Source-based writing is a complex and frequently occurring task type in postsecondary education. While a large body of research now exists investigating source-based student writing, few studies have used corpus-based methods to investigate L1 student performance on source-based writing tasks and to connect this performance to the holistic quality of source use. The current study investigates the relationship among functional dimensions of source use, operationalized for each text (N = 150) as factor scores from a previously conducted multidimensional analysis, and the quality of source use through a simultaneous multiple regression. Then, using the two functional dimensions that emerged as significant predictors of the holistic quality of source use, a qualitative analysis was conducted to investigate how the most strongly loading variables on those two functional dimensions may be contributing to the effectiveness of source use. Implications are discussed as they relate to the development of source-based L1 student writing.
Ascención-DelaneyY. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 140-150.
2.
DoolanS. M. (2020). The influence of sources on First-Year Composition L1 student writing: A multidimensional analysis. In RomerU.CortezV.FriginalE. (Eds.), Advances in corpus-based research on academic writing: Effects of discipline, register, and writer expertise (pp. 90-104). Benjamins.
3.
DoolanS. M. (2021). An exploratory analysis of source integration in post-secondary L1 and L2 source-based writing. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 62, 128-141.
4.
BeaufortA. (2004). Developmental gains of a history major: A case for building a theory of disciplinary writing expertise. Research in the Teaching of English, 39, 136-185.
5.
BereiterC.ScardamaliaM. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Erlbaum.
6.
BiberD. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Benjamins.
7.
BiberD.ConradS. (2019). Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge.
8.
BiberD.GrayB. (2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT Test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report, No. 19). Educational Testing Services.
9.
BrutonS.ChildersD. (2016). The ethics and politics of policing plagiarism: A qualitative study of faculty views on student plagiarism and Turnitin®. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 316-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008981
10.
CharlesM. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 310-331.
11.
CortesV. (2002). Lexical bundles in freshman composition. In ReppenR.FitzmauriceS.BiberD. (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 131-145). John Benjamins.
12.
CrossleyS. AKyleK.DavenportJ.McNamaraD. S. (2016). Automatic assessment of constructed response data in a chemistry tutor [Conference session]. In BarnesT.ChiM.FengM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Educational Data Mining (EDM) Society Conference (pp. 336-340). International Educational Data Mining Society.
13.
CummingA.KantorR.BabaK.EouanzouiK.ErdosyK.JamesM. (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for the new TOEFL. Monograph Series, No. 30. Educational Testing Service.
14.
CummingA.LaiC.ChoH. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47-58.
15.
DavisM.MorleyJ. (2015). Phrasal intertextuality: The responses of academics from different disciplines to students’ re-use of phrases. Journal of Second Language Writing, 28, 20-35.
16.
GebrilA.PlakansL. (2013). Toward a transparent construct of reading-to-write tasks: The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 9-27.
17.
GrabeW.ZhangC. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4, 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.65
18.
GreeneS. (2001). The question of authenticity: Teaching writing in a first-year college history of science class. Research in the Teaching of English, 35, 525-569.
19.
HirvelaA. (2016). Connecting reading & writing in second language writing instruction (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
20.
HirvelaA.DuQ. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 87-98.
21.
HoeyM. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.
22.
HowardR. M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Ablex.
23.
HowardR. M.ServissT.RodrigueT. K. (2010). Writing from sources, writing from sentences. Writing & Pedagogy, 2, 177-192. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.177
24.
HylandK. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
25.
HylandK. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29.
26.
JamiesonS. (2013). Reading and engaging sources: What students’ use of sources reveals about advanced writing skills. Across the Disciplines, 10(4). http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/reading/jamieson.cfm
27.
JarvisS.GrantL.BikowskiD.FerrisD. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 377-403.
28.
KeckC. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006
29.
KeckC. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005
30.
KiblerA. K.HardigreeC. (2017). Using evidence in L2 argumentative writing: A longitudinal case study across high school and university. Language Learning, 67, 75-109.
31.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155-163.
32.
KwonH.StaplesS.PartridgeS. (2018). Source work in the first-year L2 writing classroom: Undergraduate L2 writers’ use of reporting verbs. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.001
LandauerT. K.FoltzP. W.LahamD. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259-284.
35.
LeeJ. J.HitchcockC.CasalJ. E. (2018). Citation practices of L2 university students in first-year writing: Form, function and stance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 1-11.
36.
LekiI.CarsonJ. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39-69.
37.
LekiI.CummingA.SilvaT. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. Routledge.
LiY.CasanaveC. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism?Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 165-180. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002
40.
LiuG.LinV.KouX.WangH. (2016). Best practices in L2 English source use pedagogy: A thematic review and synthesis of empirical studies. Educational Research Review, 19, 36-57.
41.
MateosM.SoléI. (2009). Synthesising information from various texts: A study of procedures and products at different educational levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 435-451.
42.
McGinleyW. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 226-248.
43.
NelsonN. (2008). The reading-writing nexus in discourse research. In BazermanC. (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 435-450). Erlbaum.
44.
PecorariD. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 317-345.
45.
PecorariD.PetrićB. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching, 47, 269-302.
46.
PetrićB. (2007). Rhetorical functions of citations in high- and low-rated master’s theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 238-253.
47.
PlakansL. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26, 561-587. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340192
48.
PolioC.FriedmanD. A. (2016). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing research. Routledge.
49.
Segev-MillerR. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In TorranceM.van WaesL.GalbraithD. (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 231-250). Elsevier.
50.
ShiL. (2008). Textual appropriation and citing behaviours of university undergraduates. Applied Linguistics, 31, 1-24.
51.
SoleI.MirasM.CastellsN.EspinoS.MinguelaM. (2013). Integrating information: An analysis of the processes involved and the products generated in a written synthesis task. Written Communication, 30, 63-90.
52.
SpiveyN. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. Academic Press.
53.
StaplesS.ReppenR. (2016). Understanding first-year L2 writing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32, 17-35. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002
54.
SwalesJ. M. (2014). Variation in citational practice in a corpus of student biology papers: From parenthetical plonking to intertextual storytelling. Written Communication, 31, 118-141.
55.
TaguchiN.CrawfordW.WetzelD. Z. (2013). What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 420-430. http://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.91
56.
ThompsonG.YiyunY. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12, 365-382.
57.
ThompsonP.TribbleC. (2001). Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 91-105.
58.
WetteR. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 159-177.
59.
WetteR. (2017). L2 undergraduate students learning to write using sources: A trajectory of skill development. In BitchenerJ.StorchN.WetteR. (Eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students (pp. 99-114). Routledge.
60.
WetteR. (2021). Writing using sources for academic purposes: Theory, research and practice. Routledge.
ZhaoR.HirvelaA. (2015). Undergraduate ESL students’ engagement in academic reading and writing in learning to write a synthesis paper. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27, 219-241.
