臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本論文旨在探討南台灣英語系研究生對於改述策略訓練表現及回應之效益。本研究以南部某國立大學十四位英語系研究生為研究對象，實施為期四週教學。首先，以配對樣本t檢定比較學生於改述策略實施前、後的改述表現是否有顯著差異。再來，以描述性統計針對學生對於四種不同改述種類之前後測回應加以分析。此外，以描述性統計與質性分析法針對能力較強與能力較弱的改述者在前測所使用的改述策略加以分析。再者，以描述性統計分析學生在訓練之後對於改述的觀感、改述的使用以及改述策略訓練的回應。最後，以質性分析法探討學生對於改述策略訓練的學習收穫、困難、和建議。
在改述策略訓練之後本研究結果摘要如下：
一、 ，學生前測及後測的改述可接受程度有顯著差異。進而由後測增加的平均分數顯示，改述策略訓練有助於提升學生的改述表現。此外，學生改述的不可接受程度可歸因於意義扭曲與遺漏資訊兩個因素。
二、 學生在改述種類的可接受程度之覺察有所改變。首先，學生在前後測皆認為原文抄襲不可接受。此外，學生在前後測皆認為適度改寫與完全改寫可以接受。而學生在前測大多認為些微改寫部分可接受，但在後測則認為些微改寫不可接受以及部分可接受。整體而言，在改述訓練之後學生對於改述種類的可接受程度標準更為嚴格。
三、 針對能力較強與能力較弱的改述者在前測所使用的改述策略，本研究發現能力較強的改述者比起能力較弱的改述者使用較多的改述策略。此外，能力較強的改述者使用較多的同義字策略、變化句型策略以及增加文字策略。而能力較弱的改述者使用較多的減少文字策略。而過度的使用減少文字策略會導致原文意義曲解或遺漏，進而使得學生的改述不可接受。
四、 在改述策略訓練之後，學生對於改述的觀感有所改變。學生對於使用自身的英文閱讀與寫作能力於改述英文文章中更有信心，他們特別認為改述英文文章必須達到百分之八十以上，否則該改述不可接受。此外，學生認為自己更有能力使用改述策略來避免剽竊。
五、 在改述策略訓練之後，學生更能有效使用改述策略。如學生在改述時，會利用字典與文法參考書，藉以增進自己改述的可接受程度。學生也會避免在改述時扭曲原文意義。此外，學生認為改述段落比改述句子與寫總結更為困難。
六、 學生對於改述策略訓練抱持正面的回應。而學生使用最多的改述策略分別是同義字策略、變化句型策略以及增加文字策略。多數學生在改述策略訓練後最大的收穫是學習利用改述策略來避免剽竊。而學生在改述中遇到最大的困難大多與字彙量、扭曲原意以及文法正確性有關。學生建議改述策略訓練時間應該拉長，而老師與同儕回饋更能讓他們的改述可接受程度提升。
根據上述之研究結果，研究者提供幾項教學建議。學術英文寫作老師不只須將改述的概念納入改述教學中，還必須教導學生使用改述策略。而本研究所採用的策略導向課程可提供給學術英文寫作老師做為教學參考。其次，學術英文寫作老師可經由教導改述策略使得學生對於剽竊的覺察得到提升。
再者，改述訓練的時間不能侷限於短期訓練，而是必須長時間的練習與訓練。最後，老師與同儕回饋需納入改述教學之中，以期讓學生更能瞭解自身所需要加強的地方，以提昇改述表現。

The purpose of the present study aims to explore the performance and responses to a paraphrasing strategy training for English-Majored graduate students in Southern Taiwan. To achieve the purpose, the researcher recruited 14 English-majored graduate students in a national university to administer the paraphrasing strategy training. First, the acceptability and the unacceptability of the paraphrases for the students before and after the training were compared by the paired samples t-test. Then, the descriptive statistics was applied to analyze the awareness of the acceptability of the paraphrase types for the students before and after the training. After that, the descriptive statistics was adopted to compare the use of paraphrasing strategies for good and poor paraphrasers. In addition, the students’ (a) perceptions of paraphrasing, (b) use of paraphrasing, and (c) responses to the paraphrasing strategy training were analyzed by descriptive statistics. Finally, the students’ gains, difficulties, and suggestions for the paraphrasing strategy training were analyzed qualitatively.
