Howard DN

-->

This seems in direct contrast to what Porter talks about with intertextuality theory. Are the ‘traces’ within a text technically appropriation of others’ work, even if you develop an original argument?	"…Pedagogy must inevitable fail in its attempt to impart “moral” principles of composing one’s own text instead of appropriating others’—which Kelly Ritter (2005) has called ‘whole text’ plagiarism" (219).
I think this is a good point. Students think if they follow the rules they ‘know’ about plagiarism, they’ll be okay. But there are so many unclear rules and versions of plagiarism (collusion, Porter) that it needs to be thought of as a learning process, not something that can just be easily avoided.	"Margaret Price argues that college plagiarism policies should “indicate to students that learning to avoid plagiarism is a process of learning conventions and customs, not an instantaneous event" (220).
Moving to identifying a problem. The goal of attaining cultural capital benefits instructors, not students	"College instructors tend to see academic writing as a means of attaining what Bourdieu calls embodied cultural capital: 'long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body'" (222).
Ultimately then this is self-serving rather than “altruistic.” Howard claims that instructors are not selflessly concerned about their students developing skills and knowledge.	"By urging on our students the importance of the “knowledge and skills” we offer to impart, we are inescapably urging that our students value us, too—that the desire to be like us…" (221).
Howard quotes Bruce Horner. I thought this quote was incredibly bleak, with the implication of the insecure instructor and his/her fragile ego, which leads them to distrust or suspect their students.	‘I am always nervous…on reading student writing that seems to me to be saying something important, or in which “something is happening.” I distrust my own sense of pleasure in reading it. I wonder if it has been plagiarized’ (221).
Shouldn’t all instructors be like this? Maybe it is easier for newer instructors (like me) who don’t have any experience or enough confidence to know that their lesson plans/goals work out for students. I am constantly adapting the way we discuss an article, look at sources, etc.	"Hillocks celebrates one instructor in his study who has a “positive attitude” toward students, evidenced in part by his willingness to critique and revise his assignments when his students don’t do well on it, rather than attributing the “failure” to the students" (225).
Different goals.	"And so the battle is joined. The contestants are instructors striving to legitimate embodied cultural capital, versus students striving to acquire institutionalized culture capital as efficiently as possible" (226).
Howard argues that most students’ papers are valueless because there is no effort put into them, no strive for authorship or voice or creativity.	"In this imaginary, writing a college paper is not an act of authorship; it is an act of qualifying oneself for grades that will achieve purposes entirely external to the writing of the paper" (228).
Does Howard think it is possible to instruct students without manipulating them? I agree, though, that there is a problem with such defensiveness against plagiarism rather than just positive encouragement in favor of writing.	"Yet I see in this process-as-prevention a mechanism, a ‘trick’ against plagiarists rather than for writing" (229).
A possible solution or change of focus offered by Howard: make assignments that introduce students to the stages of inquiry- asking the “right” questions within a discourse community (Porter) or navigating that “alien discourse” (Allen).	"…We parody the writing process just as surely as does StudentHacks.org when we create assignments intended to thwart plagiarism, instead of assignments designed to engage students in stages of inquiry that invite them into the intellectual life" (229).