Composition Forum 43, Spring 2020
http://compositionforum.com/issue/43/

Rhetorically-grounded Paraphrasing Instruction: Knowledge Telling versus Transforming

Nisha Shanmugaraj, Joanna Wolfe, and Sophie Wodzak

Abstract: Current paraphrasing instruction in the composition classroom may ironically promote “knowledge telling” source use, such as patchwriting. We argue for an approach to source use instruction that teaches paraphrase as a spectrum of task-dependent rhetorical skills ranging from knowledge telling to knowledge transforming. We encapsulate and test the effectiveness of this approach in a series of interactive videos. These videos present a rhetorically-grounded framework for source use instruction, including think-aloud protocols that demystify how reading processes can be used to critically engage with source content. We validate this approach with two different demographics: Non-Native English speaking graduate students and First Year Writing students. Findings suggest our approach, compared with a workshop that used ‘traditional’ fear-of-plagiarism tactics, helped NNES students better recognize knowledge transforming as a task-dependent option and understand the process of note-taking to transform source texts. In contrast, the traditional workshop promoted knowledge telling behaviors.

Introduction{1}

Despite decades of work on the topic (see review by Cumming et al.), recent research has shown that novice writers continue to engage in impoverished source use (e.g., Jamieson, What the Citation Project Tells Us; Rogerson and McCarthy; Adam; Serviss; Li and Casanave). These studies indicate students engage with sources superficially, often limiting their interactions with a source to single sentences from the text’s first few pages or simply appropriating source language (Jamieson; Howard et al.). These practices suggest deeper deficiencies with information literacy, deficiencies that become especially apparent to instructors in our students’ paraphrasing practices. Paraphrasing is one of the most common ways students are asked to use sources, yet their difficulty with this skill is understandable. Expressing the meaning of a source text in a new context towards new rhetorical purposes in an unfamiliar discourse is a complex rhetorical skill, even for experienced writers. These rhetorical skills are even more complex for Non-Native English speakers (NNES) who face added difficulties with demystifying academic writing conventions in a non-native language (Keck; Shi et al.; Casanave; Hirvela and Du; Abasi and Akbari; Pecorari; Polio and Shi).

A landmark in this conversation was the introduction of the term patchwriting (Howard, A Plagiarism Pentimento). Patchwriting, “a blend of the learner’s words and phrases with those of the source” (Howard, Plagiarisms, Authorships 801), is a necessary and valuable developmental step between plagiarism and paraphrasing as a novice writer gains familiarity in the reading and writing practices of a new discipline (Howard; Abasi and Graves; Casanave). Thus, patchwriting introduced the idea that such non-prototypical plagiarism is not an ethical violation and should be treated as “nontransgressive intertextuality” (Chandrasoma et al.), which as Pecorari argues “deserves a pedagogical, rather than punitive, response” (320).

While the field has made great strides in answering this call and moving away from plagiarism policing, or “gotcha!” pedagogy (Price), unsuccessful source use still runs rampant in the classroom. We argue this is likely because increasingly nuanced theoretical discussions of source misuse and its underlying causes have not translated into pedagogy, leaving current instruction lagging.

Source use instruction as knowledge-telling

The underlying problem—why many of our students are unable to critically engage with source material—is that they have been trained to position paraphrasing in the realm of knowledge telling as opposed to knowledge transforming. In Bereiter and Scardamalia’s influential distinction, the “mature” and complex composing process of knowledge transformation is a recursive cycling between content and rhetorical problem spaces so that knowledge is developed through writing the text. This is contrasted with knowledge telling, simply reciting preexisting knowledge banks without altering that knowledge or engaging in planning or reflection (6-12). Research has since applied the terms to source use (Hirvelu and Du; Shi et al.) and enables us to arrive at the present definitions: we define knowledge transforming as recontextualizing sources in the context of a new argument by refocusing how the source text is framed or adding new insights to support one’s own rhetorical purposes, in ethically appropriate ways. Knowledge telling, on the other hand, is retelling the pre-packaged ideas of others without adding interpretation or analysis of the source text’s ideas.

This knowledge telling framing can be seen in several cutting-edge instructional resources that position the goal of paraphrasing as merely comprehending and accurately reproducing the author’s meaning:

The [paraphrase] without patchwriting captures the main ideas of the passage without borrowing sentence structures or more than a few key words from the original. (Howard, “Writing Matters” 254)

Good paraphrasing can demonstrate that you have understood the text you have read and can avoid plagiarizing” (Feak and Swales 202)

Paraphrasing is a valuable skill because it is better than quoting information from an undistinguished passage; it helps you control the temptation to quote too much; the mental process required for successful paraphrasing helps you to grasp the full meaning of the original (Purdue OWL).

In such instruction, paraphrasing becomes a form of knowledge telling, a method of achieving and demonstrating comprehension.

Take, as an elaborated example, a paraphrase sample offered by the Purdue OWL, perhaps the most popular source-related resource for college students. Figure 1 shows the source text compared with the sample paraphrase.

The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had.1 They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it.2 Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land,3 and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young.4 The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts,5 she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past.6

During the twenties lawlessness and social nonconformity prevailed. In cities organized crime flourished without police interference,2 and in spite of nationwide prohibition of liquor sales, anyone who wished to buy a drink knew where to get one.1 Musicians like Louis Armstrong become favorites, particularly among young people,4 as many turned away from highly respectable classical music to jazz.3 One of the best examples of the anti-traditional trend was the proliferation of young “flappers,”6 women who rebelled against custom by cutting off their hair and shortening their skirts.5 (Purdue OWL, 2013).

Figure 1. Example from Purdue OWL of original text (left) and acceptable paraphrase (right) with added annotations to signal borrowed ideas

This paraphrase does “presen[t] the ideas in a new form,” as the OWL recommends, but we contend the good example still reproduces the original in an act of pure knowledge telling. The strategy of knowledge telling is predominantly seen in the paraphrase’s adoption of the exact structure of the original paragraph, almost sentence for sentence. This is consistent with instruction that a paraphrase should retain the original source’s length and detail level. When we instruct students to “include[e] all the main points of the source” and create a paraphrase that is “about the same length as the original” (Bullock and Weinberg 413), the most obvious frame becomes knowledge telling—and the most easily perceptible strategy becomes mere language reshuffling.

Consider a shorter example from Swales and Feak (206-207), a popular writing source especially for NNES:

The system is intended to provide continuous car-following support within a wide range of car-following situations—not only in critical situations.

The system is configured to provide ongoing car following support in many types of situations, not only those that are identified as dangerous.