Based on the data analyses, the major findings of the study are summarized as follows:
1. There is a significant difference in the acceptability of the paraphrases for the students before and after the training. The higher mean score on the post-test indicated that the paraphrasing strategy training was beneficial for the students to write acceptable paraphrases. In addition, the unacceptability of the paraphrases for the students could be attributed to meaning distortion and omitting information.
2. The students’ awareness of the acceptability of the paraphrase types before and after the paraphrasing strategy training changed a lot. First, the students regarded Near Copy as unacceptable before and after the training. In addition, the students regarded Moderate Revision and Substantial Revision as acceptable and partially acceptable. However, most of the students regarded Minimal Revision as acceptable before the training, while they considered it as unacceptable or partially acceptable after the training. The result showed that the students ad stricter criteria for evaluating the acceptability of the paraphrase types.
3. The good paraphrasers were found to use more paraphrasing strategies than the poor ones. Specifically, the good paraphrasers used more Synonyms, Syntactic Change and Adding Words than the poor paraphrasers. But, the poor paraphrasers used more Deleting Words than the good paraphrasers. The overuse of Deleting Words could result in distorting meaning and omitting information, which made the poor paraphrasers’ paraphrases unacceptable.
4. After the paraphrasing strategy training, the students had better perceptions of paraphrasing. First, they were more confident in their reading and writing abilities to deal with paraphrasing texts. In addition, the students regarded copying less than 20% from the source text as acceptable. Overall, the students were more able to use paraphrasing strategies to avoid plagiarism after the training.
5. After the paraphrasing strategy training, the students could make better use of the paraphrasing strategies. The students used dictionaries and grammar reference books to help them deal with paraphrasing. They could also avoid meaning distortion when paraphrasing texts. In addition, among the four paraphrasing tasks, the students expressed that the paragraph-level texts were more difficult than the sentence-level texts and writing summaries.
6. After the paraphrasing strategy training, the students had positive responses. First, their most frequently used paraphrasing strategies were Synonyms, Syntactic Change and Adding Words. In addition, most of the students expressed that they gained a lot from the paraphrasing strategy training because they could apply paraphrasing strategies to avoid plagiarism. However, many students demonstrated the difficulties in their limited vocabulary size, their ability to keep the original meaning intact, and the grammatical accuracy of their paraphrases. To deal with difficulties, the students suggested that the paraphrasing strategy training be prolonged and the feedback from the teachers and peers be included.
Based on the study findings, some pedagogical implications are provided. In particular, the teaching of paraphrasing should include not only what paraphrasing is, but also how paraphrasing should be implemented. In addition, the strategy-based lessons can be used as a model for English writing teachers to teach students paraphrasing. Then, academic English writing teachers can raise students’ awareness of plagiarism by teaching paraphrasing strategies. Also, academic English writing teachers should recognize learning paraphrasing as a longitudinal process, and spend more time teaching paraphrasing strategies. Finally, feedback on students’ paraphrases should be included so that students can understand their problems and further improve the acceptability of the paraphrases.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Purposes of the Study 10
Research Questions 11
Significance of the Study 11
Limitations of the Study 12
Definitions of Terms 13
Organization of the Chapters 14

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 16
Intertextuality in Reading, and Writing 16
Reading and Texts 17
Writing and Texts 20
Intertextuality in Reading and Writing 24
Intertextuality in EAP 28
Writing from Sources 31
Disciplinary Differences in Writing from Sources 32
Cultural Differences in Writing from Sources 36
Patchwriting, Plagiarism, and Paraphrasing 40
Paraphrasing Strategies in Academic Writing 44
Paraphrasing Strategies 44
Benefits and Limitations of Paraphrasing Strategies 50
Paraphrasing Strategy Training in Academic Writing 54
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 60
