Volume 38

Professional Teaching Articles

August 2009
Article2

Formats
PDF

Title
Writing Wordless Picture Books to Facilitate English Writing

Author
Yi-Ching Huang.

Bio

Yi-Ching Huang is an assistant professor in the Department of Applied Foreign

Languages at Central Taiwan University of Science and Technology in Taiwan. Her
Interest include English teaching and English for Specific Purposes. She teachers
class in English composition, English reading and ESP (Journalistic English, Business
English).

Abstract
This study attempted to examine the extent to which students in the Department of
Applied English in one selected university learn to sustain their English writing by
using wordless picture books, and the effectiveness of using wordless picture books
in terms of students’ English language learning. In this study, a qualitative case
study methodology was used to gather data from the perspectives of the participants
involved. This study employed the following techniques to collect data in this study:
1) teacher observations of student participation in whole-class and small-group
activities; 2) students’ writing sample; 3) informal interviews; 4) class presentations;
5) pre-test writing sample; 6) students’ reflective writing; and 7) questionnaires. The
benefits of using wordless picture books showed that students improved their visual
literacy and oral to written expression, promoted their creative writing and thinking
skills, and enhanced their enjoyment of the writing process. Limited oral language
skills and lack of time for teachers to teach and evaluate the writing process were
examined in depth for this research question. Based on the data and observation,
this study highly endorsed the use of wordless picture books to improve student
writing.

Key Words: Wordless picture books; English writing; creative writing; English
learning.

Introduction
Students’ inability to communicate through written language appears to be problematic in
vocational colleges. Generally speaking, students as a whole are poor writers. College
teachers are often stunned at their students’ inability both to express ideas clearly and to
use the correct conventions to convey those ideas. English as Second Language (ESL)
students in vocational colleges exhibited a need for improving writing skills as evidenced
by classroom teacher observations, authentic writing portfolios and surveys, and test
scores. When students read the assigned textbooks in schools to improve their writing,
they get frustrated writing what they know in English and often begin to draw away from
learning English. This frustration also affects students’ attitudes and abilities in regards to
their English writing. In the past, conventional teaching approaches primarily focused on
vocabulary learning and grammar drills in the classroom. However, the effectiveness of
using such teaching approaches is limited. Most advanced students are still relatively
incompetent in communicating with people in writing. As Graves (1983) mentions, most
schools

ignore the child’s urge to show what he knows. We underestimate the urge because of a
lack of understanding of the writing process and what children do in order to control it.
Instead, we take the control away from children and place unnecessary road blocks in the
way of their intentions (p. 3).

Since vocational students generally feel frustrated and are afraid to learn English, it is
necessary for college teachers’ instructional methodologies to go beyond traditional
textbooks in order to increase their students’ ESL writing skills.

A number of studies supported the notion that the use of wordless picture books is an
effective way to improve students’ writing skills (Anderson & Lapp, 1988; Henry, 2003;
Salminen, 1998);

wordless picture books can be used to encourage the development of writing skills, not
only with young children who are beginning writers, but also with older students who
already possess some skill in writing (D’Angelo, 1979, p. 813).

Saliminen (1998) also mentions that wordless books are a gift to ESL students as well as
an ideal medium for initiating writing activities because wordless books actively
stimulate readers’ imagination and thoughts which in turn stimulates students’ creative
writing. Although wordless picture books are usually viewed as vehicles to enhance the
reading and writing process, few empirical studies investigate the effectiveness of
improving college students’ English writing skills through the use of these books in
Taiwan. Thus, the purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of the use of
wordless books in terms of college students’ writing skills in ESL classes in Taiwan, to
see how wordless picture books serve as a resource for the English writing curriculum
and to determine what difficulties and problems students encountered using this
approach.

Definition of term
Wordless picture books in this study are defined as books that have no written text to
accompany the pictures and are available in print.

Literature review
Using wordless picture books as a language experience is likely to connect visual literacy
(learning to interpret images), cultural literacy (learning the characteristics and
expectations of social groups) and print literacy (learning to read and write language)
(Jalongo et al., 2002). Namely, these connections support the idea that wordless picture
books offer a variety of topics, themes, and levels of difficulty to develop overall literacy
skills in terms of language learning.
Wordless picture books are explained as ’pure’ picture books (Hillman, 1995). They are
read by means of illustrations and the story depends on what the readers visualize. Picture
books without text help students create their own story using the pictures they see rather
than the words they read. Beyond the typical characteristics of a conventional beginning,
a sequence of events, and a conventional ending, wordless picture books help students to
be inspired and to have more creative ideas through using the pictures. In Reese’s (1996),
through discussion and critical examination of the details of the illustrations, students
wrote sentences that effectively complemented the pictures. This helped build their
confidence as readers and writers because these books employ illustrations, therefore the
possibilities for students’ understanding and enjoyment of the story are expanded (Bishop
& Hickman, 1992).
However, this does not mean wordless picture books are a replacement for books with
text. Instead, picture books are used as an additional tool to motivate students to use
pictures to expand their vocabulary by expressing their ideas more precisely. As Carter
(et al., 1998) stated, by building on this skill, students can be guided to expand their
sentences; in turn, they may also have the potential to integrate visual literacy skills into
their writing.
Furthermore, Degler (1979) suggests that students are allowed to evaluate a character’s
actions, focus on some aspect of the unfolding drama, and develop a variety of thinking
strategies through the use of wordless picture books. Hopkins (1979) also argues,

using wordless picture books in your classroom can provide many opportunities for
listening, discussing, writing, and dramatizing activities that stretch young minds and
stimulate thinking (p. 28).

Apparently, the literature indicates that the use of wordless picture books encourages
students to develop higher-order thinking skills and apply them to creative writing
activities.
As Lindauer (1988) suggests, “with wordless books, there are no ‘right’ words to read:
a perfect foundation for purely creative thinking” (p. 138). Students have more flexibility
and freedom to relay what they want to express using wordless picture books, and in turn,
they feel safe and comfortable creating their work without the fear of making mistakes.
These serve as a framework for students to become creative and successful writers
through the presentation of pictures which clearly portray actions and sequences
(D’Angelo, 1979).
In Whalen’s (1974) study, wordless books allowed her students to write well-developed
stories that they could share with others. This study also found that students enjoyed the
writing process more while using wordless picture books. If students perceive writing to
be enjoyable and fun, they will be confident enough to share their perspectives and
feelings on paper. Given this assumption, students are able to feel like they have the
whole world in their hands by using wordless picture books.
The literature clearly reveals that utilizing wordless picture books improves student
writing. However, these studies do not elaborate in detail how wordless picture books are
used with ESL students in order to compensate for the language barrier. This literature
also claims that wordless picture books are helpful when working with younger students,
but there are a few suggestions offered as to how to use them for ESL writing. Moreover,
wordless picture books are generally viewed as only for preschool and kindergarten
students, even though their greatest asset seems to be that they ensure successful learning
experiences. Cassady (1998) states,

wordless books enhance creativity, vocabulary, and language development for readers of
all ages, at all stages of cognitive development, and in all content areas. Along with
teacher guidance, wordless books can especially benefit linguistically or culturally
different readers and struggling readers and writers, as well as more experienced ones in
their middle or junior high school years. Those are crucial years in the development of
lifelong readers. (p. 429)

Wordless books are not just limited to younger readers but can now include older
readers. However, few empirical studies have been conducted for their use with college
students’ writing, especially for their use with students in vocational colleges in Taiwan.
According to Heish (2001), in addition to general English, the proficiency and
competency of English writing for technical and vocational students became essential
after Taiwan joined the World Trade Organisation. Thus, there is a need to foster
technical and vocational students’ English writing skills with the air of cultivating
professionals who are good at English for private-run corporations or government
organizations.
This study attempts to examine the extent to which students in the Department of
Applied English in one selected school learn to sustain their English writing by using
wordless picture books, and the effectiveness of using wordless picture books in terms of
students’ English learning. The research questions are

1. How do the students perceive the effectiveness of using wordless picture books?
2. What challenges and problems do students encounter in this alternative way to
improve their English writing by using wordless picture books?

Methodology
Participants
Forty freshmen students at the Department of Applied English in one selected university
of science and technology in Taiwan were selected to participate in this study. These
participants included eight male students, and thirty-two female students. The range of
students’ was from nineteen to twenty years old. Their English language level almost
reached the Elementary level for General English Proficiency Test (GEPT),
commissioned by Taiwan's Ministry of Education.
This research was conducted from September 2006 to January 2007. The participants
were required to meet for at least 2 hours per week for this study.

Data collection
This study employed the following techniques to collect data: 1) teacher observations of
student participation in whole-class and small-group activities; 2) students’ writing
samples; 3.) pre-test writing samples; 4) class presentations; 5) informal interviews, 6)
students’ reflective writing; and 7) questionnaires.