Figure 2. Swales and Feak’s example with original text (left) and acceptable paraphrase (right)

From this example, a student would likely glean the main strategy for paraphrasing is swapping out synonyms, making a few deletions and generally making lexical tweaks until the paraphrase looks sufficiently different, according to their subjective judgement. Indeed, superficial practices such as “copying from a source text and then deleting some words, altering grammatical structures, or plugging in one-for-one synonym substitutes” (Howard, “A Plagiarism Pentimento” 233) are among the most common source use practices (Keck). The problem is that our instruction often stops at before-and-after examples and neglects the underlying processes of source text transformation. Students are frequently instructed to ensure they understand the passage, put away the original and perhaps engage in another activity for a while, write the paraphrase, then later check it for accuracy (Purdue OWL; Howard, “Writing Matters” 252-254). This also contributes to confusion around plagiarism. Seeing the close resemblance of the before-and-after text in Figure 2, a conscientious student might not understand why this paraphrase does not constitute plagiarism. Lacking an alternative framework to knowledge telling, our student may resort to furtively altering the source text’s appearance, wondering how much lexical alteration is required to avoid plagiarism territory and feeling they are incorrectly executing a task that was portrayed as so clear-cut.

To the credit of these valuable guides, a detailed recreation of a source text does serve as an important way to ensure students have completed and fully understood a reading. In this way, knowledge telling, often called summarizing, is essential when teaching foundational literacy. Reading for textual comprehension and thoughtful understanding of the author’s own context is an important and necessary focal point for instruction on responsible source use (Haas). Students must understand that ethical source use goes beyond arbitrarily grabbing sentences: they must fully understand and responsibly characterize an author’s viewpoint. However, we argue our instruction must also help students develop the critical sophistication of their source use practices. When instructors place emphasis solely on accuracy in college-level writing, students may only see source use as knowledge telling, a way to prove to the teacher they have done the reading and possess the lexical aptitude to recast its ideas. Such a shallow understanding ignores the real-world stakes of source use, reduces the skill to rule-following rather than socially situated meaning-making, and precludes the sophisticated knowledge transforming many college-level instructors want to see.

Knowledge transforming in the context of source use

How, then, can we characterize knowledge transforming? In authentic writing situations within academic or professional discourse practices, we use paraphrase for a number of different purposes: as a naysayer to overcome, a status quo to challenge, a voice to lend support, and many other functions. In other words, we transform the rhetorical purposes toward which the source material is used, in ethically responsible directions. Thus, we can define knowledge transforming as going beyond summary, beyond a faithful retelling of the source text, to transform the ends to which the source material is used. In other words, in knowledge transforming, the author “add[s] one’s own authorial intention and persuasive power” (Shi et al. 32). This may include refocusing the original text, inferring conclusions not explicitly stated in the source text, responding to the source, and more.

For instance, the statistic “27% of Americans have experienced workplace bullying” can be amplified to say “one in four Americans have suffered abusive conduct at work”; the writer molds the source material to emphasize what is significant for his or her rhetorical ends. A writer might also state:

“The Workplace Bullying Institute (WBI) employs a very broad definition of bullying that tends to focus on bullying’s subjective effects rather than on specific, objective behaviors. For instance, WBI defines bullying as behavior that is “health harming” to the victim, but it is not clear what this means. For instance, is a temporary elevation in blood pressure due to an unpleasant conversation ‘health harming’?”

Such framing of the source text recontextualizes it within the author’s novel argument and uses the ideas of others as a springboard to construct original meaning. In more theoretical terms, knowledge transforming overcomes what Bakhtin would call a monglossic acceptance of a single source and instead acknowledge—and perhaps even accentuates—the heteroglossic struggle over meaning that exists in the voices of various sources (278-280). When students enact knowledge transforming, they participate in the dialogicality of language.

Of course, being faithful and responsible to the source’s intention is crucial. Rhetorical transformation means respecting context and original purpose and ensuring that one fully and generously understands the source text. Knowledge transforming processes encapsulate richly contextual and complex sub-tasks and decisions: should I frame this as X or Y? Will such a framing fulfill my purposes as established in other parts of the text? Does such a framing remain faithful and generous to the author’s intent? Thus, one risk inherent in this approach is that the concept and language of “transforming” may tempt students to inappropriately or unethically change the source text’s meaning away from the author’s intention, as will be addressed.

Source use instruction as arhetorical

Some instructional scholarship on source use is beginning to take a step towards knowledge transforming. For instance, in Howard’s “Writing Matters,” a resource on the forefront of source instruction, the source text reads (254):

Original: “Until recently, the church was one of the least studied aspects of the Cuban revolution, almost as if it were a voiceless part of Cuban society, an institution and faith that had little impact on the course of events.”

and is followed by two paraphrasing examples, one with patchwriting:

Example 1: “According to Super, the Catholic Church until recently was not much studied as an aspect of the Cuban Revolution. It was as if the Church was voiceless in Cuban culture, as if it had little influence on events.”

And one without patchwriting:

Example 2: “Super argues that scholarship on the Cuban revolution is only beginning to recognize the influential role of the Church.”

The knowledge transforming occurs in example 2 by making the interpretive move towards a positive future “beginning to recognize” and away from a negative past “was one of the least studied.” Example 2 also changes the focus to “scholarship” and away from a description of the “voiceless” church.

The revised example, however, considers how the revised example is already fully transformed through inferential thinking and does not draw attention to its elements of knowledge transforming. Novice writers may not notice the distinction and thus may not recognize transformation as an option, or realize how to attain it. As Yamada has previously argued, strong examples often “seem to have been written with such elaboration that at first glance inexperienced writers may not realize how they were generated” (250).

Most importantly, even these examples can still be considered arhetorical, divorced from the context of how they once served a purpose in the source and how they were made to serve a new purpose in the writer’s text. Without seeing the writer’s purpose and the task the writer is responding to, students can neither understand how an example is an act of knowledge transforming nor judge its effectiveness. For instance, if Howard’s examples were in response to a task such as “Take a position on Super’s argument” or “What was the primary cause of the Cuban Revolution?”, tasks requiring knowledge transforming, the “good” example would actually be quite weak. Without the context of the rhetorical situation, such instruction may neglect crucial components of source use.

Novel approach to source use instruction focused on knowledge transforming

To address these problems, we create a new approach to source use that includes knowledge transforming as an option and encapsulate the instruction in a series of interactive videos.{2} We also evaluate this approach through two studies on NNES and First Year Writing (FYW) students. Our novel approach seeks to construct a pedagogy of source use that 1) teaches paraphrasing as a spectrum of component task-dependent skills ranging from knowledge telling to knowledge transforming, 2) deconstructs complex reading processes involved in source use using think-aloud protocols and 3) invites an agentive student response with an interactive, non-directive, and technology rich format.