Participants 60
Instruments 63
Lesson Plans 64
Paraphrasing Worksheets 65
A Pretest and a Post-test of English Paraphrasing 66
Criteria for Assessment of English Paraphrasing 68
The Acceptability of the Paraphrases 68
The Unacceptability of the Paraphrases 72
The Strategy Use in the Paraphrases 73
The Questionnaire on the Student Responses to the Paraphrasing Strategy
Training
75
An Interview Form 75
Procedures 76
The Pilot Study 78
Data Analysis 80
Quantitative Analysis 80
Qualitative Analysis 81
Intercoder Reliability 81

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 83
Comparison of the Students’ Paraphrasing Performance before and after the Paraphrasing Strategy Training
83
The Acceptability of the Paraphrases for the Students 84
The Unacceptability of the Paraphrases for the Students 85
The Contrastive Analysis of the Meaning Distortion 86
The Contrastive Analysis of the Omitting Information 88
Comparison of the Awareness of the Acceptability of the Paraphrase Types
for the Students before and after the Paraphrasing Strategy Training
90
Comparison of the Paraphrasing Strategies Used by Good Paraphrasers and
Poor Paraphrasers in the Paraphrasing Strategy Training
92
The Student Perceptions of Paraphrasing after the Paraphrasing Strategy
Training
111
The Student Responses to the Use of Paraphrasing after the Paraphrasing
Strategy Training
118
Student Responses to the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 127
Student Responses to the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 127
Students’ Gains after the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 132
Students’ Difficulties in the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 136
Students’ Suggestions for the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 139

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
143
Conclusions 143
Implications 147
Suggestions 149

REFERENCES 151


APPENDICES 165
Appendix A: Lesson Plans 165
Appendix B-1: Paraphrasing Worksheet 1 169
Appendix B-2: Paraphrasing Worksheet 2 171
Appendix C-1: The Pretest of English Paraphrasing 173
Appendix C-2: The Post-test of English Paraphrasing 175
Appendix D: Sample Scoring for the Acceptability of the Paraphrases 177
Appendix E: Sample Scoring for the Unacceptability of the Paraphrases 178
Appendix F-1: The Questionnaire on the Student Responses to the Paraphrasing Strategy Training (Chinese Version)
179
Appendix F-2: The Questionnaire on the Student Responses to the Paraphrasing Strategy Training (English Version)
182
Appendix G-1: An Interview Form (Chinese Version) 185
Appendix G-2: An Interview Form (English Version) 186
Appendix H: Reliability of the Questionnaire on the Student Responses to the
Paraphrasing Strategy Training
187
Appendix I: Validity of the Questionnaire on the Student Responses to the
Paraphrasing Strategy Training
189
Appendix J: The Distribution of the Paraphrasing Performance on the Pretest 191
Appendix K: Paraphrases by Good and Poor Paraphrasers 192
Appendix L-1: The Paraphrasing Strategies Used by GP1 in Task 3 before
the Training
194
Appendix L-2: The Paraphrasing Strategies Used by GP2 in Task 3 before
the Training
195
Appendix L-3: The Paraphrasing Strategies Used by GP3 in Task 3 before
the Training
196
Appendix L-4: The Paraphrasing Strategies Used by PP4 in Task 3 before
the Training
197
Appendix L-5: The Paraphrasing Strategies Used by PP5 in Task 3 before
the Training
198
Appendix L-6: The Paraphrasing Strategies Used by PP6 in Task 3 before
the Training
199



















LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 The Profiles of the Graduate Students 62
2 The Distribution of Scores in Four Paraphrasing Tasks in the Pretest and the Post-test of English Paraphrasing
71
3 The Distribution of Idea Units in Four Tasks in the Pretest and the Post-test
of English Paraphrasing
73
4 Paired Samples t-test Results of the Pretest and Post-test for the Pilot Study 79
5 Paired Samples t-test Results of the Acceptability of the Paraphrases for
the Students
84
6 Paired Samples t-test Results of the Causes for the Unacceptability of
the Paraphrases for the Students
85
7 Comparison of the Awareness of Acceptability of the Paraphrase Types
for the Students before and after the Paraphrasing Strategy Training
90
8 Comparison of the Paraphrasing Strategies Used by Good Paraphrasers
and Poor Paraphrasers in the Paraphrasing Strategy Training
93
9 The Sample Paraphrases for Good and Poor Paraphrasers in Task 3 96
10 Symbols for Paraphrasing Strategies 98
11 Paraphrasing Strategies Used by GP1 100
12 Paraphrasing Strategies Used by GP2 102
13 Paraphrasing Strategies Used by GP3 104
14 Paraphrasing Strategies Used by PP4 106