1. Teacher observations of student participation in whole-class and small-group

activities. The teacher observed students’ behavior in their group discussions.
Sometimes, the teacher conducted informal observations of students in the
classroom, the lobby or in the teacher’s office. The information obtained through
informal observations in the school allowed the researcher to gain a broader
perspective of the role, form and functioning of students’ group discussions.
Through these informal observations, the researcher learned first-hand
information that cannot be gained from interviews about the dynamics within
students’ groups. During all observations, field notes were used to record
impressions, observations, and identify questions to be explored.
2. Students’ writing sample. Students’ writing samples (See appendix A) were
considered as the data in this study. This makes clear how students responded to
this teaching approach, and how they made efforts to write their books. Before
writing their wordless picture books, students needed to do clustering activities
(See Appendix B) to develop their story. Clustering can help students to construct
their story development and some background about vocabulary they can use.
3. Pre-test writing sample. Students were asked to take part in writing with pictures
in GEPT as pre-test before conducting this study.
4. Class presentations. Students were asked to present their e-books in English at
the end of the semester. Students needed to upload pictures, add animation
effects, and background music to their presentation.
5. Informal interviews. All participants who were interviewed were volunteers. The
individuals were interviewed at a location most convenient to them. Interviews
were tape recorded, and notes were taken during the interviews to stimulate future
questions and clarification. Each was transcribed soon after the interview was
concluded. The time for each interview was approximately one hour and followed
a planned interview protocol designed by the researcher.
6. Students’ reflective writing. Students wrote their reflections on doing this project
after finishing this study. Students wrote about their feelings about writing their
own stories, described their problems and challenges and experiences about this
writing process.
7. Questionnaires. All of the students were asked to answer the questionnaire
(Appendix C) designed by the researcher.

Procedures and activities

Pair-and-share meeting
Students were encouraged to select a wordless picture book to read and develop an
original storyline about the pictures. They had the opportunity to create their own
storyline for the book and then tell the story to their partner. Using the “Story Map”
method, students began to write their storyline by identifying the setting, main character,
conflict, and resolution. Once students completed their “Story Map”, each map was used
as a guide to further develop their story.
Students then shared their storylines with another student for critique. Comments and
suggestions were provided by their partner for further story development. The books
students selected included Pancake for Breakfast by DePala (1978), Truck by Crews
(1980), The Snowman by Briggs (1978), Changes, Changes by Hutchins (1971), and In
my Garden by Cristini (1981). Any necessary revisions were made based on the pair-and-
share, student-student meeting.

Whole-class sharing
Once completed, students were asked to read their original story to the class. Students
were encouraged to use multimedia for the picture books during their presentation. For
example, students had to add background music and animation effects into their wordless
books in their oral presentations. The books students presented were a kind of e-book for
the audience.

Data analysis
A pre-writing sample was administered to the students on the first day of the study. The
sample provided baseline data about the students’ writing skills. After all the participants
carried out the tasks, the researcher administered a questionnaire on the assigned tasks in
this study. All of the data were triangulated to interpret the information and clarify the
research questions.
Several steps were taken to establish the trustworthiness of data collection and analysis
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). First, data were collected over six months to validate the
classroom observations. Second, multiple data sources were used to ensure
methodological triangulation. In addition, an ‘audit trail’ was used to establish
dependability and confirmability ((Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The audit trail in this study
included informal interview transcripts, interview guidelines, lists of interviewees,
students’ writing sample, students’ reflective writing, a pre-test writing sample,
questionnaires and notes about the research procedure. The audit trail should allow the
reader to understand the researcher’s thought processes and procedures in relation to
collecting and analyzing the data.

Results and discussion

Perceived benefits of using wordless picture books
Students in this study found three benefits of using wordless picture books. These
benefits included enhancement of enjoyment of the writing process, promotion of
creative writing and thinking skills, and the fostering of cooperative learning. Each of
these benefits will be discussed in more detail below.

Enhancing the enjoyment of the writing process

The majority of the students in the students’ questionnaires (70.97%) indicated that
writing using wordless picture books was an interesting way to learn English writing,
although they felt it was difficult to write their story based on the wordless picture books
they selected. From students’ questionnaires and students’ reflective writing, more than
30 students reported that this was their first time to write using picture books in English.
They felt proud of writing “a book” on their own when they read their story to the class.
Data in this study show it was a valuable experience for students to write the first book in
their life in English.
 Most of the students (75 %) agreed that their English writing would be better if they
kept on learning English by using wordless picture books. This evidence proves that this
approach to teaching writing provides motivation to encourage students to learn English.
Carter, et al., (1998) mentioned that when students perceive writing to be fun, they will
be more confident in sharing their thoughts and feelings on paper. However, according to
the teacher’s observation, the students in this study were not confident about sharing their
story with classmates, although they felt it was an interesting way to learn English. One
explanation might be that students’ English proficiency is limited so they had a hard time
sharing their thoughts in English. Given the fact that students have difficulties with
sharing in English, they really need a good way to motivate them to learn English other
than traditional English teaching methods. This study suggests that using wordless picture
books can be a successful way to motivate students in learning English writing because
this way can enhance students’ enjoyment of the writing process.

Promoting Creative Writing and Thinking Skills

Seventy-one percent of the students in the questionnaire and 30 students from the student
interviews reported that using wordless picture books can develop their creative thinking
skills. Students in this study felt that they had more flexibility and freedom to develop
their stories in their own words using English picture books. They also reported that this
approach allows them to think about what they never thought about before. When the
students invented their narratives, the students demonstrated an understanding of
sequence in their stories, practiced oral and written storytelling skills, and expanded their
cognitive abilities. Through this practice, students had a chance to develop logic in their
story development, and in turn, foster their creative thinking and writing skills. Students
have to create their own story using the pictures they see rather than the words they read,
so they are more likely to add original text in English with wordless books. As Lindauer
(1988) said, “with wordless books, there are no ‘right’ words to read: a perfect foundation
for purely creative thinking” (p. 138). From the teacher’s observations in the classroom
and from the students’ writing samples, the students’ writing tended to be very creative.
For example, a group of students developed their story using Raymond Briggs The
Snowman. Each page in this book consists of a series of pictures of a little boy interacting
with a snowman. Students have to use their higher order thinking skills to explain their
storyline. They ingeniously explained the adventures of a snowman that comes to life and
how he interacts with the boy who made him. Another example of students’ work is using
Truck by Donald Crews (1980). This book illustrates an enormous trailer truck loaded
with tricycles and its trip on the road. Students in this study displayed the truck turning
corners, going through a tunnel, moving up a hill, stopping at an all night diner, and
traveling in the rain to deliver tricycles.
After students worked through their wordless picture books, their writing improved and
they became increasingly more willing to revise their stories. Their sentences were longer
and more descriptive and used conversation. For instance “the big rabbit seemed to show
something interesting to me” became “the big rabbit said ‘I would like to show you
something interesting to you. Are you interested in it?’ asked the rabbit”.
Throughout the 6 months of the project, the teacher believed that students learned to
write stories in complete sentences, to expand their ideas to better describe the pictures,
and to produce a meaningful story. They also learned how to link words to make the story
cohesive, and how to begin sentences in different ways. Students also learned to use
quotation marks for conversations, commas for items in a series, exclamation marks for
emphasis, ellipses (to tell the reader that the thought was not yet complete) and correct
verb tenses. Data from this study shows that using wordless picture books provides a
writing context where students are free to explore and create.

Fostering Cooperative Learning

61.29 percent of students from the questionnaire reported that they learned new
vocabulary by writing using wordless picture books. From the questionnaires and
students’ reflective writing, students in this study reported that they usually used
dictionaries and visited websites as references to complete their stories. In addition, the
students also agreed that their biggest problem with writing storylines for wordless
picture books was their limited vocabulary. Students in the study showed that they
learned how to use their vocabulary in their writing. They said that they usually learnt
difficult words from textbooks, but they did not know how to use them in their real life.
The evidence in the study showed that students with limited vocabulary are likely to be
guided to expand their vocabulary when completing sentences. When students are
encouraged to invent their own stories by using pictures, the students’ vocabulary was
expanded by expressing their ideas more precisely. For example, in the book Truck
byDonald Crews (1980), students not only learned words such as tunnel, fire hydrant,
diner, diesel, bridge, etc., but also consequential words such as first, next, then, last, and
so on. This evidence corresponds to the argument of Carter (et. al., 1998) that says using
wordless picture books helps students to develop their writing skills and enhances
students’ vocabulary. Moreover, when students’ vocabulary increases, they are more
likely to develop their English writing skills.
Furthermore, more than half of the students believed that group discussion and editing
helped their English writing. According to students’ reflective writing and questionnaires,
the students thought that group editing is helpful for story development, especially in
English writing. During group discussion, students can talk with their partners about how
their story developed, how to make the story more logical and coherent, what words
should be used, and what grammar structures should be. The map story tool makes
students think about the settings, problems, possibilities, consequences, and solutions
when they first read their wordless picture books. Then, they talk about their map story
with their teammates, and modify their story. This process occurs prior to the initial
writing of Draft 1. Overall, 61.29 percent of students who responded to the questionnaire
said that they liked to work with their partners on writing using wordless pictures.
In the students’ reflective writing and students’ questionnaire, most of the students
believed that class presentation helped to improve their communication, and provided
them with opportunities for them to practice English. Students also noted that they not
only learned English, but also learned computer skills from this project. They had to learn
how to up load the pictures onto the computer, how to modify text size when typing
words under the photos, and how to present their own book with music as a narrator.
From the teacher’s evaluation and assessment, although there were mistakes in the
students’ writing samples, their English writing improved in comparison with their pre-
test writing sample. The teacher found that the students’ writing tended to be more
cohesive and logical in their writing samples, more organized with regards to the ideas
used to enrich a theme, and more correct in terms of spelling, grammar, usage,
paragraphing, and capitalization.
Finally, according to the teacher’s observations, students’ informal interviews,
students’ questionnaires, students’ writing samples and presentations, cooperative
learning happened while conducting the wordless picture books tasks.