First, this approach teaches students they have a spectrum of choices when using sources based on their purpose: they can draw on pure knowledge telling to maintain the original author’s purpose or they can travel across the spectrum to the other end: transforming knowledge by refocusing the source text and adding inferential and original thought to serve their own purpose. The option of transforming is taught using the metaphor of a potato. As the example goes, if your friend gives you a potato to cook dinner, they do not just want that same potato back on a plate. Instead, you might add ingredients to make a new dish (i.e., add salt and fry the potatoes to make French fries, or use the potato as one ingredient in a more diverse stew). The metaphor helps explain that, as shown in Figure 3, transformation can manifest in a number of ways. One can refocus the claims of the source text to a new rhetorical end, infer information not explicitly stated in the text to strengthen or cast doubt upon the source text, combine the figure with other statistics as shown in 3(b), or actively respond to the source content.

Figure 3. Examples of knowledge transforming from video. Highlights are source text being paraphrased. The second paragraph of each screen is the paraphrase. 3(a) is moderately transformed and 3(b) is substantially transformed through synthesis.

Importantly, to make the decision of how to interact with a source, we teach students to first analyze the rhetorical context of a task, specifically an assignment prompt (i.e., students are asked to rank whether the prompt “Based on the assigned course readings, is workplace bullying a serious problem in the American workplace?” requires knowledge telling or transforming). Again, comprehension is a foundational step: before “transforming the statistic into a tool that supports your own purpose,” students must first, as the video advises, “listen to the source text’s argument ... “If you can’t rephrase the text, you probably don’t understand it yet.”

Another novel facet of this approach is our deconstruction of source use processes through think-aloud protocols of expert writers reading and engaging with sources. Research has shown that researchers can use think-aloud protocols to glean insights into how writers make and revise goals when approaching rhetorical problems (Flower and Hayes). Moreover, scholarship has also shown that having novice writers conduct think alouds can help them attend to a reader’s reaction (Shriver) and grow in rhetorical awareness (Sitko). More broadly, work from observational learning suggests it is useful to have novices observe an expert enacting their processes (Rijlaarsdam et al.; Zimmerman and Kitsantas; Kitsantas et al.; Higgins; Pritchard). Thus, we use think-alouds of a successful writer mulling over and taking notes on a set of source texts in ways that start the knowledge transforming process (see Figure 4). This focus on process, and specifically the micro-processes of composing, squarely positions reading as an essential component of effective source use.

Figure 4. Examples of think-aloud in which successful writer responds to source text

Lastly, our novel pedagogy employs the medium of interactive video. Our frequent interactive activities ask students to participate and respond: take multiple choice quizzes (immediately graded by the software), enter short answers into text boxes (for self evaluation), compose entire essays (for review by an instructor), or simply click the screen to continue. Students also have the ability to control the pace of instruction with options such as pausing, replaying and jumping to certain sections, which may be especially useful for NNES. These opportunities for participation and encouragement to remain engaged are important for active learning as interactivity is hypothesized to promote learner-centered construction of knowledge and active engagement (Zhang et al.; Cherrett et al.; Alavi; Shang et al.). Such interactive activities afforded by Camtasia differentiate our videos from recorded lectures or narrated PowerPoints via screen capture technology. While a blend of visual and verbal modes of communication can be helpful (Mayer and Morena; Jones et al.; Kerr and McLaughlin; Silva), research using blended learning via video to “flip” the classroom has shown the general efficacy of interactivity compared to recorded and even live lectures (Smith and Smith; Smith and Sodano; Toto and Nguyen; Cardall et al.).

The video format of our approach also provides out-of-classroom instruction for student demographics that most need help with foundational skills: For international students, the videos could be completed before even coming to the US, and first year students could complete the videos before college. In both cases, the videos offer more active and engaging learning opportunities than a textbook, and can still be easily circulated. That said, the technology itself is not indispensable and a more rhetorically grounded approach to paraphrasing instruction can be used in many other ways in the classroom.

What is essential to our approach, however, is the presence of interactivity and non-directive instruction that invites active participation and knowledge making. In other words, if we consider the old pedagogy of “don’t plagiarize or you will get caught” as encouraging passive submission, perhaps a new pedagogy that models a critical interaction with the ideas of others will, in turn, invite a critical and more meaningful response to the pedagogy itself. For instance, in Video 2, viewers are prompted to download a set of short readings and craft a response to those readings. They are encouraged to reflect on their own processes (i.e., “How much time do you spend reading?”, “Do you prepare an outline?”). Next, viewers are prompted to read the papers of two “peers,” and listen as an instructor thinks through her thought process while grading the two papers. Viewers then see how these papers have developed from different reading habits and watch as the stronger writer models her reading and note-taking habits, seen in Figure 4. While viewers receive some research-backed habits of weak writers versus strong writers, the video consistently puts the decision-making onus under the students’ control, stating “It all comes down to how you chose to interact with your sources” (emphasis added). Students are shown the communication research, the textual outcomes and composing processes (by multiple stakeholders, including an accessible and honest peer), and then allowed to decide how they will respond. We feel this overall pedagogical stance that privileges student agency, even beyond the videos, would be worthy of wider adoption. A brief overview of each video is provided below:

Video 1: What does my instructor want?

This video teaches paraphrasing on a spectrum of knowledge telling to knowledge transforming, showing that different tasks (i.e., summary versus analysis) require different interactions with a source text that might include repeating, rephrasing or responding (see Figure 5). A focus on task is reinforced as the video guides students through a number of tasks: analyze whether assignment prompts are asking for knowledge telling or transforming; evaluate sample papers in response to a prompt; and experience an instructor’s think-aloud as she grades those papers.

Video 2: How do good writers get started?

This video focuses on the process of reading to transform a source text for one’s own purpose. Specifically, students are guided through a series of short think-alouds of an experienced writer initially engaging with and taking notes on the source texts (e.g., “Ok this is very problematic, it sounds like two studies are suggesting that employees will work harder to cope with [workplace] bullying ... just to avoid being a target anymore! It’s almost like let’s bully people on purpose to work harder! For me, that’s not healthy ... I’m actually getting angry at this so I want to talk about this in my paper.”). Students are able to witness how a sustained focus on task and minor acts of knowledge transforming (see Figure 4) translate into a strong finished product. Students are also asked to practice knowledge transforming by synthesizing excerpts to craft an argument.

Video 3: How do I cite my sources correctly?

This video offers the basics of citation, including different citation styles and why we cite. The video discusses how citation styles differ based on disciplinary values, breaks down the basic information included in all citations, and shows students how to construct correct citations and integrate them into their writing. (This final video was largely motivated by numerous instructor requests for such a resource.)

