academic writing papers. Even though the mentioned authors use different arguments, they agree on the following points: plagiarism provides learning opportunities, it helps to express student personality, and it is inevitable.
References
Fink, T. (2015). Reconfiguring the representation of plagiarism and misuse of sources. Journal of Teaching Writing, 30(1), 1-24.
Goldsmith, K. (2011). It’s not plagiarism. In the digital age, it’s ‘repurposing.’ In Uncreative writing: Managing language in the digital age. Web.
Neims, G. (2015). Why plagiarism doesn’t bother me at all: A research-based overview of plagiarism as educational opportunity. Web.