Problems students perceived using wordless picture books

What challenges and problems did the students perceive using wordless picture books as
an alternative method to improve their writing? Limited oral language skills and a lack of
time for teachers to teach and evaluate the writing process were examined in depth for
this research question.

Limited Oral Language Skills

In examining the problems and challenges involved in student writing, students’ inability
to communicate through written language involves oral language skills. Students in their
class presentations had difficulties presenting what they had written in English. In the
students’ presentations, the students presented their stories with minimal fluency. As
Tiedt (1983) said, “without a strong oral language foundation, no student will write well”
(p. 10). Obviously, students need to have opportunities to use the mode of
communication that they are most familiar with to develop their oral language; “[s]tudent
indifference to written composition is often due to the isolation of written composition
from spoken discourse” (Haley-James, 1981, p. 10). Thus, this study suggests that
teachers need to provide more opportunities for students to practice dialogue before and
during the writing process in order to develop their ideas.

Lack of time for teachers to teach and evaluate the writing process
The second problem is that teachers often do not have enough time to teach or evaluate
student writing because of big class sizes. The teacher found it hard to find enough time
to edit and evaluate students’ writing in this study due to the large number of students.
According to Anderson and Lapp (1988),

in a daily writing program, thirty children might generate sixty to ninety pieces of writing
a week. Even if teachers spend only one and a half minutes per paper (most would
probably spend two to three minutes) they would have to find approximately two more
hours per week to grade written work (p. 330).

Corresponding to this study, teaching writing becomes a burden, and as such, less time is
allocated for instruction. Large class size apparently increased the teacher’s teaching load
and decreased teacher efficacy. The evidence in this study suggests that a writing class
should be small in size otherwise teachers have difficulties finding enough time to edit
students’ writing well.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the presentation and analysis of the data on the study of wordless picture books,
the students showed a marked improvement in their writing skills. The results of this
study show that the students improved their sequencing skills by retelling the story in
chronological order with details and consistent use of time-order words. The benefits of
using wordless picture books show that students can improve their visual literacy and oral
to written expression, promote their creative writing and thinking skills, and enhance
their enjoyment of the writing process. Based on the data and observations, this research
highly endorses the use of wordless picture books to improve student writing.
There are some recommendations based on the data from this study. There are some
vital components to the effectiveness of this approach. First, integrating lessons on
vocabulary supports word development. Second, incorporating visual aids throughout the
instructional process increases the awareness of specific skills (e.g. computer skills, story
development, and English writing). Third, making real-world connections in curriculum
planning is effective for students’ language learning. Fourth, organizing students in
cooperative pairs and sharing fosters student enjoyment. Fifth, the costs are quite high if
each student has one book to him or herself. But, for best results, each student should
have their own book in order to completely see the pictures and visualize the actions of
the story.
This study encourages educators working with students to use wordless picture books
to develop students’ writing skills. By doing so, both students and educators will be
challenged to move toward new and exciting levels of accomplishment.

References
Anderson, P. S., & Lapp, D. (1988). Language skills in elementary education. New
York: MacMillan.

Bishop, R., & Hickman, J. (1992). Four or fourteen or forty: Picture books are for
everyone. In S. Benedict & L. Carlisle (Eds.), Beyond words: Picture books for older
readers and writers (pp. 1-10). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Briggs, R. (1978). The Snowman. New York: Random House.

Carter, P. A., Holland, S. M., Mladic, S. L. , Sarbiewski, G. M., & Sebastian, D. M.
(1998). Improving student writing skills using wordless picture books. Unpublished
Master thesis. Saint Xavier University & IRI/ Skylight. ED 423 525.

Cassady, J. K. (1998). Wordless books: No-risk tools for inclusive middle-grade

classrooms. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 41, 428-432.

Crews, D. (1980). Truck. New York: Greenwillow Books.

Cristini, E. (1981). In my garden. New York: Scholastic.

D’Angelo, K. (1979). Wordless picture books: Also for the writer. Journal of Language
Arts. 56 (7), 813-814.Degler, L. S. (1979). Putting words into wordless picture book. The
Reading Teacher, 32 (4), 399-402.

DePala, T. (1978). Pancakes for Breakfast. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Javanovich Inc.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. New Hampshire:

Heinemann Educational Books.

Henry, L. (2003). Creative writing through wordless picture books. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association. (ERIC Document: Reproduction Service No. ED 477
997).

Hillman, J. (1995). Discovering children’s literature. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Hopkins, L. B. (1979). Look! No words. Teacher, 23(4), 28-31.

Hsieh, L. T. (2001). Business English: How and what to teach. The Bulletin of National
Ping Tung Institute of Commerce, 3, 59-70.

Hutchins, P. (1971). Changes, changes. New York: Macmillan.

Jalongo, M. R. (Ed.). (2002). Using wordless picture book to support emergent literacy.
Early childhood Education Journal, 29(3), 167-177.

Lincoln , Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lindauer, S. K. (1988). Wordless books: An approach to visual literacy. Children’s

Literature in Education, 19(3), 136-142.

Reese, C. (1996). Story development using wordless picture books. The Reading
Teacher, 50, 172-173.

Salmien, J. (1998). Using wordless books in your ESL class. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language. P. 17-21.
( ERIC Document : Reproduction Service No. ED 423 693).

Whalen, L. (1974). Wordless picture books: Every picture tells a story, doesn’t it?
Emerging Librarian, 21 (5), 14-17.
 | Teaching Articles Home |

Volume 20
Professional Teaching Articles
May 2007
Article 1

Other Formats
SWF file

Article Title
The Addition of an Affect test and Self-assessment into ESL Writing Assessment:
Process and effect. A Case Study in a Non-English Major Postgraduate ESL Writing
Class

Author
Huili Wang Yucui Wang

Bio
Wang Yucui has just completed her MA from Dalian University of Technology. This
paper is part of her Masters thesis. Wang Huili is an Associate Professor and a
Masters Advisor in the Foreign Languages School at Dalian University of Technology
in P.R. China. She has been teaching since 1989. She earned a Bachelor of Arts from
Shanghai International Studies University and then a Master of Education from
Dalian University of Technology. She is now doing her Ph.D. Her research interests
include English Education, Education Technology, and psycholinguistics.

Abstract

This paper introduces both affect test and self-assessment into the traditional
assessment scheme of non-English major post-graduates ESL writing classes.
Learning results after the actual application of a whole semester are analyzed and
compared to see whether such addition can improve or encourage ESL learner’s
writing performance. Participants are also interviewed to reflect on their attitude
towards such addition. Results show that both affect test and self-assessment are
welcomed by the majority of learners and play a relatively positive role in the whole
ESL writing process. As reported by participants, affect test can promote and
facilitate the process of English learning by stimulating learners to have a deeper
thinking about their learning states and make favorable adjustments accordingly.
Self-assessment, similarly, offers learners an opportunity to examine their own
writing and find progress by themselves. The comparison of writing scores suggests
that self-assessment is more of help in self-revising than in timed-essay writing while
affect test leads learners to make more progress in the final writing. However,
results in the second round of affect test do not show the similar significance in
progress in final writings.

Keywords: ESL writing; affect test; self-assessment

1. Introduction
The issue of arriving at an effective means of measuring students’ learning has
always been a major concern to not only teachers, but also students themselves as
well as education administrators even, given the complex nature of learning process,
the educational and political context, and the widespread and growing use of
portfolios and web-based instructions in higher education. When it comes to ESL
writing, the matter of how to reach an effective assessment turns out to be even
more complex.

The term assessment is derived from ‘ad sedere’ – to sit down beside. The
implication of its etymology is that it is primarily concerned with providing guidance
and feedback to the learner. Arguably, this is still its most important function.
(Brown et al, 1997, p. 11) As iterated by many researchers (Blumenfeld and Marx,
1997; MacCombs and Marzano, 1990), learning requires both will and skill. For this
reason, assessment, as an indispensable part of education, should help students to
be aware of their own thinking, to be strategic and to direct their motivation toward
valuable goals, one of which is for students to learn to be their own teachers (Schunk
and Zimmerman, 1998). Thus, assessing learners’ performance only through paper-
and-pen task can hardly fulfill the multi-functions of assessment to both evaluate
and more importantly encourage and stimulate learners’ learning. Consequently, in
this paper, affect test and self-assessment are introduced into the ESL writing class
aiming to diversify the content of assessment and better facilitate learners’ English
study.