To generate videos with the technological affordances necessary for think-alouds, interactive quizzes, and visual metaphors, our writing center obtained funding from a university initiative focused on using educational technology to improve learning outcomes, and hired an intern with a background in visual design. Our director and associate director worked with the intern to 1) generate a video script with interactive activities, 2) develop accompanying visuals (see Appendix), 3) record an audio narration of the script, and 4) and package all of these together with transitions and animations using Camtasia, a video editing software from Techsmith. This process was highly collaborative and went through multiple iterations of revisions to user test the clarity and effectiveness of the message. We obtained insights about video creation from scholarship (Shah et al.) and heeded Cherrett’s caution that “videos do not automatically and necessarily achieve these goals unless they are designed carefully” to ensure that “the user will not be overloaded and distracted from the actual learning materials” (1126). Given careful scaffolding and a lack of experience, the process took one year.

To evaluate our new pedagogy of source use, we conducted two studies on demographics with particular trouble integrating sources into their writing: 1) incoming international MA students to the university’s Information Systems Management program (all NNES) and 2) First Year Writing (FYW) students. For the NNES, we compared learning gains between students who watched our video to those who participated in a workshop that took a traditional approach to paraphrasing. For FYW students, given lack of feasible control group, pre and post surveys were administered for several FYW classes that viewed the videos.

For both groups, we sought to answer the follow research questions:

1. Did student understanding about using sources for knowledge transformation change after participating in the new pedagogy on source use?

2. Did student ability to recognize effective paraphrase in response to task change after participating in the new pedagogy on source use?

3. Did student understanding about the process of using sources (e.g., note-taking) change after participating in the new pedagogy on source use?

Study 1

Methods

We first tested our novel approach to source use on the demographic of international non-native English speaking Master’s students.

Participants

50 participants were recruited from Heinz College’s Information Systems Management program during their MA program orientation. All participants were non-native English speakers (NNES) and new to the university. Participants were randomly assigned to the control or experimental (video) group and all were compensated $20 for their participation. There were ultimately 22 students in each group, control and video. This study was conducted with IRB approval (STUDY2016_00000028).

Control group: Traditional workshop

The traditional, 90 minute in-person workshop was conducted by an ESL specialist. This popular workshop around campus aimed to help international students avoid plagiarism through paraphrasing. We consider this interactive session a strong example of a traditional approach to source use instruction, using representative framing and exercises that focus on language alteration to avoid plagiarism and citation conventions. The workshop, titled Paraphrasing Properly and Avoiding Plagiarism, started by discussing academic integrity then moved to quoting and paraphrasing. Quoting was discussed as an effective strategy—though one that should be not be overused—and mechanics were discussed such as brackets and ellipses for missing referents and information. The use of quotation marks was also particularly emphasized. Paraphrasing was then discussed as the harder but more “expected” method used to show “thoughtful understanding of the material.” Citations were emphasized as a crucial component of both quoting and paraphrasing, and the workshop strongly emphasized that missing a citation is considered plagiarism. Lastly, students learned the REmember model of paraphrasing:

Refer - Make sure to include a reference to the author

Reword/Rephrase/Restructure - Successful state the original idea in your own words. These are not separate steps; they all must occur for a successful paraphrase.

Reduce - Combine more sentences and ideas by generalizing and summarizing. Check for conciseness.

Restate - Double check that you did not alter the meaning of the original ideas used.

Reread/Revise - Read the original and your paraphrase again to make sure that your paraphrase is successful and revise if needed.

Students then compared several excerpts against the source text, identified if sample paraphrases were effective or could be considered plagiarism, and discussed how the REmember model could improve ineffective source use. All sample paraphrases consisted of a single decontextualized sentence. We consider this workshop to fit within the traditional model of paraphrase instruction.

Experimental group: Video series

In the experimental group that tested our new approach to source use instruction, participants watched the first and second videos of the series and were led through group discussions. The main idea was to share with students the crucial elements of our new approach to source use: 1) teaching paraphrasing as a rhetorically diverse range of purpose-dependent skills 2) deconstructing reading processes involved with critical source use and 3) inviting a critical approach to the pedagogy itself using non-directive methods of instruction. To fit the total study into 90 minutes to match the control group, one activity in video 2 was omitted in which students read sample essays and hear an accompanying instructor think-aloud.

Measures

Participants responded to self-reported Likert scale questions that assessed their source use behavior, especially in regards to knowledge transforming and process, e.g., “I take a lot of notes when I read source readings,” “I quote from source readings as much as possible,” “When I paraphrase, I substitute words but keep the order of the sentences the same,” “When I paraphrase source readings, I combine my own ideas will the reading’s words.” Questions also addressed self-efficacy and perceived understanding, e.g., “I understand the differences between ‘summary’ and ‘analysis,’” “I feel confident using my own words to paraphrase source readings,” “I understand how to avoid plagiarism.” Student ability to recognize effective paraphrase was also tested by having them rate excerpts of source use in response to various prompts that asked for summary or analysis, and provide reasons for their ratings. Post-surveys also prompted students to identify the most important lesson they learned from the workshop and to summarize the videos in their own words. While students did take the survey twice (pre and post), any response bias would be similar in both groups.

Results

NNES video students were more likely to consider knowledge-transforming

Our primary goal was to assess the approach of teaching paraphrasing as a spectrum of options from knowledge telling to transforming. Findings indicate this approach was generally successful. Figure 6 compares student post-test scores for video and traditional groups on knowledge transforming measures and shows that after watching the video, students reported being less likely to rely on direct quotes (t=3.05, p<.01) and more likely to combine their own ideas with the readings’ words (t=3.07, p<.01).

Figures 7(a) and (b) take a closer look at these findings by analyzing pre- and post-scores of both groups. Figure 7(a) shows the traditional group was actually more likely to quote after the workshop than before (t= 4.46, p<.001). This suggests the workshop’s fear-of-plagiarism tactics, especially inadvertent plagiarism, encouraged stricter adherence to a knowledge telling framework; students may have felt the safest route was to quote authors directly. Differing attitudes towards knowledge-transforming are also seen in Figure 7(b) as video students were more willing to combine their own ideas with the reading’s (t=4.46, p<.001), perhaps suggesting increased receptivity to viewing original analysis as a viable option. It should be noted that after the study’s completion, the authors felt that the phrasing “combining” one’s ideas with the readings could encourage ethically problematic source use, as noted in the discussion.

Traditional workshop participants did outperform video students on several important transforming measures. Notably, traditional participants reported being less likely to simply substitute words (t=2.11, p<.05) or include all of the source’s ideas and phrases (t=2.36, p<.01). We hypothesize that the traditional workshop’s repeated practice paraphrasing individual sentences helped students clearly see the unacceptability of such strategies. Future iterations of the videos may try to incorporate additional opportunities for practice and other potential benefits of the traditional approach.

