Perspectives of L2 graduate students and their professors about students' academic writing practices: Patchwriting or plagiarism?/

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University

2 Associate professor, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University

3 Visiting Professor, Teaching English as a Foreign Language Group, Farhangian University, Shahid Bahonar Branch of Shiraz

Abstract

Writing academic texts is a challenging endeavour for novice L2 writers, which causes them to rely heavily on the original texts. Some studies have differentiated intentional acts of fraud (like plagiarism) from patchwriting which they claim is unintentional source text reliance. However, others have a negative view toward it. The present study explores L2 graduate student writers and their professors' perspectives about these different writing practices and how they may work for or against developing professional writing expertise in a discipline. Survey questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data. The results were analysed through calculating frequencies and percentages as well as inductive data analysis for transcribed interviews. The results showed that many graduate students used patchwriting in their attempts to write academic texts unintentionally and intuitively. The reasons identified for patchwriting were students' lack of confidence to write independently, inability to paraphrase or fear of not expressing the writer's message thoroughly, and, in some cases, the writers' intention to get around plagiarism detection softwares. However, both students and their instructors had negative views about patchwriting. They believed that writing strategies like patchwriting could not lead to professional writing practices in a discipline. More importantly, the students seemed to continue this practice all through their studies, which may be a sign of not receiving enough instruction and feedback in this regard. The role of explicit teaching is emphasized in making students familiar with the differences between paraphrasing and patchwriting.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

نظرات دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی رشته زبان و اساتید انها درباره ی رفتارهای نگارش تخصصی دانشجویان: عاریه نویسی یا دستبرد علمی؟

Authors [Persian]

  • ناصر رشیدی 1
  • محمد رحیمی 2
  • فرزانه دهقان 3
1 استاد، گروه زبانهای خارجی و زبانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز
2 دانشیار، گروه زبانهای خارجی و زبانشناسی، دانشگاه شیراز
3 مدرس مدعو، گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، پردیس شهید باهنر شیراز
Abstract [Persian]

این مطالعه به بررسی اثر تفاوت های فردی (IDS) مانند مهارت زبانی، جنس و سن در برنامه ریزی دقیق و بسیط همزمان تولید کنشهای گفتاری معذرت خواهی در گفتمان نهادی پرداخته است. بدین منظور، 187 فراگیران زبان انگلیسی ایرانی    در سه سطح دانشگاهی (مقطع کارشناسی، فوق لیسانس و دکترا) در این پژوهش شرکت کردند. داده های مقطعی برای مقایسه و تجزیه و تحلیل عبارات عذر خواهی تولید شده توسط زبان آموزان در سطوح مختلف مهارتی جمع آوری شد. یک آنالیز سه وجهی  بین گروهی (ANOVA) تفاوت های کمی بین سه گروه را با توجه به تفاوت های فردی آنها مشخص کرد. علاوه بر این، تجزیه و تحلیل کیفی و عمقی موارد مورد آزمون و گزارشات کلامی گذشته نگر (RVRs) ارایه  شده توسط شرکت کنندگان، اطلاعات تکمیلی در مورد مجموعه ی فرآیندها، وضعیت زبانی و الگوهای مورد استفاده ی دنبال آموزان در هنگام ساخت یک عبارت عذرخواهی در زبان دوم را نشان داد. جنبه های فرهنگی اجتماعی، اجتماعی روانی و اجتماعی عاطفی شرایط گفتمان نه تنها بر انتخاب جوانب کاربردی و اجتماعی زبان دانشجویان تاثیرگذار است بلکه بر گزینشهای واژگانی و دستوری آنها در طرح ریزی کنش گفتاری معذرت خواهی نیز موثر است.  ظاهرا، میزان استقرار هنجارهای کاربردی زبان دوم بیشتر به انتخاب تا به توانایی زبان آموز است. یکی از مفاهیم عمده آموزشی این مطالعه این است که در تولید هر نوع از ساختارهای کاربردی میانزبانی (ILP) باید تعامل متغیرهای تفاوتهای فردی که به احتمال زیاد در بین مراحل توجه و تولید ساختار مورد نظردخیل است، را در نظر گرفت.
 

Keywords [Persian]

  • عذر خواهی
  • کاربرد میانزبانی
  • گفتمان نهادی
  • برنامه ریزی همزمان
  • تفاوتهای فردی
Abasi, A. R., Akbari, N., & Graves, B. (2006). Discourse appropriation, construction of identities, and the complex issue of plagiarism: ESL students writing in graduate school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 102-117.

Abasi, A. R., & Graves. B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 221-233.

Abasi, A.R. & Akbari, N. (2008). Are we encouraging patchwriting? Reconsidering the role of the pedagogical context in ESL student-writers' transgressive intertextuality. Journal ofEnglish for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 267-284.

Anderson, M. S. & Steneck, N. H. (2011). The problem of plagiarism. Urologic Oncology, 29(1), 90-94.

Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bloch, J. (2012). Plagiarism, intellectual property, and the teaching of L2 writing. Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Flowerdew, J. (2013). English for research publication purposes. In B. Paltridge, and S. Starfield (Eds.), The handbook of English for specific purposes, (pp. 301-321). London: John Willy & Sons, Inc.

Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222-251.

Harwood, N. (2010). Research-based materials to demystify academic citation for postgraduates. In N. Harwood (Ed.), English language teaching materials (pp. 301-311). Cambridge: CUP.

Hirvela, A. & Du, Q. (2013). "Why am I paraphrasing?: Undergraduate ESL writers' engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87-98.

Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3), 233-246.

Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57(7), 788–805.

Howard, R. M. (2010). Writing matters: The handbook of writing and research. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., & Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from sources, from sentences. Writing and Pedagogy, 2(2), 177-192.

Li, Y. & Casanave, C.P. (2012). Two first year students' strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 165-180.

Lillis, T. M. & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Rutledge.

McCabe, D. L. (2003). Faculty and academic integrity: the influence of current honor codes and past honor code experiences. Research in Higher Education, 44(3), 367-385.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments- a qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education, 70(2): 211-234.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3): 219-232.

Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317-345.

Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. New York: Continuum.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others' words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 201-230.

Runić, J. (2013). The art of paraphrasing: Strategies for avoiding plagiarism with L2 English writers. 8th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Writing, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.

Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121-132.

Szabo, A. & Underwood, J. (2004). Cybercheats: Is information and communication technology fuelling academic dishonesty? Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 180-199.

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

 

Valentine, K. (2006). Plagiarism as literacy practice: recognizing and rethinking ethical binaries. College Composition and Communication, 58(1), 89-109.

Woodward-Kron, R. (1999). Learning the discourse of a discipline: The nature of the apprenticeship. HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne. Available at: www.herdsa.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/conference/1999/.../Woodward.PD.  

Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism? Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31(2), 247-258.