2. A brief review of literature

Previous research on affect test, mostly about learning strategies, concentrate
mainly on two directions. One is on the relationship between EFL learners' learning
strategy use and other emotional factors, such as learners’ belief (e.g. Nae-Dong
Yang, 1999), motivation (e.g. Oxford and Nyikos, 1989), and meta-cognition
(Abraham and Vann, 1987; Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Wenden, 1986, 1987). The other is
to assess the use of learning strategy with different inventories, like Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)(Oxford; Burry-Stock,1995), Beliefs about
Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) (Horwitz, 1996) or in different contexts
(Sheorey, 1999). Less work was done to assess whether the addition of such affect
test can help to improve ESL learner’s performance both quantitatively and
qualitatively.

Research on self-assessment roughly follow three lines. Most studies have focused
on researches into issues related to the reliability and validity of self-assessment (for
example, Bachman and Palmer, 1989; Stefani, 1994; Orsmond et al., 2000). Others
have proposed ways and techniques to increase their reliability and validity (Li,
2001; Smith et al., 2002; Taras, 2002). Yet another line of research has focused on
the use and advantages of self-assessment (for example, Oskarsson, 1989).
However, most of the researches were done in oral and reading discourses and fewer
were done in writing context. In addition, the quantitative analysis on how much, if
any, the self-assessment can improve ESL learner’s writing performance was not so
much done as the three main domains mentioned above. And learners’ attitude
towards such self-assessment was not fully explored.

Therefore, this study tends to invite both affect test and self-assessment into the
traditional assessment scheme and compare the learning results of learners after the
actual application of a whole semester to see whether such addition can improve or
encourage ESL learner’s writing performance.

3. Research questions
 1. Can affect test help increase students’ ESL writing performance? If yes, to
what extent?
2. What is students’ attitude towards affect test in ESL writing?
3. To what extent, if there is any, can self-assessment improve students’ ESL
writing?
4. What is students’ attitude towards self-assessment in ESL writing?

4. Methodology
4.1Participants
Unlike most previous researches on affect test and self-assessment, the target
participants of the present study are post-graduate students who are thought to be
more mature in psychology, more aware of their affect condition and more self-
regulated in their ESL study.

Five classes, two classes in the first semester and three in the second semester,
comprising 122 non-English major postgraduates, taking part in ESL Writing Class
for 18 weeks, participated in this study. The two classes in the first semester were
randomly assigned to one of the two conditions: an affect test condition (ATG), and a
control group (CG). The three classes in the second semester were randomly
assigned to one of the three conditions: an affect test condition (ATG), a self-
assessment condition (SSG) and a control group (CG). All participants had to attend
five face-to-face instructions and 8 on-line instructions on Self-access English
Learning System (SELS). They had to hand in three compositions and finish all the 6
compulsive tasks on SELS (the other 2 were selective tasks whose marks were not
included in the final grades) to get their final grades for this class and receive their
credit in English study.

4.2 Samples and procedure

The flow charts illustrate the procedure of research on the effect of affect test and
that of self-assessment (see Chart 1and Chart 2).

The compositions handed in by participants in face-to-face instructions, three from

each individual, were collected as the samples of the study. That the samples
consisted of only compositions from face-to-face instructions is because on-line
instructions required little writing task of a complete passage. All the participants,
whether in ATG, SSG or CG, attended the same face-to-face and on-line instructions
given by the same teacher in each respective semester. They were required to finish
the same assignments on line before the same due time and to hand in the same
amount of timed-essays with the same topics in face-to-face classes. In such a way,
all the participants enjoyed the same learning environment, no matter in class or out
of class. The only difference between ATG and CG or SSG and CG is the presence or
absence of affect test or self-assessment. Since the three essays were written at the
beginning, in the middle and at the end of a semester, they were expected to show
the development and progress of participants in ESL writing and thus to tell whether
the addition of affect test and self-assessment can better encourage or improve
students’ ESL writing than traditional teaching only. The participants of ATG and SSG
were also interviewed by the end of the semester to express their own feelings and
opinions on such a change.

The effect of the addition of affect test and that of self-assessment were tested
separately in different participants in order not to load too heavy burden on learners
at one time and thus win more cooperation from them. In addition, separate testing
can also show more clearly the individual effect and function of each part by reducing
the inter-influence they may have on each other.

4.3 Instrument
Self-report questionnaires (all in Likert 5-point scale, see Appendix 1) & interview,
Software Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) and Excel 2003 were employed in the
research.

Although most of the affective assessment researches involve some type of learner’s
self-report, the questionnaire as a research method has been questioned because of
its possible problems: “social desirability” biases in responses and over-subjectivity
(Oxford, 1995) to name just a few. Nevertheless, researchers have also discovered,
through conducting repeated studies with clear instructions in situations where no
grades or sanctions are involved, that many or most learners are capable of
accomplishing the questionnaire in a relatively objective manner (Oxford, 1995).

In order to reduce the biases on responses, participants in this study were not
required to reveal their names on the questionnaires. Instead, they were just
required to write down their Student’s ID number for the convenience of matching
and handing out of the results afterwards. They were also told that not a single
result of any individual would be revealed to teachers and, there would be no
connection between the results of their questionnaires and their final grades.
Besides, in the instruction of the questionnaire, an emphasis was made by a written
sentence in black and italic form, There is no ‘rights’ or ‘ wrongs’ between
choices, so please choose ‘ what I believe’ rather than ‘what I should do’ or
‘ what others think is right’. It is expected that the concealment of their names
and the emphatic instruction can relieve the participants’ worries or psychological
burdens and thus invite more true thought from them.

All the questionnaires were administered in the face-to-face classes and collected
immediately the participants had finished them in case that they might lose or leave
them nowhere and couldn’t hand them in, and thus guarantee the reliability of the
results.

It should be noted that taking into account the mother-tongue preference and the
convenience of comprehension and acceptance of the participants, all the
questionnaires were written in Chinese. The interview to both teacher and students
were also carried out in Chinese. It is for the consistence of language of this paper
that part of the questionnaires and the results and feedback represented here are
translated into English.

5. Detailed description of the research procedure on the effect of affect test

5.1 Participants
Twenty-two non-English major postgraduates, 8 female and 14 male, in Writing
Class 2, and another 21 non-English major postgraduates, 9 female and 12 male in
Writing Class 3 participated in the ATG to test the effect of addition of affect test.

5.2 Instrument
Four questionnaires (The Questionnaire on Learner’s Learning Concepts, TheLearning
and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), The Questionnaire on Learner’s Learning
Style, Learner’s Review on Affect Test) and an interview. All the questionnaires have
been tested and utilized more than once by Chinese researchers (Liu Runqing, 2003;
Wen Qiufang, 2003)
5.3 Questionnaire Administering & Collecting
The writing class for non-English major postgraduates lasted for 16 weeks, five of
which were face-to-face instructions when students were required to get together in
a classroom for a lecture as in a traditional teaching class while the others were on-
line tasks. The 4 questionnaires were administered in face-to-face instruction
classes.

On average, each questionnaire took a participant about 10 minutes to finish, and

was not a heavy burden. The questionnaires were administered during the break or
after the instruction finishes so that it would not influence the classroom teaching.
Every time the questionnaires were collected, the results were analyzed and then
returned to both teachers and students in the form of diagnosis and advice (see
Appendix 2) in the next class.

The interview was carried out after the questionnaires on participants’ attitude to the
addition of affect test were collected and analyzed. Each individual was interviewed
respectively in a quiet room with no other people, students or teachers, present in
order to prevent the interviewee from aimlessly echoing with others or purposely
favoring the teachers. The interview with each participant lasted for about 15
minutes on average. The whole process was recorded and then transcribed and
summarized if necessary.

6. Detailed description of the research procedure on the effect of self-

assessment
6.1 Participants
All the 24 non-English major postgraduates in writing class 1 agreed to participate in
the entire self-assessment activities, but many of them were absent for at least one
class during the daily instructions and therefore did not finish all the self-assessment
procedures. Thus their data were excluded and only 15 participants’ complete data
were taken into account as the samples of SSG.

6.2 Instrument
Rubric, questionnaire and interview

6.3 The co-establishment of the rubric

Stage 1: The students and lecturers were invited to offer their own opinions on most
5 weighty evaluation criteria, which were then collected and classified as a basic set
of assessment criteria (see Table 1).
Stage 2: Each individual criterion in the basic set of assessment criteria is then
rearranged in a descending order according to the repeated times it appeared in
participants’ contributions. And the first 6 were selected in order to enable students
to focus on the most important aspects without being detracted by too many criteria.
Stage 3: A list of criteria was administered to both teachers and students who were
invited to give weight to each individual criterion by rearranging them in a
descending order. They were also invited to add more criteria which were not
included in the list (see appendix 3).
Stage 4: The feedback from both students and teachers were then analyzed
according to the following formation.
Students’ votes + teachers’ votes *3
Weight of each individual criterion = -----------------------------------------------
Sum of votes
The results were then compared with diverse evaluation criteria in ESL writing tests
such as TOEFL, CET4 &6, IELTS, and each individual criterion was expanded and
expatiated accordingly to make it more understandable and more applicable. The
rubric was then formed (see Table 2).

