Rebeccadriscoll.weebly.com



Rebecca Driscoll2/12/12LIS 656: Academic Trends PaperNegative Effects of Technology BoomIt is impossible to ignore the impact that technology has had on universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education has published many articles documenting the positive effects that technology is having on faculty, staff, and students. Mobile apps keep students connected in classes and with the campus library, students and professors can interact online, online databases allow for easy access to journal articles, and publishers are producing e-textbooks. While the positive effects of technology are undeniable, several recent articles in The Chronicle demonstrate that not all of technology’s impacts are good for universities. Copyright laws are blatantly ignored by many Internet users. Plagiarism is easier to detect thanks to sites like “Turnitin,” but taking credit for others’ work is also easier to do now that more resources are readily accessible online. Surprisingly, several recent articles point to administrators, publishers, and even professors not showing much concern for students who plagiarize; one professor even encourages it. These are a few of the problems that have arisen thanks to the increase of technology in our lives, and they should concern everyone involved in higher education.Copyright laws have been a constant issues between Internet users and copyright owners. The battle generally seems to be waged over media, but of more concern to universities is the copyright infringement of textbooks. Most recently, a website called LibraryPirate has appeared, “call[ing] on students to make digital scans of their printed textbooks and post[ing] them to the site for free distribution online.” The creator of LibraryPirate apparently has a greater purpose for this illegal website than simply giving students free access to e-textbooks. He believes “that a groundswell of textbook piracy would force publishers to bring down the prices of e-textbooks.” Certainly, textbooks can be expensive, particularly considering the current condition of the economy. LibraryPirate’s founder hopes that his site will “bring about permanent changes to the textbook industry.” However, Edward McCoyd, the Association of American Publisher’s digital policy director, argues that LibraryPirate “exaggerated the cost of electronic textbooks,” which means that publishers will not respond to the influx of free pirated materials. The fact that LibraryPirate exists at all and is encouraging students to involve themselves in the illegal copying of textbooks is cause for concern, no matter how seemingly good the site’s mission is.Closely related to copyright laws is the issue of plagiarism. The wealth of resources readily available through the Internet has made it easier for students to copy/paste information into their own works without properly citing where the information came from. This may be due to laziness, lack of information concerning proper citation rules, stress, or indifference towards giving credit where credit is due. While students may show apathy towards plagiarism, one would expect professors, administrators, and publishers to view the issue seriously. Two articles in The Chronicle seem to indicate otherwise. One professor, Dmitry Khanin, writes about a recent experience that he had with a student who had turned in a paper, 70 percent of which “consisted of whole pages borrowed from sources available on the Internet.” The dean and associate dean were “reluctant” to let Khanin confront the student. Even after the student confessed to plagiarizing his paper, there were no repercussions. Indeed, the administrators even forwarded the college faculty an article published in The Chronicle that essentially argued “that one should not stress out about plagiarism.” Khanin’s disgust with this response is evident, but there is not much he can do when the administrators are so bent on maintaining this “Don’t worry, be happy” attitude towards plagiarism. It is disturbing to think that administrators are more concerned with being non-confrontational towards students than upholding their honor codes.Another professor found that some publishers have the same attitude as these administrators. Upon learning that a paper he had written “had been plagiarized, by his count, 21 times,” Lior Shamir wrote to the journals who had published the offending papers, “expect[ing] that the papers... would be retracted.” Instead, “he received only a couple of replies.” Of those replies, very few were in Shamir’s favor. Several publishers wrote it off as mere accident, or denied that the plagiarism was that serious. Another editor responded that “‘The paper has been already published, and I cannot cancel it.” This response only came after The Chronicle itself contacted the editor. Shamir’s encounter with plagiarism indicates that it is not just students who are plagiarizing; researchers are neglecting to credit the work of fellow researchers. Shamir states that “‘the sharing of results and ideas is protected by strict and well-defined ethics guidelines,’” but it seems that not everyone in academia agrees.Perhaps most disturbing is an article written by Kenneth Goldsmith, a writing professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Goldsmith teaches a class called “Uncreative Writing,” in which students “are rewarded for plagiarism, identify theft, repurposing papers, patchwriting, sampling, plundering, and stealing.” He defends his class by arguing that there has already been so much written that “our problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists.” To him, that means “copy/pasting” other people’s words and ideas into “new,” but completely unoriginal, works. Goldsmith believes that this is the way that writing is headed. Technology makes it so easy for us to take words from others, and rather than upholding what he sees as outdated copyright laws that have no place in this new age of technology, we should embrace this form of “writing.” Negative responses to Goldsmith’s argument were published in a later issue of The Chronicle, which indicates that many people still support academic integrity and creativity. However, it will be interesting to see if this continues to be the case as time goes on, or if Goldsmith’s argument that “copy/pasting” other works together to create something “new” really is the future of writing.The Internet and technology are rapidly increasing. For the most part, universities and publishers seem to be adapting well, providing mobile apps and e-books for students and faculty. At the same time, many problems have arisen. Plagiarism and illegal downloading have become huge problems, and have even found supporters among faculty members. At the very least, many seem to have taken on an attitude of indifference towards this rise in illegal activities and have avoided addressing them. These articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education demonstrate that our interaction with technology does not come without a price. It will be interesting to see how the problems of plagiarism and the issues of e-books will resolve themselves, and whether or not administrators and faculty will continue viewing plagiarism with little to no concern.BibliographyBarlett, Tom. “Journal Editors’ Reactions to Word of Plagiarism? Largely Silence.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 58, is. 14 (11/25/2011), A12.Goldsmith, Kenneth. “Uncreative Writing.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 58, is. 4 (9/15/2011), B11-14.Khanin, Dmitry. “Plagiarism? Don’t Worry. Be happy.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 58, is. 6 (9/30/2011), A30.Young, Jeffery R.. “New Web Site Unabashedly Trades Free Digital Copies of Pirated Textbooks.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 58, is. 2 (9/2/2011), A17.Zangrando, Robert L.. “Steal These Words.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 58, is. 11 (11/4/2011), B18-B19. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download