by:
  Michael Donnelly,
  Rebecca Ingalls,
  Tracy Ann Morse,
  Joanna Castner, and
  Anne Meade
  Stockdell-Giesler

  Conclusion

During the authors' drafting and collaboration processes for this article, we discovered numerous questions and reservations about software applications such as Turnitin's which covered a broad range of issues-pedagogical, philosophical, ethical/legal, and practical. We determined that there are uses for this kind of software, and that there are inherent messages implied by the use of such applications. We always came back to the Rowling quote from Harry Potter that serves to introduce this article, that a primary reservation about Turnitin or related technological application is its standalone us. That is, we fear that thoughtless institution of any technology for the sake of its newness, glitz, or time-saving qualities would be problematic at best.

We found that an about the Amish and their thoughtful integration of technology into their communities really spoke to our discussion. The Amish, a community probably most known for shunning modern conveniences, has a complex, thoughtful process for deciding if and when to incorporate modern conveniences into their lifestyles (Rheingold 1999).

In his article "Look Who's Talking," Howard Rheingold discusses how the Amish model could serve as an important lesson-and example-for the wider technology-loving American culture:

New things are not outright forbidden, nor is there a rush to judgment. . . . 'Does it bring us together, or draw us apart?' is the question bishops ask in considering whether to permit or put away a technology." Using this careful consideration, the Amish have rejected individual electricity and cars, but have embraced disposable diapers and cell phones (Rheingold 1999).

Rheingold cites an Amish man he interviewed, who points out that the community is:

not worried about becoming people without religion or people who use lots of technology . . . rather, the Amish fear assimilating the far more dangerous ideas that "progress" and new technologies are usually beneficial, that individuality is a precious value, that the goal of life is to "get ahead. This mind-set, not specific technologies, is what the Amish most object to.

This position has relevance to our discussion here. As Rheingold asks, "If we decided that community came first, how would we use our tools differently?" This is a critical question for all university administrators and faculty. What is most important, after all? Catching plagiarists and punishing them? Teaching the philosophical arguments against plagiarism, or, more fundamental, what plagiarism is and what its consequences are (both punitive and intellectual)?

We should reexamine our own academic definitions and boundaries of plagiarism, and of the academic community itself. We should ask ourselves, once again, what our primary goals are as educators, as philosophers, and as keepers of intellectual standards and ideals. And then we should ask whether we are adequately sharing those goals with our students, and what we should do when those goals so clearly clash with the messages sent by the society outside the walls of our own ivory towers.

• Introduction: A Writing Program Director's Dilemma
• Flying, Finally
• The Role of the WPA
• The Problems with PDS
• May the Conversation Continue...
• Dissimulation in the Writing Classroom
• The Devaluing of Growth?
• A Lack of Ethics
• An Ethos of Academic Integrity
• Students Consenting to Turnitin.com: What Are We Asking When We Ask Them to Sign Away Their Work?
• The Concept of Intellectual Property
• Roots of Consent
• Why "Consent" May Not Be Sufficient
• Turnitin.com: A Teaching Tool
• Responsibility for Writing
• A Focus on Revision
• Turnitin: Oversimplified Answer to a Complex Problem
• Skill and Creativity
• Self-Fulfilling Prophesies
• A Stimulus to Creativity
• Engagement and Success
• Conclusion
• References
• print version