6.4 The insertion of self-assessment into daily teaching and learning

Students were asked to write three compositions altogether, two in class and one
after class. The first one was free writing. The second one was the revision of the
first draft. The third one was a timed essay writing task with given topics. In the first
face-to-face class, students were asked to write a composition with whatever topic
they were interested in or good at to test their real writing ability. In the second
face-to-face class, the first drafts were given back to students with teacher-assessed
marks on. The co-established rubric was also handed out to students who were then
asked to revise and edit their first draft according to the handed out rubric in the
following 3-4 weeks. They were also asked to grade their first drafts and second
drafts according to the rubric and write down their self-reflection on these two drafts.
The self-reflection is mainly about their greatest improvement in the second draft
with supportive details. The third one is a timed essay undergone in the second
period of the last face-to-face instruction. Students were given 45 minutes to write
an argumentative essay with a given topic. They were also asked to do the self-
assessment again by grading their writing based on the rubric after the writing. Both
the composition and the graded rubric were asked to be handed in by the end of the
class. In this way, participants had done self-assessment for three times in the whole
semester, twice after class and once in class.

6.5 The collection of feedback from participants at the end of the semester
Like what is done in the testing of affect test, a questionnaire was administered to
the participants in SSG followed by an interview with each individual participant to
collect their attitude towards the addition of self-assessment, including the co-
establishment of the rubric, the self-grading of the composition and the self-
reflection on the revised draft and the initial draft. Questions in questionnaire and
interview were mainly to test whether self-assessment, in participants’ opinion, can
promote their interest and confidence in English learning and increase their self-
awareness on their learning state by doing a self-reflection.

7 Results and discussion

7.1 Affect test
7.1.1 Comparison of writing scores
The statistics and the graph (see Figure 1) illustrate the trend of means in ATG and
CG. Mean in ATG raises from 12.91 - the full score is 20 - in the first writing to 15.5
in the revised writing and remains there in the final writing. Mean in CG raises from
13.64 in the first writing to 16.05 in the revised ones and falls down a little to 14.82
in the final ones. The scores of the second drafts rank the highest of the three, both
in ATG and in CG. That’s not surprising because the second draft is the revised
version of the first draft and the students were given sufficient time to do the
revising. They could also refer to any references or consult anyone for help. The
improvement in the final writing is fairly reasonable given the efforts from both
instructors and students devoted to writing class.

The comparison of means of ATG and CG indicates that participants in ATG achieved
more progress in scores than those in CG. The mean of ATG was almost one point
lower than that of CG in the first writing (12.909vs13.636), but the difference
reduced to half a point in the second writing (15.500vs16.045). The mean of ATG
even surpassed that of CG in the final writing (15.500 vs. 14.818), which indicates a
bigger progress in ATG.

The results of Independent T-test (see Figure 2) also prove the significance of such
an improvement in ATG. The difference of means between ATG and CG were not
significant in the first and the second writings or the progress of the second writing,
but showed significance at the 0.05 level in the progress of means in the final writing
(with the 2-tailed significance value of 0.029).

On one hand, such a significance of difference may be a natural result coming from
the difference of writing ability and competence existing before the addition of the
affect test. In other words, the scores of the first writing served partially as a
predictor of the corresponding final scores. On the other hand, however, such a
significant difference also probably resulted from the presence or absence of the
affect test. The Test of Between-Subjects Effects (see table 3) proved such a
deduction. Although the correlation value between progress of the final writing and
the first writing shows greater significance, (significant at the 0.01 level), the
correlation value between progress of the final writing and the addition of affect test
shows significance at the 0.05 level, which, to some extent, indicates that the affect
test also contributes to the significant progress in the final writing in ATG.
Surprisingly enough, the results of the second semester didn’t follow the same trend
of the first semester. No significance in means of progress, whether in the revised
writings or the final ones, was shown (see Table 4).

7.1.2 Students’ review on the addition of affect test

The feedback from the participants’ review on affect test (see Table 5) shows that
the overwhelming majority of the participants hold a positive attitude towards the
addition of affect test into ESL writing class. Seven aspects out of the nine positive
items received a mean value of more than 3.5 with the highest mean as 3.96.
According to participants’ feedback, the biggest help of affect test lies in the fact that
it helps learners to think more about their English study. Most participants agreed
that it was necessary to bring such affect test into the whole learning process. The
results also show that affect test is of little help in promoting learners’ motivation
and interest in English learning. Although some participants may consider affect test
as no contribution to change their present state of English study, no one regards it
as a waste of time or detraction from their normal study.
Participants’ feedback from the interview can be mainly divided into two kinds,
supportive or neutral. Most participants reported that affect test was helpful to their
English study while only two participants reported it was of little help. Their feedback
consolidated the positive role the affect test has played in the semester-long
instructions.

“I like such affect testing, because it helps me find my shortcomings in English

study, increases my interest and also functions as a supervisor. My previous
experience in English study proved to be somewhat blind or aimless. But now I seem
to have found ‘the direction’. Those items with positive feedback strengthened my
confidence while those with negative feedback stimulated me to devote more
efforts” (excerpt from participants’ conversation transcription: supportive).

“It helps me realize how to learn English more effectively and efficiently. It also
improves my learning methods. Take vocabulary-memorizing for example. What I
did before was to learn each new word in a vocabulary book by heart alphabetically.
Now I try enlarging my vocabulary through reading and writing. In the past, all I
considered as English learning was to attend instructions given by teachers. That’s
all. This semester, I’ve changed my idea and was able to insist on learning English
by myself day by day. Reading, listening, in whatever way, I made sure myself to
get in touch with English every day” (excerpt from participants’ conversation
transcription: supportive).

“I have already formed my own habits and thoughts on English learning and would
not like to be influenced by outer factors. Therefore, I didn’t care too much about the
results of the affect test. However, I also appreciate it because it is very interesting.
Anyway, it may provide some information to teachers about what students are
thinking about and then help their teaching.”
(excerpt from participants’ conversation transcription: neutral)

The students’ review can easily lead us to a conclusion that affect test is welcomed
by students, especially those who are not so confident in English learning because
they often feel at a loss in English learning and need more guidance and instruction
from others.

Many students also suggested that such affect test should be involved in the
assessment system even earlier, upon their entrance to the university for example.
It is true that postgraduate students are more aware about their own thought and
affect feelings and can yield more reliable results in affect testing. However, with the
maturation of their way of thinking and behaving, their learning habits (including
learning strategies and learning style and many other things) have also been fixed
and become really hard to make any change by just a few questionnaires. In
addition, undergraduates have more time of English learning and naturally more time
to make adjustment of their learning habits according to the results of affect testing.
Another reason to begin affect test earlier is that the changes in the way of teaching
as well as the way of learning in colleges require undergraduate students to realize
their responsibility as the master of learning as soon as possible. In that sense,
affect test can help them to change their concepts of English learning and stimulate
their motivation as well.

All in all, all the interviewees consider it necessary to add affect test into students’
assessment system for it can give them more information on their learning results.
Even the few who thought it no use changing their way of learning also support the
addition of such an affect test, for they also found it interesting and they could at
least get some information beyond their own thinking. The results of affect test are
returned to participants in the form of a diagnosis, which adds more humane care
into the ‘cold’ assessment system. It is of greater significance in a web-based
learning environment where students interact more with the computer than with the
real persons, which may cause feeling of isolation and loneliness. The non-
quantitative way of expressing the results can make them feel more like interacting
with a psychologist.

7.2 Self-assessment
7.2.1 Comparison of writing scores
(See Table 6 and Figure 3) As stated in 7.1.1, it’s quite natural that means of three
writings go up in the second writings and then fall down in the final ones because
participants have sufficient time to refer to any consultant and make improvement in
their second writing while the final one is required to finish within a limited time and
with a given topic.
As Figure 4 suggests, there is no obvious difference between SSG and CG in the first,
the second and the final writings. But the difference in the progress in the second
writing is rather significant (with the significant value of 0.014), which indicates that
participants in SSG achieved more progress in revision.

7.2.2 Correlations of SS and TS

The correlation value between students’ self-assessed scores (SS) and teacher-
assessed scores (TS) of the first writings is 0.13, significant at the 0.05 level. It
reduces to 0.09 in the second writings which is significant at the 0.01 level, showing
that the students’ self-assessed scores were more approaching to the teacher’s. Such
an increase in significance is quite reasonable given the more time and more
sufficient references the learners enjoyed in the second writing process. The results
indicate that students are able to do self-assessment well, especially with sufficient
time or being well trained (see Table 7 & Figure 5, Table 8 and Figure 6).

The correlation between SS and TS of the finial writing shows no significance. It may
result from the following reasons according to the followed-up interviews. First,
participants became more confident in writing after a whole semester’s learning.
Consequently, they tended to give higher marks to their own writing when doing the
self-assessment. Second, the third writing was a little bit more difficult than the first
one. Most of the participants reported that they were short of time, to different
extent, to make a careful thinking on evaluating their own writing within such a
limited time. Another feature may arise if second glance is given to the comparison
of TS and SS in the final writing. Although SS are much higher than the TS, the two
lines almost follow the similar trend. In other words, the disparities between SS and
TS between different participants were more or less the same, which means most of
the participants over marked their writing to the same extent. It indicates, to some
extent, that students were more confident about their own writing and thus graded
more to their composition (see Table 9 and Figure 7).

