Responding to Plagiarism: The Role of the WPA

Abstract

WPAs don't like to talkabout plagiarism. There is little serious study of the subject in our professional literature; the few who have written about plagiarism either bemoan its persistence (see, for example, Brown, Kolich, McCormick) or discuss how individual teachers respond--or should respond--to it (see, for example, Drum, Brooks, Murphy). This distaste for the subject is not surprising. The job of writing program administrator is usually conceived of by the WPA as an extension of process-oriented writing pedagogy--i.e., student-centered and supportive; such a conception sometimes makes it difficult to admit that there are always a few students who need reprimands, not support. Moreover, as Kolich has observed, most of us would like to believe that when students are fully engaged in writing as an intellectual process, they will not feel the need to cheat (141). But inspiteofourreluctance to talkaboutthe subject, it remains an issue; sooner or later, those of us who step into administrative roles find ourselves trying to calm an incensed teacher who is certain that a student who has shown dramatic improvement in his writing has done so by plagiarizing. Furthermore, how the WPA should proceed in such cases is not always clear, because it is not always clear (to teachers or to students) exactly what is meant by the term plagiarism. I would like to look at two definitions of that term, definitions that suggest two different roles for the WPA: that of disciplinarian/guardian of program integrity, and that of facilitator of communication between student and teacher.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.