NNES video students were better at identifying task-appropriate paraphrases

Ratings of student excerpts confirm the finding that students from the traditional workshop adhered to a knowledge telling approach, even when the task explicitly called for transforming. This relates back to Price’s idea of “gotcha!” pedagogy: fear of plagiarism as a driving force of source instruction may scare students from original thinking and knowledge transforming. As seen in Figure 8(a), traditional students rated an excerpt with original analysis more harshly after the workshop, despite the fact that the prompt asked students to “Respond to Baja’s argument about the 2010 TSA security measures” (italics added). Those who rated this excerpt as the worst (of three) often pointed to the strong analysis as the offense:

• has extra information. Author is using his/er own ideas.

• meaning is misunderstood.

• he gives his own opinions.

Findings in Figure 8(a) also suggest the traditional workshop’s prioritization of plagiarism may have (understandably) distracted students from the issue of task, as traditional students actually increased their rating of the excerpt that mistakenly summarized by 15% after the workshop. A similar problem could easily occur in the classroom: anxiety about attribution may edge out other important contenders for writers’ cognitive attention, such as reading the prompt. This again suggests that a knowledge telling framework may obscure rhetorical analysis of task.

While video gains on this measure were not statistically significant, video students were better able to correctly identify when an excerpt mistakenly summarized in response to the above task calling for analysis, as shown in Figure 8(b). Students correctly noted, “no opinion just information telling from student 1” and “1 is more of a ‘repetition’ than ‘response,” feedback which borrows the video’s framing and suggests retention of its concepts. The video group’s focus on task is also apparent as 64% of their main workshop takeaways mentioned the difference between summary and analysis and the choice to use either when considering a task:

• Differentiating the scenarios that require telling and ones that require transformation.

• Identifying problems that require telling, paraphrase and response ... How to prepare writing for prompts requiring analyzing different sources.

• Summary and analysis are two completely different concepts - know when to repeat rephrase and respond.

These findings suggest that the video successfully conveyed the importance of analyzing task to clarify one’s rhetorical purpose before deciding how to engage with a source.

NNES video students showed increased attention to process

The video students seemed increasingly attentive to the process of using note taking while reading to transform, as shown by the steep rise in Figure 9 (t= 4.68, p< .001). In addition, over half the students in the video group mentioned the process of generating a paraphrase when asked about the most important lessons from the workshop:

• We always should take notes while reading as then the entire writing will be a smooth transition instead of a mix and match of the points we want to mention in our writing.

• Spend more time in the preparation before beginning to write.

• Important of “pre-response” planning to create strong response.

• Taking notes and writing down my thoughts when reading a text.

Such self-reported outcomes are highly desirable and expected given the focus of the videos.

NNES control group shown concern about avoiding plagiarism

The purpose of the traditional workshop was to understand what constitutes plagiarism and learn techniques to avoid it. The traditional workshop successfully achieved the latter goal. Students in the control group reported statistically significant gains in understanding how to avoid plagiarism (t=2.08, p<.05), but no gains in understanding what plagiarism was. However, while the traditional group was still grappling with understanding what plagiarism is, they certainly understood the importance of the issue. In fact, when asked about their primary takeaway of the workshop, 86% mentioned plagiarism, and 77% mention citation:

• Plagiarism has serious consequences in US (at [university redacted]). To avoid plagiarism, refer, reword, rephrase, restructure, reduce length, restate to make sure that meaning is intact. Citations, quotations and paraphrasing holds great importance ...

• Using exact words without correct format (quotation mark) could be considered plagiarism. Minor modification in sentence ... will be considered plagiarism.

• Paraphrasing techniques and how to come up with most suitable sentences in order to avoid any form of plagiarism.

• Citation - fairy easy. Paraphrasing - fairly tricky. Plagiarism - can be avoided if we are careful.

It is interesting to note that many of these sentiments indicate an approach of moving away from undesirable practices rather than moving towards desirable ones. Future work should consider if such attitudes correlate with student ability to execute responsible source use. Interestingly, students in the video group also reported statistically significant gains on understanding how to avoid plagiarism, despite the fact that the term plagiarism was not used once (t=2.42, p<.05).

Study 2

Methods

To validate these findings, we tested a different but equally relevant demographic of First Year Writing (FYW) students. Six FYW courses integrated these videos into their curriculum. Of 114 total students, 68 completed consent forms and pre- post- surveys, a 60% response rate.

Results

FYW students were also more likely to consider knowledge transforming

Pre- and post- test scores in Figure 10 show that FYW students experienced gains similar to those experienced by the Master’s level international students for knowledge-transforming measures. Like the NNES students who watched the video, FYW students reported being more likely to combine their own ideas with the readings’ words after watching the video (t=7.14, p<.001). These gains were parallel to the improvement shown by NNES, around a 30% increase, despite different baseline scores. Several other significant but more minor differences were found: after watching the video, students were less likely to say they would excessively quote from source readings (t=2.77, p<.05) or merely substitute words but keep sentence order the same (t=3.77, p<.001), and were more likely to understand the difference between summary and analysis (t=2.99, p<.01).

Several open-ended responses also showed a focus on knowledge transforming:

• There are three levels of understanding, with the lowest being just restating ideas, and the highest being transforming the information to offer new ideas and thoughts to answer questions.

• Taking source readings and forming your own ideas from them is the difference between a good essay and a great one

• You should transform ideas and mold them to fit your argument rather than spitting back the information in the source text.

• Paraphrasing is extremely useful when it comes to turning source material into your own argument. Simply regurgitating information is neither analytical nor interesting

Interestingly, the FYW students seemed to gravitate, more than the NNES demographic, to the idea of synthesis as an available option to transform knowledge:

• You can combine source texts together, selecting the parts that are relevant to you, to build any argument.

• Drawing connections b/w sources is a really useful method of developing analytical writing

• The videos made an analogy between paraphrasing and potatoes. A writer will take a potato and manipulate it a little, but then return it as is. A strong writer will change it, add it with other vegetables, and manipulate it to strengthen their argument soup.

FWY students also showed increased attention to process

FYW students also showed increased attention to process as shown in Figure 11. Substantial gains for the category of “I take a lot of notes when reading sources” were consistent with the NNES demographic gains, with each displaying a 35% increase. Statistically significant improvements were also seen in other categories including confidence in using one’s own words to paraphrase (t=5.70, p<.001), avoidance of excessive quoting (t=2.77, p<0.05) and not simply substituting words while keeping sentence order the same (t=3.77, p<.001).