7.2.3 Students’ review on the addition of self-assessment

Participants’ feedbacks from the interviews show their great support to the addition
of self-assessment into ESL writing class. The following are some excerpts from the
transcription of participants’ interview conversations on some typical questions.
What is the biggest help of self-assessment for you?
It’s my first time to do self-assessment. I found my shortcomings in writing by
myself which is more impressive than receiving teacher’s assessment.
I have never revised my own writing before. And now I saw more clearly my
disadvantages through self-assessment. It points out a direction of my future effort.
It “forces” me to have a self-reflection. To be frank, I thought in the past that the
composition was written for teachers. But now, I suddenly found that I began to
think more about my writing and discovered many problems which I neglected
before. For example, sentence patterns and tenses and the things like that will all
draw my attention.
Is self-assessment of any help to build up your confidence in ESL writing?
After the self-reflection and the self-assessment of the second writing, I found more
confidence in myself. At least I have a clear idea of how to develop paragraphs in a
logical order and how to develop each paragraph because now I have a rubric as
guidance.
How did you find self-assessment contribute to your ESL writing?
I found it of most help in revising my composition. In the past, I only corrected
where teachers had marked with a sign and never thought about how to get rid of
such mistakes in the next composition. Neither had I ever thought of where else
besides teachers’ suggestions need improvement [sic]. However, now, being
requested to do self-assessment, I would have a second thought on the composition
before handing it in, such as can I change this sentence into another way of
expression and how? For example, I was to hand in my revised version much earlier.
But just before handing it in, I found there were too many sentences with the verb
”make”, so I had another few days thinking about how to alternate it into more
expressive verbs. Such a practice indeed made me think more and learn more.

All the participants in SSG found self-assessment of some, if not much, help to their
ESL writing. They reported that self-assessment would contribute more if sufficient
time were given to allow them to have an overall evaluation of their compositions as
was done in the second writings. That can also explain why the correlation between
SS and TS in the revised writings is much more significant than that of the final
timed essays. Participants’ self-report also suggested that the co-establishment of
the rubric made them feel more involved in the learning process and more like a
master of the writing. The rubric helped them better understand the requirements of
a high-quality composition and promoted them to follow such requirements in their
own writing. However, they also reported that the rubric was of more help during the
revision period than during the timed-writing process, because sufficient time allows
them to think deeply about their writing with the guidance of each individual
requirement listed in the rubric. Most participants reported that they gained more
confidence in ESL writing from doing self-assessment since they knew better where
their shortcomings were and could then make appropriate improvement and more
progress in the next writings.

7.3 Other possible explanations to the results from affect test

The results of the questionnaires can not only provide feedback to students with the
aim to raise their self-awareness about their meta-cognitive conditions, but also
provide teachers with analysis of students’ affect, both of each individual and of
learners as a whole. Besides, they can also offer some possible explanations to
participants’ attitude toward the new form of assessment.

As the first pie graphs (see Figure 8) show, 48% of the participants in the first
semester and 67% in the second believe in the importance of their own role in
English study while others are still not clear about their believing. No one holds the
completely opposite idea that it is the ulterior environment or others rather than
themselves that determine the result of English learning. The distribution of the
participants’ marks shows that even among those who are not clear about their own
believing, more than half are with a score that is closer to 24 (the division standard
between “self-believing” and “not clear yet”) than to 32 (the division standard
between “not clear yet” and “not self-believing”), which gives us a clearer and more
persuasive illustration that most participants are willing to rely on themselves to
achieve progress in English learning.

The majority of the participants in ATG ( see Figure 9, 84% in the first semester and
96 % in the second semester) hold a position that it is important and necessary to
control and manage the learning process in English study, which are precisely part of
the functions that affect test may serve.

Participants’ positive answers to the questions in questionnaires (see Table 10)

suggest that they would like to know more about their learning states and to make
appropriate adjustments when necessary. Affect test and self-assessment can fulfill
their need to understand their own learning and show their progress and
shortcomings in time, and thus undoubtedly receive welcome from learners.

Results of affect test on participants’ motivation (see Figure 10) show that most
participants have a deep motivation or both the deep and the surface motivation.

The results above go in line with the mental characteristics of postgraduate students.
As a grown-up, a postgraduate student is often more mature in psychology and
thought. He is eager to know more about himself and he respects the power to
control himself in all aspects including English learning. He is no long an innocent
child who blames everyone or everything else but not himself for the failure in
language learning. Such maturity is very helpful to him in English learning, for it will
facilitate the process of acquiring more knowledge and seek more learning
opportunity on his own initiative. He is better at applying his meta-cognition to direct
and regulate his own study activities. Naturally he is more ready to accept the
analysis on his affect which he brought into the learning.

8. Conclusion
The result of this research suggests that both affect test and self-assessment are
welcomed by the majority of learners and play a relatively positive role in the whole
ESL writing process.

The addition of affect test can encourage students to be more self-regulated in

English study, although not much significance was shown in the scores between ATG
and CG. Affect test, according to participants’ feedback, can promote and facilitate
the process of English learning by stimulating learners to have a deeper thinking
about their learning state as well as the affect factors they have brought into
learning process, whether positive or negative, and then make favorable
adjustments accordingly. Such a self-reflection makes them better aware of their
learning goal and motivation, their learning strategy and learning style, their
effective learning methods and direction for future efforts and, can thus regulate
their English study in a more reasonable way and get more satisfactory learning
results.

Self-assessment is more of help in self-editing and revising than in composing

process itself. The co-establishment of the rubric “forces” the learners to have a
second, if not more, thought on the criteria of writing assessment and consequently
have a better understanding about them. The deep consideration of each individual
criterion will leave impression on learners’ mind and urges them to follow the guide
in their own writing. However, just as participants have reported, even when they
understand the rubric fairly well and try to implement the requirement in writing, it’s
just easier for them to make considerable improvement in structure and organization
as well as to correct simple grammatical mistakes with the direction of rubric. When
it goes to sentence patterns and authentic ways of expression, which need long-time
accumulation, the help of rubric is rather limited. The revision and comparison of two
drafts are of most help to learners, for it provides learners with an opportunity to
examine their own writing and experience the joy of making progress.

Both affect test and self-assessment, especially the former, should be introduced into
the whole process of teaching and learning even earlier. That’s because although
postgraduate students are more mature in both psychology and mental control and
thus can do a better job in self-reporting, they have already formed a fixed learning
habit which is really hard to break or make any significant change by just a few
questionnaires or interviews.
The study presented here is limited in a number of ways, including the relatively
small size of sample and the occasional absence of participants in SSG and ATG.
Besides, more researches with larger sample and more fixed participants need to be
done to better uncover the relationship between the addition or absence of affect
test and self-assessment and the improvement in ESL writing performance. Attempts
should also be made to explore an effective way to turn the positive affect evoked by
affect test and self-assessment into real writing ability in practice.

References
Abraham, R.G., Vann, R.J., (1987). Strategies of two language learners: a case
study. In: Wenden, A.L.,Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning
(pp. 85-102). Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bachman, L., Palmer, A., (1989). The construct validation of self ratings of
communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6, 14-29.

Blumenfeld, P.C. & Marx, R.W. (1997). Motivation and cognition. In H.J. Walberg &
G.D. Haertel (Eds.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 79-106). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.

Brown, G., Bull, J. & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing students learning in higher
education. London: Routledge.

Elaine K. Horwitz (1996). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language

learners' beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies. System, 27,
557-576

Horwitz, E.K., (1987).Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A.

Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 119-129).
Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Horwitz, E.K., (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283-294.

Li, L., (2001). Some refinement on peer assessment of group projects. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education , 26, 5-18.

Liu, R.Q., & Dan, M.Ch. (2003). Studies on Condition and Development Strategy of
ESL Teaching Reform in Chinese Universities. Beijing

McCombs, B.J. & Marzano, R.J. (1990). Putting the self in self-regulated learning:
The self as agent in integrating will and skill. Educational Psychologist, 25, 51-69.

Nae-Dong Yang, (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning
strategy use System, 27, 515-535

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., Reiling, K., (2000). The use of student derived marking
criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education , 25, 23-38.

Oskarsson, M., (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and

applications. Language Testing, 6, 1-13.
Oxford, R.L., Nyikos, M., (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.

Oxford, R., & Burry-stock, J. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language
learning (SILL), System, 23, 1-23.

Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Self-regulation and learning: From

teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford.

Sheorey R., (1999), An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting
of an indigenized variety of English. System, 27, 173-190.

Smith, H., Cooper, A., Lancaster, L., (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate
peer assessment: a case for student and staff development. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International , 39, 71-81.

Stefani, L., (1994). Peer, self, and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in
Higher Education, 19, 69-75.

Taras, M., (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 501-510.

