Plagiarism Problems for Educators

When it is come to plagiarism, university writing educators are pessimistic about successfully eradicating this problem. It is difficult for them to find ways of promoting academic integrity so as to prevent university students from committing this academic fraud. Moreover, most of them just end up employing punitive enforcement or merely punishing students who plagiarize. Scott Jaschik, an editor of Inside Higher Ed, addresses this issue in "Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism". This article, published in Inside Higher Ed in 2009, primarily targets university writing educators. In this article, he specifically explains educators' unique approaches to solve plagiarism. He also reveals different causes that induce students to plagiarize. Moreover, through his explanation, he aims to convince the intended audience that plagiarism requires a unique approach that considers students' perspectives and focuses on curative and preventive aspects. In his article, "Winning Hearts and Minds in War on Plagiarism," Jaschik effectively employs university writing educators' opinions, students' perspectives, and an opened-ended conclusion to persuade university writing educators to find their unique ways in order to address plagiarism.

For most part of the article, Jaschik uses writing educators' opinions to promote concepts and ideas, and to refine the audience's mindset toward plagiarism. For instance, he quotes writing instructor Kate Hagopian, who says, "all plagiarism is not the same" (qtd. in Jaschik 264). This opinion appeals to university writing educators logically. Specifically, it encourages the audience to rethink plagiarism by showing that plagiarism has several types and not all of them can be justified as malicious academ...

... middle of paper ...

...ses university writing educators' opinions to promote concepts and ideas and to shape the audience's mindset toward plagiarism. Furthermore, he employs students' perspectives to widen the audience's viewpoints concerning the subject matter. These first two devices, instructors’ opinions and students’ perspectives, collaboratively ensure the audience to better understand the standard of how the plagiarism must be addressed. Moreover, the third device, the opened-ended conclusion, gives authority to the audience to include their own unique way to solve plagiarism. Jaschik effectively integrated these rhetorical devices, thus, successfully reaching his audience and achieving his purpose. Now, university writing educators are ready to formulate their unique ways to address plagiarism by considering students' perspectives and focusing on curative and preventive methods.