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.
|