Open ended responses also reveal student awareness of the importance of a strategic reading and research process defined by the writer’s argumentative purpose. This suggests the videos’ approach to “show” rather than “tell” reading processes using think-aloud protocols was successful:

• How to write a good essay: read the prompt and expect what to find in readings, read the readings with ideas, rephrase the idea in own word, take notes and review notes

• ... filter the source while you read

• Writing a paper is more than just typing. It goes back to reading, planning, drafting, then writing.

• By engaging with the text as you read and formulating your own argument, you will be better able to effectively craft an analysis paper and use the text as support

FWY students generally did not improve at task analysis

Interestingly, few substantial differences were observed for FYW students’ reported ability to identify when paraphrase responded to analysis or summary tasks. Students did demonstrate a significant improvement in identifying inappropriate responses (summary) to an analysis task (t=2.26, p<.05), but otherwise demonstrated no gains in task analysis. Some student comments also bring up interesting questions about summary: how much interpretation a summary should contain and whether a summary should include only main ideas or all details. Still, in general it seems the video were less impactful at improving task analysis for FYW students than NNES students.

Discussion

In conclusion, prioritization of reproducing meaning and altering language in source instruction ignores the student writer’s context, task, and purpose, and may actually discourage the critical interactions with sources we want to encourage in the composition classroom. We proposed a new approach to source use instruction that positions paraphrasing on a spectrum of knowledge telling to knowledge transforming, demystifies reader response processes of engaging with sources, and employs the format of interactive, non-directive videos. Readers can access these videos at https://sites.google.com/andrew.cmu.edu/gcc/videos. Our hope is the pedagogical approach used here, even beyond the videos themselves, will be adopted more broadly, specifically the elements of naming knowledge telling and transforming as two separate processes, focusing on reading strategies as a foundation for meaningful source use, and framing instruction to invite active and critical participation rather than passive acceptance.

Findings suggest this approach has the following benefits for NNES students: students were able to take a knowledge transforming approach by combining their own words with the source text and avoiding excessive reliance on direct quotes; students were able to analyze tasks and assess when a response did not fit task; and students were able to recognize the importance of note taking when transforming sources. A pilot study of First Year Writing students suggests this group was able to realize similar gains. There were a few areas in which our video seemed less effective than a traditional workshop and future iterations of the videos may include more opportunities for practice.

Perhaps the most important implication from this study is that traditional approaches to source use instruction focused on fear-motivated pedagogy and crying “gotcha!” when students engage in inadvertent plagiarism reinforce a knowledge telling approach. Students in the traditional workshop reported increased tendencies to use direct quotes, showed an emphatic focus on avoiding plagiarism, and rated summaries highly even in response to tasks that called for analysis. This suggests a real fear with engaging in original thought and knowledge transforming.

An overall limitation with this approach is that discussion of knowledge transforming may encourage students to inappropriately alter source texts or take them out of context. Responsible source use starts with not only understanding the source text but also the context to which it is responding. Subsequent interventions will explore and seek to elaborate more fully how transforming can be explained and modelled in ethical ways. In addition to teaching students to attend to and respect the situation a source is responding to, it may be beneficial to teach common academic phrases to draw attention interpretative moves, such as “While X is largely speaking to Y audiences, her claim can perhaps also be applied to the case of Z.”

A limitation with this study’s design is that self-reported measures of understanding may not accurately represent student long-term abilities with source use. While this research aimed to assess actual paraphrasing abilities within the broader context of a paper, the time-consuming nature of the task prevented students from creating any completed artifacts for analysis. Further studies will analyze written student artifacts to assess their ability to execute knowledge transformation. In addition, future study designs can isolate the variable of the information delivery medium to better ascertain the impact of a video versus in-person lecture.

Appendix: Post-workshop Questionnaire

Your name: ______________________________

What is the most important lesson you learned from today’s workshop?

Can you summarize the videos in your own words?

Part I:

When an instructor assigns a source reading (an article, webpage, or textbook section) and then asks you to write a text “summarizing, “responding,” “taking a position,” or “explaining” that reading, you are being asked to engage with the source reading in different ways, often through quoting and paraphrasing. This survey will ask you questions about how you use or would use source readings.

For each statement below, indicate the extent to which it resembles your practice.

	Always	Usually	Often	Sometimes	Rarely	Never
I feel confident using my own words to paraphrase source readings.
A good paraphrase should include all of the source text’s ideas and phrases.
I understand the differences between “summary” and “analysis.”
Restating source readings in my own words seems pointless.
I understand what plagiarism is.
When I paraphrase, I substitute words but keep the order of the sentence the same.
In the future, I will try to quote source readings as much as possible.
In the future, I will take a lot of notes when I read source readings.
I understand how to avoid plagiarism.
In the future, when I paraphrase source readings, I will combine my own ideas with the reading’s words.

Part II: Read the three student responses to the assignment below and evaluate how well each satisfies the assignment prompt

Assignment prompt: Respond to Baja’s argument about the 2010 TSA security measures

Source Text by Jose Baja

“Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Congress created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which put federal employees in charge of airport security screening and has spent billions of dollars to enhance security measures. In 2010, the TSA introduced a controversial slate of new security procedures. These new procedures, which include full-body x-ray scanners and enhanced pat-downs, have enraged many passengers and civil rights groups, who see them as an invasion of privacy. Such measures, when used indiscriminately, can do more harm than good by alienating the people the TSA is trying to protect. Instead, these new security measures should be used selectively as secondary inspection tools on persons of suspicion. Our primary security system should rely on gathering more intelligence on passengers and employing more rigorous questioning by officials who are trained to exercise judgment.”

Student 1: Baja explains how the TSA was created after the 9/11 attacks. In 2010, new security procedures were implemented, including full-body scanners and pat-down screening. Baja claims that “such measures, when used indiscriminately, can do more harm than good by alienating the people the TSA is trying to protect.” Instead of these measures, Baja thinks we should rely on intelligence gathering and better training of security officials. The new security measures should only be used when a person is suspicious.

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Weak

Very Weak

Student 2: Baja makes a strong case that the 2010 security measures implemented by the TSA go too far. As Baja convincingly argues, these measures violate passengers’ privacy, increase stress, and make passengers less willing to comply with the TSA. However, Baja’s solutions - relying more on intelligence gathering and “more rigorous questioning”—might not make passengers become more cooperative. In fact, these solutions seem like they might further harass, anger and invade the privacy of airplane travelers.

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Weak

Very Weak

Student 3: Baja argues that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) introduced new measures in 2010 that upset many passengers, who see the new procedures as a violation of privacy. Baja believes that these measures hurt more than they help and that they should only be used as a secondary tool on suspicious passengers. The solutions he provides—that we should first rely on gathering information and training security personnel to ask thorough questions and only use the invasive security procedures in special cases—seem logical.