15 Paraphrasing Strategies Used by PP5 107
16 Paraphrasing Strategies Used by PP6 109
17 The Student Perceptions of Paraphrasing after the Paraphrasing Strategy
Training
111
18 The Student Responses to the Use of Paraphrasing after the Paraphrasing
Strategy Training
119
19 The Student Responses to the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 128
20 The Ranks of the Most Frequently Used Strategy by the Students 131
21 The Students’ Gains after the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 133
22 The Students’ Difficulties in the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 136
23 The Students’ Suggestions for the Paraphrasing Strategy Training 139

















LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 The Flow Chart of the Study Procedures 77

Abasi, A. R., &; Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversation
with international graduate students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 221-233.
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, 102–117.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Armstrong, A. L., &; Newman, M. (2011). Teaching textual conversations:
Intertextuality in the college reading classroom. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 41(2), 6-21.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., &; Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education
(6th ed.). London: Thomas Learning.
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. 246-270). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Barry, E. S. (2006). Can paraphrasing practice help students define plagiarism?
College Student Journal, 40(2), 377-384.
Bazerman, C. (1994). Constructing experience. Carbondale and Edwardsville:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse. New York: Continuum.
Blecher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 16, 1-22.
Bereiter, C., &; Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C., &; Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the
nature and complications of expertise. Chicago: Open Court Press.
Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., &; McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies
contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137-164.
Bloome, D., &; Eagan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality
in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 305-333.
Bradinova, M. (2006). Exploring students’ and teachers’ perceptions of plagiarism.
Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Brown, A. L., &; Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The
development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1-14.
Bruce, I. (2011). Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes. Hampshire:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Bruffee, J. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A
bibliographical essay. College English, 48, 773-790.
Cairney, T. (1990). Intertextuality: Infectious echoes from the past. The Reading
Teacher, 43(7), 478-484.
Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in
academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, D. W. (2007). Psychology of language (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Cave Educational Training. (2010). GEPT practice test high-intermediate level. New
Taipei City, Taiwan: Author.
Cervetti, G. N., Bravo, M. A., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., &; Jaynes, C. A. (2009).
Test genre and science content: Ease of reading, comprehension, and reader preference. Reading Psychology, 30, 487-511.
Chi, F. M. (1995). EFL readers and a focus on intertextuality. Journal of Reading,
38(8), 638-644.
Chen, M. H. (2012). GEPT: Longman access to GEPT reading test
(high-intermediate). New Taipei City, Taiwan: Pearson Education Taiwan.
Chi, F. M. (2001). Intertextual talk as collaborative shared inquiry in learning English
as a foreign language. Proceedings of the National Science Council: Humanities and Social Science, 247-255.
Chien, S. C. (2011). Discourse organization in high school students’ writing and their
teachers’ writing instruction: The case of Taiwan. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 417-435.
Chinese Television System. (2013). 上任僅6天!楊念祖閃辭國防部長。Retrieved
August 20, 2013 from http://tw.news.yahoo.com/%E4%B8%8A%E4%BB%BB%E5%83%856%E5%A4%A9-%E6%A5%8A%E5%BF%B5%E7%A5%96%E9%96%83%E8%BE%AD%E5%9C%8B%E9%98%B2%E9%83%A8%E9%95%B7-040000073.html
Crocker, J., &; Shaw, P. (2002). Research student and supervisor evaluation of
intertextuality practices. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 28, 39-58.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. San Diego, CA: College
Hill.
