Howard et al Dialectical Journal

1)      “Whereas many institutions’ academic integrity policies classify patchwriting as a form of plagiarism—a moral failure—recent research indicates that it occurs as an intermediate stage between copying and summarizing: inexpert critical readers patchwrite when they attempt to paraphrase or summarize” (179).

Howard sheds new light on “patchwriting”—something that many simply write off as plagarism. She says that students actually use it as a citation tool when they are not familiar enough with the text to summarize it. It lies on a continuum of understanding, somewhere above copying and below summarizing.

2)      “We began our work with the belief that large-scale, quantified data collected in naturalistic rather than controlled environments is needed to answer questions about students’ use of their cited sources” (180).

Like Berkenkotter, Howard prefers a naturalistic setting when conducting her study. This makes sense because in an artificial setting a student might not be prompted to patchwrite—the stakes could be too low (no grade involved).

3)      “This is our primary concern throughout our analysis of these 18 papers: they cite sentences rather than sources, and one must then ask not only whether the students understood the source itself but also whether they even read it” (186).

The problem with sentence level use of sources is that it is like the “hunting” form of research that Kleine talks about. However, unlike Kleine, Howard thinks this form of research is more of a bad thing, because it can indicate misunderstanding of a text.

4)      “But the absence of summary, coupled with the exclusive engagement of the text on the sentence level, means that readers have no assurance that students did read and understand” (186).

Summary is the ideal use for sources; complete understanding of a source is needed in order for a student to use it. The lack of summary in all 18 papers that Howard studied helped further prove that these students did not really understand their sources.

5)      “And it leaves the writer in a position of peril: working exclusively on the sentence level, he or she is perforce always in danger of plagiarizing” (187).

In other words, patchwriting leads to plagiarism. Students only engage the text at the sentence level and so cannot truly put the source into their own words; they don’t even know what all the words of the text mean.

6)      “White…concludes that, in general, it is only advanced writers who write from sources without using any language from the source” (187).

Howard says that summary requires a completer understanding of the source, and is therefore more desirable in student writing.

7)      “…patchwriting should be considered a transitional stage in writing from sources…” (187).

Howard isn’t ready to condemn patchwriting as simple plagiarism. She sees it rather as a step in the right direction, toward summary and true understanding of a source.

8)      “These were papers being written in a general composition class, not in discipline-specific instruction, which means the student writers did not necessarily have any prior expertise in the topics they chose to research. Nor, in the traditions of most composition instruction, does the instructor necessarily have any expertise in the topics the students are researching” (188).

Howard explains some of the factors that can lead to patchwriting. If a student is unfamiliar with a topic, she is more likely to patchwrite. This is true even of members of the academy. The type of composition course Howard talks about is slightly different than the WAW course. While students are not experts in the topic of writing at the beginning, the hope is that they will be by the end. And, the teacher at least should have some expertise on the topic of writing.