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Weak

Very Weak

Which student do you think does the best job responding to the prompt? _________

Which does the worst job? ___________

Explain the reasons for your rankings:

Part III: Read the three student responses to the assignment below and evaluate how well each satisfies the assignment prompt

Assignment prompt: Summarize Robertson’s argument about the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

Source Text by Charlotte Robertson:

The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was an internet fundraising campaign in which individuals posted videos of themselves dumping buckets of ice water over their heads in order to raise money and awareness for the debilitating disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, known mostly in the US as Lou Gehrig's Disease). Despite the campaign’s widespread success, the challenge has done little to educate the public on ALS or the importance of donations. Many participants in the challenge completed it for shock-value and neither researched the debilitating disease or donated a dollar. The average participant spent more money on the ice than on funding research that could help make the lives of ALS patients better.

Student 1: Robertson claims that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, a social media video campaign to raise money for Lou Gehrig’s disease, was ineffective because most of those posting videos failed to donate or educate themselves about the disease. In other words, Robertson is claiming that the “challenge” was actually more about sharing funny videos with friends than it was about raising ALS awareness and funds.

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Weak

Very Weak

Student 2: According to Robertson, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was a fundraising campaign in which people submitted videos of buckets of ice water being dumped over their heads to raise funds for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also called Lou Gehrig's Disease). Despite being successful, Robertson believes the campaign was not educational because most people completed the challenge just for shock-value, and spent more on making their videos than funding research that could improve the lives of ALS patients.

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Weak

Very Weak

Student 3: The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was a campaign in which people raised money for the disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also called ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease) by posting videos of themselves “dumping buckets of ice water over their heads” (Robertson). Charlotte Robertson states that people completed the challenge “for shock-value and neither researched the debilitating disease or donated a dollar.” She believes that most people spent more money creating their videos than they did contributing to ALS research.

Excellent

Good

Acceptable

Weak

Very Weak

Which student do you think does the best job responding to the prompt? _________

Which does the worst job? ___________

Explain the reasons for your rankings:

In exchange for allowing us to use your materials in our research, complete the following:

Student Level:

Undergraduate:
First-year Sophomore Junior Senior

Graduate:
Master’s PhD

Gender: Female Male Prefer to self-describe _______________ Prefer not to say

What is your native language? ____________________

What school did you attend before coming to [university name redacted]? ________________

Where is that school located? ____________________

Notes

1. We would like to acknowledge the Simon ProSEED grant which made possible the development and assessment of this video. (Return to text.)

2. Videos are available at: https://sites.google.com/andrew.cmu.edu/gcc/videos
   (Return to text.)

Works Cited

Abasi, Ali R., and Nahal Akbari. Are We Encouraging Patchwriting? Reconsidering the Role of the Pedagogical Context in ESL Student Writers’ Transgressive Intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 27, no. 3, Jan. 2008, pp. 267-284, doi:10.1016/J.ESP.2008.02.001.

Abasi, Ali R., and Barbara Graves. Academic Literacy and Plagiarism: Conversations with International Graduate Students and Disciplinary Professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 7, no. 4, Oct. 2008, pp. 221-233, doi:10.1016/J.JEAP.2008.10.010.

Adam, Lee. Student Perspectives on Plagiarism. Handbook of Academic Integrity, edited by Tracey Bretag, Springer, 2016, pp. 519-535, doi:10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_67.

Alavi, Maryam. Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: An Empirical Evaluation. MIS Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2, June 1994. pp. 159-174, doi:10.2307/249763.

Bakhtin, Mikhail, M. (1981). Discourse in the Novel. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, edited by Michael Holquist, translated by Carl Emerson and Michael Holquist, U of Texas P, pp. 259-300.

Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia. The Psychology of Written Composition. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1987.

Bullock, Richard H. and Francine Weinberg. The Norton Field Guide to Writing with Handbook. WW Norton & Co., 2009.

Cardall, Scott, Edward Krupat, and Michael Ulrich. Live Lecture Versus Video-Recorded Lecture: Are Students Voting With Their Feet? Academic Medicine, vol. 83, no. 12, Dec. 2008, pp. 1174-1178, doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31818c6902.

Casanave, Christine Pearson. Learning Participatory Practices in Graduate School: Some Perspective-Taking by a Mainstream Educator. Learning the Literacy Practices of Graduate School: Insiders’ Reflections on Academic Enculturation, edited by Christine Pearson Casanave and Xiaoming Li., U of Michigan P, 2008, pp. 14-31.

Chandrasoma, Ranamukalage, Celia Thompson and Alastair Pennycook. Beyond Plagiarism: Transgressive and Nontransgressive Intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, vol. 3, no. 3, July 2004, pp. 171-193, doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0303_1.

Cherrett, Tom, Gary Wills, Joe Price, Sarah Maynard and Itiel E. Dror. Making Training More Cognitively Effective: Making Videos Interactive. British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 40, no. 6, Nov. 2009, pp. 1124-1134, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00985.x.

Cumming, Alister, Conttia Lai and Hyeyoon Cho. Students’ Writing from Sources for Academic Purposes: A Synthesis of Recent Research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 23, 2016, pp. 47-58, doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002.

Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, vol. 32, no. 4, 1981, pp. 365-387, doi:10.2307/356600.

Haas, Christina. Beyond ‘Just the Facts’: Reading as Rhetorical Action. Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the College Writing Classroom, edited by Ann M. Penrose and Barbara M. Sitko, Oxford UP, 1993, pp. 19-32.

Higgins, Lorraine D. Reading to Argue: Helping Students Transform Source Texts. Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the Writing Classroom, edited by Ann M. Penrose and Barbara Sitko, Oxford UP, 1993, pp. 70-101.

Hirvela, Alan, and Qian Du. ‘Why Am I Paraphrasing?’: Undergraduate ESL Writers’ Engagement with Source-Based Academic Writing and Reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 12, no. 2, June 2013, pp. 87-98, doi:10.1016/J.JEAP.2012.11.005.

Howard, Rebecca Moore. A Plagiarism Pentimento. Journal of Teaching Writing, vol. 11, no. 2, 1992, pp. 233-245, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ475663.

---. Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty. College English, vol. 57, no. 7, 1995, pp. 788-806, doi:10.2307/378403.

---. Writing Matters: A Handbook for Writing and Research. 3^rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2017.

Howard, Rebecca Moore, Tricia Serviss and Tanya K. Rodrigue. Writing from Sources, Writing from Sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, vol. 2, no. 2, 2010, pp. 177-192, doi:10.1558/wap.v2i2.177.