Cummins, S., &; Quiroa, R. E. (2012). Teaching for writing expository responses to
narrative texts. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 381-386.
Currie, P. (1998). Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 1-18.
D’Angelo, F. J. (1979). The art of paraphrase. College Composition and
Communication, 30, 255-259.
Davis, M. (2013). The development of source use by international postgraduate
students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 125-135.
Dubois, B. L. (1988). Citation in biomedical journal articles. English for Specific
Purposes, 7, 181-193.
Eckel, E. J. (2011). Textual appropriation in engineering master’s theses: A
preliminary study. Science &; Engineering Ethics, 17, 469-483.
Ellis, E. S., &; Graves, A. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning disabilities: A
paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2-10.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ercegovac, Z., &; Richardson, J. V. (2004). Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included,
in the digital age: A literature review. College &; Research Libraries, 65(4), 301-318.
Ferris, D., &; Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process,
and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flowerdew, J., &; Li, Y. (2007). Language re-use among Chinese apprentice scientists
writing for publication. Applied Linguistics, 28, 440-465.
Francis, A., &; Hallman, S. (2000). Genre effects on higher education students’ text
reading for understanding. Higher Education, 39, 279-296.
Glenn, C., &; Goldthwaite, M. A. (2008). The St. Martin’s guide to teaching writing
(6th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St Martin’s Press.
Godo, A. M. (2008). Cross-cultural aspects of academic writing: A study of Hungarian
and North American college students argumentative essays. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 65-111.
Grabe, W., &; Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. New York:
Longman.
Hacker, D. (1998). The Bedford handbook (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford Books.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of
language and meaning. London: Arnold.
Harris, P., &; McKenzie, B. (2005). Networking around The Waterhole and other tales:
The importance of relationships among texts for reading and related instruction. Literacy, 39(1), 31-37.
Harwood, N. (2009). An interview-based study of the functions of citations in
academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 497-518.
Hayes, N., &; Introna, L. D. (2005). Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When
plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics &; Behavior, 15(3), 213-231.
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, 87-98.
Howard, R. M. (1993). A plagiarism pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, 11(3),
233-246.
Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarism, authorship, and the academic death penalty.
College English, 57(7), 788-806.
Howard, R. M., Serviss, T., &; Rodrigue, T. K. (2010). Writing from sources, writing
from sentences. Writing &; Pedagogy, 2, 177-192.
Hirose, K. (2003). Comparing L1 and L2 organizational patterns in the argumentative
writing of Japanese EFL students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 181-209.
Hirsh, D., &; Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified
texts for pleasure. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 689-696.
Hu, G. W. (2007). Developing an EAP writing course for Chinese ESL students.
Regional Language Centre Journal, 38(1), 67-86.
Hu, G., &; Lei, J. (2012). Investigating Chinese university students’ knowledge of and
attitudes plagiarism from an integrated perspective. Language Learning, 62, 813-850.
Hutter, J. (2008). The genre(s) of student writing: Developing writing models.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 146-165.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing.
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Jacobs, E. M. (2003). Reproductive writing–writing from sources. Journal of
Pragmatics, 35, 893-906.
James, M. A. (2006). Transfer of learning from a university content-based EAP
course. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 783-806.
James, M. A. (2009). “Far” transfer of learning outcomes from an ESL writing course:
Can the gap be bridged? Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 169-184.
James, M. A. (2010). An investigation of learning transfer in
English-for-general-academic-purposes writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 183-206.
Jameson, D. A. (1993). The ethics of plagiarism: How genre affects writers’ use of
source materials. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 56(2),
18-28.
Johns, A. M., &; Mayers, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university
ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 253-271.
Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamimura, N. (2011). A study of EFL argumentative strategies: Factors that affect the
choice of organizational pattern. Asian Studies, 14(2), 56-73.
Kalua, F. (2012). Reading for empowerment: Intertextuality offers creative
possibilities for enlightened citizenry. Reading &; Writing, 3(1). Retrieved June 25, from http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/rw.v3i1.21
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language
Learning, 16, 1-20.
Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and
L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261-278.
Keck, C. (2007). University student textual borrowing strategies. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? A
grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing &; Pedagogy, 2, 193-222.
Kirk, L., &; Pearson, H. (1996). Genres and learning to read. Reading, 30(1), 37-41.
Kim, S. A. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with
Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569-581.
Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing. New York: Routledge.
Kobayashi, H. (1984). Rhetorical patterns in English and Japanese. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
Kristeva, J. (1967). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Lancia, P. J. (1997). Literary borrowing: The effects of literature on children’s writing.
The Reading Teacher, 50(6), 470-475.
Lantolf, J. (2005). Sociocultural and second language learning research: An exegesis.
In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning. Mahway, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lenski, S. D. (1998). Intertextual intentions: Making connections across texts. The
Clearing House, 72(2), 74-80.
Lester, J. D. Sr., &; Lester, J. D. Jr. (2005). Writing research papers: A complete
guide (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Li. Y. Y. (2006). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse
communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 159-178.
Li. Y. Y. (2006). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse
communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 159-178.
Li, Y. Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An
interview of an NNS graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 55-79.
Li. Y. Y. (2012). “I have no time to find out where the sentences came from; I just
rebuild them”: A biochemistry professor eliminating novice textual borrowing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 59-70.
Li, Y. Y., &; Casanave, C. P. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing
from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 165-180.
Lightbown, P. M., &; Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
LTTC (2012). The GEPT: Offering insight into learners’ English ability. Retrieved
December, 27, 2012, from http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT/files/2012_GEPT_Information_Brochure.pdf
Liu. D. L. (2005). Plagiarism in ESL students: Is culture conditioning truly the
culprit? ELT Journal, 59(3), 234-241.
Liu, F. (2011). A short analysis of the text variables affecting reading and testing
reading. Studies in Literature and Language, 2(2), 44-49.
Liu, G. Z., Lo, H. Y., &; Wang, H. C. (2013). Design and usability of a learning and
plagiarism avoidance tutorial system for paraphrasing and citing in English: A case study. Computers &; Education, 69, 1-14.
Manak, J. (2011). The social construction of intertextuality: The impact of interactive
read-alouds on the writing of third graders during writing workshop. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 309-311.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., &; Tse, L. K. (1996). Memorizing and understanding: The
keys to the paradox? In D. Watkins &; J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner:
Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 69–83). Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Centre.
McCarter, S., &; Jakes, P. (2009). Uncovering EAP: How to teach academic writing
and reading. Oxford: Macmillan.
McInnis, L. (2009). Analyzing English L1 and L2 paraphrasing strategies through
concurrent report and simulated recall protocols. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Minok, M. (1995). Toward a postmodern pedagogy of imitation. Journal of
Composition Theory, 15(3), 489-509.
Moody, J. (2007). Plagiarism or intertextuality?: Approaches to teaching EFL
academic writing. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 195-210.
Nation, P. (2006). How large is a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?
The Modern Language Journal, 63, 59-82.
NOWnews. (2010). 杜絕論文抄襲、代寫，教育部擬開罰指導教授。Retrieved
August 20, 2013 from http://www.nownews.com/2010/05/27/327-2607888.htm
O’Malley, J. M., &; Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle &; Heinle Publishers.
Paxton, M. (2011). How do we play the genre game in preparing students at the
advanced undergraduate level for research writing? Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 53-64.
Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic
second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317-345.
Pecorari, D., &; Shaw, P. (2012). Types of student intertextuality and faculty attitudes.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 149-164.
Pennington, M. C. (2010). Plagiarism in the academy: Towards a proactive pedagogy.
Writing &; Pedagogy, 2, 147-162.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The complex contexts of plagiarism: A reply to Deckert.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 277-284.
Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and
plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201-230.
Petric, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 102-117.
Perdue Online Writing Lab (2013). Paraphrase: Write it in your own words.
Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/563/02/
Polio, C., &; Shi, L. (2012). Perceptions and beliefs about textual appropriation and
source use in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 95-101.
