Instruction has been shown to help L2 writers move from unconventional writing from sources characteristic of excessive copying or near copying to conventional source use. For example, Wette (2008) found that following a 7-hour-long pedagogical intervention, L2 writers improved their knowledge of rules and general ability to use sources in their writing and decreased the amount of direct copying. Similarly, Hsu (2003) found significant improvement in source use between graduate-level essays composed at the beginning and end of the course. Specifically, she reported gains in L2 writers’ inclusion of more sources and reduced amounts of copying and the number of undocumented sources. In addition, Hsu found that L2 writers demonstrated an increased understanding of concepts related to plagiarism and were even able to recommend strategies for avoiding plagiarism in the end-of-the semester interviews. Finally, in a study on Japanese L2 writers learning to write in an EFL academic context, Yamada (2002) examined the effects of teaching about inferential processes on source use in a summary writing task. She reported that L2 writers whose summaries suggested evidence of inferential thinking were able to reorganize the information from the original sources, thus avoiding too close of a dependence on the wording of the original texts.

Qualitatively oriented research appears to problematize what L2 writers gain from the instruction on avoiding plagiarism. For example, Ouellette (2004) found that while the instructor was trying to convey the message that source-responsible writing allows authors to claim membership in a broader academic community, L2 writers appeared to be more preoccupied with viewing textual borrowing strategies as a set of concrete rules, the mastery of which leads to tangible outcomes such as good grades. In Tomaš’ (2011) study, the instructor and students disagreed on the use of examples, importance of formative feedback, and the type of practice and the genres upon which the practice was based.

Though the above studies provide important initial insights, we need to know more about the characteristics of instruction on avoiding plagiarism. In this study, we set out to examine what instructors report doing when they teach about writing from sources and avoiding plagiarism, and then we observed various practices in actual classrooms. In the following sections, we describe the methodology and the findings and share a few activities that may be helpful for L2 writers learning to avoid plagiarism and improve their writing from sources. A discussion of pedagogical implications concludes the article.

METHODOLOGY

Our initial data came from a survey questionnaire that was part of a larger study published by Tomaš (2010). One hundred fourteen writing instructors at American universities, colleges, and English language institutes shared how they teach L2 users about writing from sources and avoiding plagiarism.

After analyzing the survey responses, we collected additional qualitative data from seven instructors from two large universities (one Western and one Midwestern). We observed these teachers as they taught, analyzed their pedagogical materials, and interviewed them about their instruction. The observations ranged from two classes to a full semester. We are currently finalizing the interviews with the last three participants.

RESULTS

After examining the survey responses and identifying the general trends in the instruction of the observed teachers, we found that instructors appear to mirror how textbooks (Barks &Watts, 2001) and university Web sites (Yamada, 2002) have been shown to address plagiarism: They provide L2 writers with a relatively context-free definition of plagiarism and discuss its dire consequences. Then they present a triadic model for avoiding plagiarism by paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting. Practice exercises usually entail paraphrasing and summarizing of individual sentences.

If we consider this finding in connection with the variety of factors that likely play a role in the development of source use (e.g., sociocultural background, use of strategies, availability of contextualized practice, understanding of purpose of citation), it appears that several factors may necessitate further instruction. Specifically, it is unclear to what extent the discussion of university and course policies and negative consequences of plagiarism involves a cultural exploration of the concept of plagiarism and of text as individual property. Furthermore, the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies that may facilitate or hinder source use may currently be unexamined by most instructors. Although we have witnessed a few instances of contextualized and integrated practice, the reliance on rephrasing at the individual-sentence level appears to be a common practice. Finally, the understanding of the purpose of citation and writers’ personal beliefs, motivations, and attitudes toward citation also tend to be neglected.

Although the general trends uncovered in the survey and during the observation of instruction may depict teachers as being unaware of the nuances inherent in effective writing from sources, it must be noted that some of the survey and observation-based data reveal teachers’ understanding that a multidimensional approach to teaching this complex reading-writing process is necessary. Going beyond the define/warn/paraphrase-a-sentence approach, 16 instructors claimed that writing in stages and requiring multiple drafts was beneficial in helping the writers avoid plagiarism. In addition, several instructors suggested creating assignments and projects that are hard to plagiarize or to which students can relate. Also, some of the observed instructors took special care to discuss the specific textual borrowing strategies (e.g., paraphrasing) in the context of a longer discourse and discussed at least some of the functions of source use (e.g., using sources to be credible).

PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITIES

In order to complement current pedagogical practices, in this section we describe three example activities that target dimensions of writing from sources that do not appear to be frequently addressed in the instruction. Please note that additional activities are included in Tomaš and Okello (2012).

Mission ‘A’ Assignment

The focus of this activity is on the development of an important metacognitive strategy related to task and time management—a key in extensive academic assignments such as research papers. In this activity, the students complete a worksheet that helps them identify tasks they need to complete in order to finish their paper on time. They also have to choose a deadline for each task and identify resources (e.g., The Writing Center) they can draw upon to help them complete the task.

Who is right?

This activity enables students to understand how paraphrasing is used to achieve a specific rhetorical purpose by giving them two articles from different points of view (e.g., from the left and right political ends of the spectrum) that are based on the same original source (e.g., a national survey). The students then have to analyze how the information has been changed in each article in order to support the author’s viewpoint.

To cite or not to cite?

This activity helps L2 writers examine their own beliefs and motivations for citation. Students do so by using a chart to examine each sentence in their paper, record whether or not the sentence is attributed to an outside source (and cited), and provide their personal reason for citing or not citing. This activity can encourage students to use sources appropriately and help avoid plagiarism.

CONCLUSION

We hope that the proposed activities may inspire L2 writing instructors to develop ways of expanding the traditional approach to teaching writing from sources. In order to produce effective source-based assignments, L2 writers must engage in extensive, meaningful, and multidimensional practice in writing from sources.

Future research ought to continue to examine the nature and effectiveness of instruction on writing from sources. While existing studies provide us with important initial insights about how L2 writers improve their understanding of plagiarism and writing from sources, we know relatively little about what exact pedagogical practices may be the most effective. It is key that those interested in measuring progress in L2 writers’ use of sources capture the nature of pedagogy that likely contributes to the progress rather than vaguely outlining the activities in which students are engaged. Such studies have the potential to provide a comprehensive picture of how writing instructors can best teach students to use sources effectively.

REFERENCES

Barks, D., & Watts, P. (2001). Textual borrowing strategies for graduate-level ESL writers. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 246-267). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Hsu, A. Y. (2003). Patterns of plagiarism behavior in the ESL classroom and the effectiveness of instruction in appropriate use of sources (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Ouellette, M. A. (2004). Voices on the landscape: Reconceptualizing plagiarism, voice appropriation, and academic competence in ESL freshman composition (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Tomaš, Z. (2010). Addressing writing instructors’ needs for effective pedagogical resources on avoiding plagiarism. Journal of Writing and Pedagogy,2, 223-250.

Tomaš, Z. (2011, March). Examining instruction on plagiarism from L2 writer and instructor perspectives. Paper presented at the 45th Annual TESOL Convention and Exhibit, New Orleans, LA.

Tomaš, Z., & Okello, S. (2012). Instructional support for L2 writers. Retrieved from http://l2writingsupport.webs.com/

Wette, R. (2008, March). Evaluating a unit on writing from sources. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual TESOL Convention and Exhibit, New York, NY.

Yamada, K. (2002). Comparison of two summary/text-integration writing tasks requiring different inferential processes. RELC Journal, 33(2), 142-156.