Jamieson, Sandra. Reading and Engaging Sources: What Students’ Use of Sources Reveals About Advanced Reading Skills. Across the Disciplines, vol. 10 no. 4, 2013, pp. 1-24, http://wac.colostate.edu/ATD/reading/jamieson.cfm.

---. What the Citation Project Tells Us About Information Literacy in College Composition. Information Literacy: Research and Collaboration across Disciplines, edited by Barbara J. D’Angelo, Sandra Jamieson, Barry Maid and Janice R. Walker. The WAC Clearinghouse and UP of Colorado, 2016, pp. 119-143.

Jones, Nigel, Panico Georghiades and John Gunson. Student Feedback via Screen Capture Digital Video: Stimulating Student’s Modified Action. Higher Education, vol. 64, 2012, pp. 593-607, doi:10.2307/23275715.

Keck, Casey. Copying, Paraphrasing, and Academic Writing Development: A Re-Examination of L1 and L2 Summarization Practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 25, no. 1, 2014, pp. 4-22, doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005.

Kerr, Wesley, and Paul McLaughlin. The Benefit of Screen Recorded Summaries in Feedback for Work Submitted Electronically. 12th CAA International Computer Assisted Assessment Conference: Proceedings of the Conference on 8th and 9th July 2008 at Loughborough University, Loughborough U, 2008, pp. 153-168, https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/5363.

Kitsantas, Anastasia, Barry Zimmerman and Tim Cleary. The Role of Observation and Emulation in the Development of Athletic Self-Regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 92, no. 4, 2000, pp. 811-817, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.811.

Li, Yongyan, and Christine Pearson Casanave. Two First-Year Students’ Strategies for Writing from Sources: Patchwriting or Plagiarism? Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 21, no. 2, June 2012, pp. 165-180, doi:10.1016/J.JSLW.2012.03.002.

Mayer, Richard E., and Roxana Moreno. Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 14, no. 1, 2002, pp. 87-99, https://ydraw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Stop-Motion-Aids-Multimedia-Learning.pdf.

Pecorari, Diane. Good and Original: Plagiarism and Patchwriting in Academic Second-Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 12, no. 4, Dec. 2003, pp. 317-345, doi:10.1016/J.JSLW.2003.08.004.

Polio, Charlene, and Ling Shi. Perceptions and Beliefs about Textual Appropriation and Source Use in Second Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 21, no. 2, 2012, pp. 95-101, doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.001.

Price, Margaret. Beyond ‘Gotcha!’: Situation Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, vol. 54, no. 1, 2008, pp. 88-115. doi:10.2307/1512103.

Pritchard, Robert. Using Think Alouds to Identify and Teach Reading Comprehension Strategies. The CATESOL Journal, vol. 18 no. 1, 2006, pp. 151-159, http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CJ18_pritchard.pdf.

Paraphrase Exercises. The Writing Lab and The OWL at Purdue and Purdue U, 2018, https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/using_research/quoting_paraphrasing_and_summarizing/paraphrasing.html.

Rijlaarsdam, Gert, Martine Braaksma, Michel Couzijn, and Huub van den Bergh. Observation of Peers in Learning to Write: Practice and Research. Journal of Writing Research, vol. 1, no. 1, 2008, pp. 53-83, doi:10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.3.

Rogerson, Ann M., and Grace McCarthy. Using Internet Based Paraphrasing Tools: Original Work, Patchwriting or Facilitated Plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 13, no. 1, 2017, p. 2, doi:10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y.

Schriver, Karen A. Teaching Writers to Anticipate Readers’ Needs: A Classroom-Evaluated Pedagogy. Written Communication, vol. 9, no. 2, Apr. 1992, pp. 179-208, doi:10.1177/0741088392009002001.

Serviss, Tricia. Creating Faculty Development Programming to Prevent Plagiarism: Three Approaches. Handbook of Academic Integrity, edited by Tracey Ann Bretag, Springer, 2015, pp. 1-14, doi:10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_73-1.

Shah, Darshita N, Jennifer E. French, Janet Rankin, and Lori Breslow. Using Video to Tie Engineering Themes to Foundational Concepts. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 23 June 2013, Atlanta, GA. ASEE Conferences, 2013. https://peer.asee.org/22732.

Shang, Yi, Hongchi Shi, and Su-Shing Chen. An Intelligent Distributed Environment for Active Learning. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, vol. 1, no. 2, Aug. 2001, pp. 308-315. doi:10.1145/384055.384059.

Shi, Ling, Ishmaeil Fazel, and Nasrin Kowkabi. Paraphrasing to Transform Knowledge in Advanced Graduate Student Writing. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 51, Mar. 2018, pp. 31-44, doi:10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.001.

Silva, Mary Lourdes. Camtasia in the Classroom: Student Attitudes and Preferences for Video Commentary or Microsoft Word Comments During the Revision Process. Computers and Composition, vol. 29, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-22, doi:10.1016/J.COMPCOM.2011.12.001.

Sitko, Barbara. Exploring Feedback: Writers Meet Readers. Hearing Ourselves Think: Cognitive Research in the Writing Classroom, edited by Ann M. Penrose and Barbara Sitko, Oxford UP, 1993, pp. 170-187.

Smith, Charlene M., and Todd M. Sodano. Integrating Lecture Capture as a Teaching Strategy to Improve Student Presentation Skills through Self-Assessment. Active Learning in Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 3, 2011, pp. 151-62, doi:10.1177/1469787411415082.

Smith, Jeffrey G., and Rita L. Smith. Screen-Capture Instructional Technology: A Cognitive Toll for Designing a Blended Multimedia Curriculum, Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 46, no. 3, 2012, pp. 207-228. doi:10.2190/EC.46.3.a.

Swales, John M., and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. U of Michigan P, 2004.

Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing. The Writing Lab and The OWL at Purdue and Purdue U, 2018, https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/563/1/.

Toto, Roxanne, and Hien Nguyen. Flipping the Work Design in an Industrial Engineering Course. 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE, 2009, pp. 1-4, doi:10.1109/FIE.2009.5350529.

Yamada, Kyoko. What Prevents ESL/EFL Writers from Avoiding Plagiarism?: Analyses of 10 North-American College Websites. System, vol. 31, no. 2, 2003, pp. 247-258 doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00023-X.

Zhang, Dongsong, Lina Zhou, Robert O. Briggs, Jay F. Nunamaker. Instructional Video in E-Learning: Assessing the Impact of Interactive Video on Learning Effectiveness. Information & Management, vol. 43, no. 1, 2006, pp. 15-27, doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.01.004.

Zimmerman, Barry J., and Anastasia Kitsantas. Acquiring Writing Revision and Self-Regulatory Skill through Observation and Emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 94, no. 4, 2002, pp. 660-668, http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2002-06506-002.