Qian, D. D. (1998). Depth of vocabulary knowledge: Assessing its role in adults’
reading comprehension in English as a second language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge
in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-308.
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52(3), 513-536.
Roig, M. (1997). Can graduate students determine whether text has been plagiarized?
The Psychological Record, 47, 113-122.
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university
professors. Ethics and Behavior, 11, 307-323.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X. Y., &; Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a
text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26-43.
Schumaker, J. B., Denton, P.H., and Deshler, D.D. (1984). The paraphrasing strategy.
Lawrence: University of Kansas.
Shahballa, A. H., &; Youli, F. A. (2012). Reading comprehension of different genres.
International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 17-27.
Shaw, P. (2013). Source use in academic writing: An introduction to the special issue.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, A1-A3.
Shei, C. (2005). Plagiarism, Chinese learners and western convention. Taiwan Journal
of TESOL, 2(1), 97-113.
Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second language writing. Written
Communication, 21, 171-200.
Shi, L. (2006). Cultural backgrounds and textual appropriation. Language Awareness,
15, 264-282.
Shi, L. (2008). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors of university
undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31, 1-24.
Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts in second language writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 134-148.
Slade, C. (2003). Form and style (12th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Stappenbelt, B. (2012). Plagiarism in mechanical engineering education: A
comparative study of international and domestic students. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 40(1), 24-41.
Suh, S. J. (2008). Plagiarism, textual borrowing, or something else?: An L2 student’s
writing-from sources tasks. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Maryland.
Sun, Y. C. (2009). Using a two-tier test in examining Taiwan graduate students’
perspectives on paraphrasing strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10,
399-408.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2005). Pandora’s box: Academic perceptions of students
plagiarism in writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(1), 83-95.
Taavitsainen, I. (2001). Changing conventions of writing: The dynamics of genres,
text types, and text traditions. European Journal of English Studies, 5(2), 139-150.
Tang, R. (2008). Citation characteristics and intellectual acceptance of scholarly
monographs. College &; Research Libraries, 69(4), 356-369.
Tseng, C. Y. (2007). Comparisons between undergraduates’ and postgraduates’
perceptions and performance on paraphrase and plagiarism. Unpublished Master Thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Uemilianin, I. A. (2000). Engaging text: Assessing paraphrase and understanding.
Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 347-358.
USC Aiken Writing Room (2013). Paraphrasing. Retrieved March 13, 2013 from
http://www.usca.edu/asc/pdf/writing%20room/paraphrasing.pdf
Uysal, H. H. (2012). Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: Exploring cultural
influences and transfer issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 133-159.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, A. L. (2008). Preventing unintentional plagiarism: A method for strengthening
paraphrasing skills. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(4), 387-395.
Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics (6th ed.). West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on
writing from sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 158-177.
Winograd, P. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research
Quarterly, 19, 404-425.
Wu, M. L. (2003). SPSS statistical Analysis Applications and Practice - Questionnaire Analysis and Applicative Statistics. Taipei: Acore Digital Technology.
Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism?
Analyses of 10 North-American college websites. System, 31, 247-258.
Yang, L., &; Cahill, D. (2008). The rhetorical organization of Chinese and American
students’ expository essays: A contrastive rhetoric study. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 113-132.
Yang, L., &; Shi, L. (2003). Exploring six MBA students’ summary writing by
introspection. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 165-192.
Yildirim, K., Yildiz, M., &; Ates, S. (2011). Is vocabulary a strong variable predicting
reading comprehension and does the prediction degree of vocabulary vary according to text types? Educational Science: Theory &; Practice, 11(3), 1541-1547.
劉繼仁、陳年興、郭俞鈴、羅鄉儀、李純儀、陳靜瑤 (Liu, G. Z., Chen, N. S.,
Kuo, Y. L., Lo, H. Y., Li, C. Y., &; Chen, J. Y.) (2012)。防治學生英文寫作抄襲之認知與方法探究：以二所研究型大學為例。英語教學，36(4)，123-168。