Wen, Q.F. (2003). A Road Leading to the Success of English Learning. Shanghai

Wenden, A.L., (1986). What do second-language learners know about their language
learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7, 186-201.

Wenden, A.L., (1987). How to be a successful language learner: insights and

prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies
in Language Learning (pp. 103-118). Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Title
Plagiarism or intertextuality?:
Approaches to Teaching EFL Academic Writing
 Author
James Moody
Department of Foreign Languages, University of Qatar, Doha

Bio Data:
James Moody has taught English language at the University of Qatar in Doha since
1998. He has been Professor and Head of Departments at universities in Zambia and
Papua New Guinea. His interests are in pragmatics, discourse analysis and ELT
methodology. He has written approximately 30 articles on language use and language
teaching and has published a series of English language textbooks for Southern Africa.

Abstract

EFL students’ problems in using textual sources in academic writing have been
considered negatively as plagiarism and more positively as a manifestation of
intertextuality. This paper argues that treating plagiarism from the perspective of
intertextuality is a productive approach to teaching writing skills, as it can help to
foster student writers’ self confidence. After examining the theoretical status of both
concepts, practical suggestions for teaching academic writing are made with reference
to the relation of writing to reading, the writer’s assumptions about the reader, the
writer’s development of an individual identity, formulating a topic and the need for
careful planning. Academic writing is best taught as a process through which teachers
monitor development from a reproduction to an incorporation of textual sources.

Keywords: academic writing, intertextuality, plagiarism, tertiary education

Introduction

How university students deal with textual sources in academic writing poses
particular problems for EFL pedagogy. These have been considered from a number of
perspectives. At one extreme is the notion of plagiarism, usually defined as the
unattributed reproduction of the language, information and/or ideas of other writers.
The term is pejorative, and the practice is viewed by scholars as intellectual
dishonesty and by teachers as a barrier to academic development. This point of view
can be contrasted with the postmodern theory of intertextuality, which postulates
that since all texts are necessarily related to prior texts through a network of links,
writers (often unwittingly) make use of what has previously been written and thus
some degree of borrowing is inevitable. Indeed, it is seen to be a necessary
requirement for successful communication since a text is always in a "dialogue" with
other texts. A comparison between these two perspectives and their implications can
offer some helpful insights to the teacher of academic writing.

Plagiarism

Teachers respond to plagiarism in different ways (Angelil-Carter, 2000). At one

extreme, they are censorious and sententious; at another they are tolerant or
indifferent. The typical stages of reaction are succinctly summarized by Wolff (2006):
“outrage, frenetic activity, resignation”. Plagiarism has been considered a “crime,”
and various methods have been used to “police” it (Chandrasoma et al., 2004) -
most recently, by using internet searches through websites and software packages
specifically designed to uncover the practice. Official university statements and
guidelines to students are intended to help them avoid plagiarism (for example,
DePauw University, 2003; Georgetown University Honor Council, n.d.; Indiana
University, 2004a and b; Moravian College, 2004). Often though, official warnings
are issued, in formal legal language, concentrating on the dire consequences that
can result from this practice. Such policies may work for some students, but they can
be intimidating to the novice EFL writer who may lack a clear understanding of what
plagiarism involves. Many of these exhortations assume that avoiding plagiarism is
the responsibility of the student; little attention is given to the complementary role of
the writing teacher. But at least the problem is acknowledged. Sometimes academics
ignore plagiarism in students’ work, preferring not to spend the time and effort
involved in finding sources, making accusations and following institutional
disciplinary procedures to deal with infringements.
Several writers who have confronted this phenomenon in the classroom take a
different approach to plagiarism. Most radically, the validity of traditional
assumptions has been questioned altogether, and responsibility for plagiarism is
placed on educational and social structures. Hunt (2002), for example, views
plagiarism in students’ writing as symptomatic of what he considers to be such
ineffective educational practices as essay assignments, grades and the view of
knowledge as “stored information”. Adopting a wider perspective, Scollon (1994,
1997) tries to deconstruct the concept by probing the underlying social, political,
cultural and intellectual power relationships that underpin it. He doubts that ideas
can be considered as individual “property” at all.
More practically perhaps, Howard (2004 a and b) uses the notion of plagiarism to
develop a teaching strategy. For her, plagiarism is less a crime than a “learning issue
to be addressed”. She concludes that academic writing is “not a reflex of morality or
property but a complex intellectual skill” (2004a, p. 9). In this sense the tendency of
students to plagiarize is a necessary stage in learning how to write and can become
incorporated into a practical teaching methodology. Howard (2004b, p. 2) coins the
term patchwritingfor what is involved: putting the ideas of another writer into one’s
own language, through deletions and substitutions of vocabulary and changes in
grammatical construction. Patchwriting is taken to be a transitional form, in which
the writer is reproducing the ideas but not the language of her sources.
Plagiarism, as usually applied to students’ writing, raises several unresolved
issues. When confronted, for instance, with the problem of referencing, students are
often advised that what is “common knowledge” need not be attributed to a source.
Yet, if common knowledge is taken to be basic information members of a group
(e.g., academics) can be assumed to know in order to discuss an issue of mutual
interest, then it is clear that the knowledge of one group may be different from that
of another (Chandrasoma et al., 2004, p.181). If the student writer is not fully
integrated into an academic discourse community (which, by definition, she is not),
then she will be confused about when to reference and when not to. The problem is
exacerbated for EFL students, since “what constitutes ‘common knowledge’ for
diverse student populations [in different cultures and with varying degrees of
language proficiency] is … difficult to establish” (Thompson, n.d., p. 6).
Plagiarism can be intentional or careless, and intentional plagiarism may involve
copying from either published works or from assignments of other students. But
intentionality is relative. Whether or not sources have been plagiarized can have
more to do with the interpretation of a reader than with the conscious intention of a
writer. What is accepted, and even expected, by readers with respect to unattributed
information varies among genres. Some genres-- and readers’ schemata-- show a
greater tolerance for unattributed information than do others. For example,
newspapers commonly do not reference sources, and their readers accept this as
normal journalistic practice. Yet ambiguities can arise. The following paragraphs
appeared consecutively in a report on the front page of the Doha Peninsula (3 April
2006):

“Qatargas 3 and Qatargas 4 will be shipping most of their volumes to the US

markets. Our partners in these projects have put strong emphasis on the
development of infrastructure…,” the Minister said.

Qatargas 3 is an integrated project, jointly owned by QP (68.5 per cent),

ConocoPhillips (30 per cent) and Mitsui (1.5 per cent)….

Is the second paragraph here a continuation of what the minister said, the words of
a press release, or the comments of the journalist? It can be read in any of these
ways. Such failures to show attribution clearly go unremarked in journalism. But in
an academic article, they might be considered plagiarism.
Plagiarism, then, seems inadequate as a way to deal with infelicities in students’
academic writing. A number of ironies arise when students and teachers consider
writing from this perspective. Plagiarism detection websites-- in contrast to their
ostensible purpose-- have not only made it easier for students to plagiarize, but they
have also exposed academics and universities as doing the same. Disgruntled
students have turned the tables on their teachers and submitted lecture notes and
handouts to internet search engines with “interesting results” (Share, 2004, p. 6).
Some universities have been found to have plagiarized their rules and guidelines for
plagiarism by copying those of other institutions (Howard, 2004a, p. 9). Teachers
can be forced into a position of double-think and students into a Catch 22 situation.
Angelil-Carter’s (2000, p. 122) research has shown that an overmonitoring of
students’ work to detect plagiarism discourages them from using their own original
ideas for fear that they will be accused of copying, since they have been told that
every idea must be clearly referenced. And other investigations suggest that
teachers search for language errors in an essay as evidence that it has not been
copied (Chandrasoma et al., 2004, p. 179).

