Research Questions
Writers
have four means by which they can
incorporate source content into their
text: they can quote, summarize,
paraphrase, or patchwrite that content.
Contemporary educational and media
discourse has been focused on whether
writers acknowledge their sources when
they incorporate material from them. A
more profound question is how writers
incorporate source material; quotation,
summary, paraphrase, and patchwriting are
separate discursive moves representing
different levels of intellectual
engagement with the source. Quotation
requires only the ability to copy.
Paraphrase requires comprehension of and
engagement with a small bit of text, such
as a sentence. Summary requires engagement
with an extended passage, even the entire
text. Patchwriting stands between
quotation and paraphrase; it is neither an
exact copying nor a complete restatement,
and scholars such as Howard and Pecorari
have argued that it typically results from
an incomplete comprehension of the source.
Although writers are universally urged to
use quotation marks and citation whenever
they copy text exactly, many college
composition textbooks recommend paraphrase
as a more sophisticated and useful way of
drawing material from source texts and
some disciplines do not accept direct
quotation as an appropriate way to
incorporate textual source material. Much
has been written about the value of
summary in advanced academic writing; it
demonstrates a high level of engagement
with a source text. Much has been written,
too, about patchwriting as an indication
of uneven comprehension of source texts,
and some educators still regard it as a
form of plagiarism.
The Citation Project began with the desire
to know whether college writers use
quotation, summary, paraphrase, and
patchwriting in their source-based
writing. The findings of the pilot inquiry
are described in "Writing from Sources,
Writing from Sentences," to be published
in the Fall 2010 issue of Writing and
Pedagogy. The questions from the pilot
remain the core questions for the entire
study. Yet as so often happens in research
on writing, the inquiry of the pilot study
produced new questions. Our research now
not only asks whether students use the
four means of incorporating source
content, but how often and under what
circumstances. For example:
Does
the use of quotation, summary,
paraphrase, and patchwriting
correlate with the genre, length,
or linguistic complexity of the
source?
Do any of these four means of
incorporating source content tend
to appear more often at the
beginning or end of the student's
text? Do
students, for example, tend to
summarize sources more often early
in the paper, and patchwrite from
them more frequently toward the
end, suggesting that patchwriting
may be the product of a decrease
in engagement with the paper or a
lack of time?
Does
the frequency of patchwriting
increase with linguistically
complex sources, suggesting that
students patchwrite when they do
not fully comprehend a text?
Do
we see more patchwriting when
students are using condensed texts
that are themselves summaries or
factual overviews of a topic?
Does
the use of quotation, summary,
paraphrase, and patchwriting
correlate with the number of
sources used or the frequency of
use of one source? Are
students, for
example,
more or less likely to patchwrite
when they work with a complete
text, citing different parts of
the text throughout their papers?
|
Answers to such questions as these,
we believe, will help educators move
beyond the surface issue of citation,
towards helping students become
sophisticated conversants with source
texts. These
answers may also help educators increase
students' overall information literacy,
helping students find, evaluate, and
select sources with which they can engage
in meaningful and appropriate ways. As
students' facility in source-based
conversations increases, we believe the
incidence of plagiarism will decrease.
|