Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment

Abstract Source-based writing is becoming more common in tests of academic English, in part to make tests more reflective of authentic academic writing. However, the concern has been raised that over-reliance on language from the source texts in essays may mask gaps in proficiency and thus lead to an inaccurate assessment of writing skill. In this paper, we present results of a study designed to determine the extent to which students borrow source text language in an integrated reading/writing test. Sixty-three essays were transcribed verbatim and coded for source text borrowing using a scheme adapted from Shi (2004) . The sample was selected to represent two different writing topics, two student groups (undergraduate and graduate), and four levels of proficiency. Each incidence of textual borrowing was coded for length (number of words), whether it was quoted, referenced, or not referenced, and whether it was copied, modified, or reformulated. Results suggest that only a small percentage of students borrowed extensively from the source texts and that there were only minor differences in patterns of borrowing across topics, student groups and proficiency levels.

[1]  Casey Keck,et al.  The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers , 2006 .

[2]  Cherry Campbell.  Second Language Writing: Writing with others' words: using background reading text in academic compositions , 1990 .

[3]  William Grabe,et al.  Communicative language proficiency : definition and implications for TOEFL 2000 , 1997 .

[4]  Ling Shi,et al.  Cultural Backgrounds and Textual Appropriation , 2006 .

[5]  Lyle F. Bachman,et al.  语言测试实践 = Language testing in practice , 1998 .

[6]  Ling Shi,et al.  Textual Borrowing in Second-Language Writing , 2004 .

[7]  Atta Gebril,et al.  Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all? , 2009 .

[8]  Atta Gebril,et al.  Bringing Reading-to-Write and Writing-Only Assessment Tasks Together: A Generalizability Analysis. , 2010 .

[9]  Christine B. Feak,et al.  Building on the Impromptu: A Source-Based Academic Writing Assessment. , 1996 .

[10]  Pat Currie,et al.  Staying out of trouble: Apparent plagiarism and academic survival , 1998 .

[11]  Lia Plakans,et al.  Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment , 2009 .

[12]  Theresa Ann Hyland.  Drawing a line in the sand: Identifying the borderzone between self and other in EL1 and EL2 citation practices , 2009 .

[13]  Hameed Esmaeili,et al.  Integrated Reading and Writing Tasks and ESL Students' Reading and Writing Performance in an English Language Test , 2002 .

[14]  A. Pennycook.  Borrowing Others' Words: Text, Ownership, Memory, and Plagiarism , 1996 .

[15]  Alister Cumming,et al.  Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL , 2005 .

[16]  John Read.  Providing Relevant Content in an EAP Writing Test. , 1990 .

[17]  Sara Cushing Weigle,et al.  Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English , 2004 .

[18]  Lia Plakans,et al.  Independent vs. Integrated Writing Tasks: A Comparison of Task Representation , 2010 .

[19]  Lia Plakans,et al.  Comparing Composing Processes in Writing-Only and Reading-to-Write Test Tasks. , 2008 .