Intertextuality
Approaching writing from the perspective of plagiarism, then, has led to confusions
about common knowledge, intentionality, genre conventions and originality. For such
reasons, intertextuality seems to be a more productive way to consider how student
writers deal with textual information. Chandrasoma et al. (2004) replace the notion
of plagiarism with that of transgressiveintertextuality, which they contrast with
nontransgressiveintertextuality. By including these two concepts under one
superordinate term, they acknowledge that textual borrowings are endemic to all
writing. This dichotomy also helps overcome ambiguities about intentionality. It
makes the subtle distinction that what matters is the way texts are constructed
rather than whether they infringe against institutional regulations against plagiarism.
The writers point out (p. 174) that, “… textual borrowing is more of an issue of
academic literacy [i.e., engagement with the conventions of a scholarly community]
than academic dishonesty.” Thus, intertextuality can provide a lens through which
plagiarism may be observed from a pedagogical perspective. The potential for
plagiarism is a presence in all writing, especially academic writing. So, from the
student’s perspective, the phenomenon can be interpreted as less an aberration than
an extreme manifestation of a natural tendency.
 Since the reuse and borrowing of images, ideas and language has become
“routinised within both popular culture and a range of institutional practices,” Share
(2004) proposes that avoiding plagiarism is a matter of “managing” intertextuality.
This idea decenters the contrast between originality and copying and foregrounds the
manner in which ideas are organized, arranged and used. What should be original in
a students’ essay, according to Share, is the realignment of previously existing
knowledge in new combinations. Scollon (1994, p. 33) sees a recent change in the
nature of writing, away from an “emphasis on the presentation of a unique,
individual author who is the ‘owner’ of a text” to the concept of a text as composed
by a community, a formulation that resembles authorship in oral traditions. What is
original in traditional story telling is not the events themselves but the ways they are
combined by a particular teller and used to achieve specific ends. Thus, information
is less important than the writer’s stance in relation to the information. In a similar
way, Penrose and Geisler (1994) consider the question of how university students
write academic essays by exploring the connections between the terms author and
authority. They conclude that authority in writing is an aspect of manipulating and
controlling intertextuality. Student writers are engaged not so much in creating
ideas, as in offering new perspectives on the links between them and their
relationship to a reader.
The way students write is related to the way they read. If readers assume that
texts present definitive and unassailable knowledge, then they may develop an
unhealthy respect for the absolute authority of texts, which can in turn result in the
reproduction of these texts in their own writing. An alternative way of reading
involves considering texts as “authored and negotiable” (Penrose and, Geisler, 1994,
p. 507). This means that knowledge is presented not as facts but as claims offered
to be questioned, tested, and evaluatedby a reader. Thus, the model for reading
centers less on the transfer of information than on the reader’s constructing a
dialogic position in relation to the text: reader and writer are engaged in an
imaginary conversation with one another. The implication of this for the student
academic writer (who is also of course a reader) is that in asserting her own
authority, she should understand that academic knowledge involves a continuous
process of interactive engagement with a reader, and that meaning must be
negotiated, not simply reproduced.
Fairclough (1995), in considering how texts are incorporated into other texts,
proposes two types of intertextuality, both of which are relevant to students’ writing
skills. Manifestintertextuality (pp. 117ff) occurs when previous texts are explicitly
present, either by the use of direct quotation (as in the first paragraph of the excerpt
from the newspaper article quoted above), or, more complexly, in presuppositions of
previous-- and perhaps imagined-- “texts”. Examples of the latter would be the use
of the otherwise unexplained word terrorist in a speech by George Bush and
(perhaps) the second paragraph quoted from the Qatargas report. They would also
include various markers by which writers distance themselves from the texts they
allude to-- for example, expressions such as “metaphorically speaking…,” “in
scientific terms…,” or “as X might have put it”.
Fairclough’s idea of constitutiveintertertextuality (pp. 124ff) is more global. It
refers to the way old genres are used and combined to constitute new ones. A genre
is taken to be a stable set of communicative conventions determined by social
practice, implying not merely a type of text but also the processes involved in its
production, distribution and consumption. New genres are formed through
intertextualchains, by means of which they are linked to other previously existing
genres. When we apply this theoretical framework to the genre of student academic
writing, several questions arise. What are the other genres to which the academic
essay is related? It seems to have features of a scholarly essay (as published in a
journal) as well as those of a class exercise. If we learn to write mainly through
reading, then what genres should students read in order to acquire the skills to
produce an academic essay? EFL students cannot be expected to observe all the
conventions of scholarly academic writing (even if they have read widely in a field).
Which conventions, then, should they observe? Academic articles are written for a
community of scholars; the student’s essay is written for a teacher who may be a
scholar too. In which role does the student writer address her reader? A failure to
resolve such issues underlies much of the uncertainty about not only the nature of
academic writing but also how it should be taught.
Scholarly writing, like newspapers and advertisements, can be a prime source for
investigating intertextuality. The way academic writers use, recycle and reorganize
other writers’ ideas is pervasive, even a defining feature of this genre. Student
writers need to acknowledge the intertextual dimensions of their enterprise. This, of
course, is not to suggest that they can plagiarize with impunity. However, when seen
in the context of intertextuality, plagiarism in the traditional sense becomes
retrogressive not because it is criminal or immoral but because it impedes students’
intellectual development. The plagiarist misunderstands the nature of academic
writing and prevents herself from revealing her own intellectual abilities in an essay.
She fails to perceive that scholarship largely involves applying other people’s ideas to
a new problem or situation. What is original is the relationships asserted between
ideas and the results of their application.

Recommendations

Considering plagiarism in terms of intertextuality can contribute to the teaching of

academic writing skills. Dealing with the mechanics of plagiarism is fairly
straightforward: the teacher checks whether students are copying directly from
sources and metes out punishments and rewards accordingly. But this approach is
unlikely to provide students with insights into the nature of academic work. In the
remainder of the discussion, practical ways are suggested for implementing the
theoretical observations outlined above. They emphasize how teachers, through
taking into account the intertextual nature of academic writing, can help make
students aware and self confident to use what other writers say without being used
by them, surely a sine qua non in the training of effective scholars. These
recommendations are not made in order of importance, and there is overlap among
them. Some are teacher-centered; others are student-centered. But all are all
proactive, since they involve students and teachers working together in an effort to
avoidplagiarism, in contrast to teachers taking unilateral punitive action after it
occurs.

1. Students learn to write from reading not just by becoming familiar with the
content and generic features of relevant texts. They should also acquire a critical
attitude towards them. To refer to a text as discourse implies that what is being read
presents not undisputed facts but one side of an imagined conversation in which a
reader is interactively engaged: questioning, doubting, elaborating, developing what
a writer says. Angelil-Carter (2000) points out how EFL students’ previous
experience can militate against the assertion of their own identity when reading:
“The study and respect for religious texts, such as the Bible or the Koran, reinforced
by the notion of the school textbook …, may lead to a particularly entrenched notion
of the text as fact” (p. 103). Students also need to determine whether they are the
intended reader. This is especially important when EFL students read from the
internet, where most texts are clearly meant for a western (and specifically
American) readership. In an essay on the European Renaissance an Arab student
wrote that it has changed “our” culture significantly. By staying too close to her
source and failing to understand that she was not the intended reader, the writer
made a contentious assertion. Teachers need to develop strategies to overcome such
barriers to effective reading. A course in academic writing, then, presupposes a
course in academic reading. Curriculum planners do not always take this into
consideration.

2. Students learn best to engage in academic discourse through observing others

doing it. Teachers cannot assume that students internalize schema knowledge
without having read widely and analyzed a number of examples of a genre. But
where are suitable models of academic writing to be found? Although students
obviously need to be familiar with professional scholarship in their fields, it is not
advisable for them to base their writing exclusively on published work. What they
ought to read too are successful essays written by their peers. Over time, writing
teachers can build up a collection of student essays from previous years and provide
them as texts for class discussion. Rocklin (1996, pp. 5-6) suggests how internet
websites that offer students ready-made papers to download, plagiarize and submit
can be co-opted for more respectable academic purposes. A teacher might identify
from these sources several relevant papers of good quality and analyze them with a
class. Alternatively, students could be asked to download a paper of their choice and
critique it. In such ways students are reading and engaging with examples of
academic writing that are within their own competence to produce.

3. Often in academic writing done as a class assignment, the identity of the assumed
reader is obscured. But effective writing depends upon a clear notion of the reader
for whom the text is intended. As Hunt (2002, p. 1) observes, “Having something to
say is… absolutely indistinguishable from having someone to say it to, and an
authentic reason for saying it.” The model of reading as a dialogue means that a
writer (no less than a reader) needs to imagine an interlocutor. There are two
possible assumed readers of academic writing. First, and most immediately obvious,
is the actual reader-- the teacher to whom the essay is presented and who will
assess it and give it a grade. But this reader can be problematic; some teachers try
to efface themselves by pretending that the essay is for a nebulous general reader.
The more general the assumed reader, however, the less effective the writing is
likely to be. A more productive concept of the student writer’s assumed readers are
the writers whose texts are being used and referenced. In other words, the student
writing an academic essay can be thought of as extending the conversation in which
she has been engaged when reading the source material: she is continuing to react
to, disagree with and/or develop what these writers have said. As in a conversation,
both participants in the discourse exchange roles and interact. This formulation
resolves the problem of common knowledge, which can now be defined as what the
parties to the interaction are assumed mutually to know.

4. Focusing on the reader can help student writers develop a unique writing voice, so
that what they are saying is distinguished from what their sources are saying. If the
writer sees herself as engaged in a discourse with her sources, she is more likely to
find an individual way of expressing herself when putting forward her own views.
This involves what Penrose and Geisler (1994, p. 517) refer to as rhetorical
knowledge and Leki (1991) terms textualorientation:the writer’s awareness of the
discourse expectations of the readers, particularly an understanding of how
“structures promote meanings in texts” (Leki, p. 135). A reader who is also a
nascent writer examines the organization, methods of argumentation and tone of a
text, not just its content or domain (Penrose and Geisler, p. 516). Liki points out that
the development of this ability, difficult enough for L1 writers, is contingent upon EFL
students’ understanding that rhetorical traditions they are used to may be different
from those of an essay in English (p. 138). It may even involve them in temporarily
adopting a parallel “English self,” to fulfill the expectations of an assumed
reader.

5. A consideration of the reader-writer relationship presents referencing skills in a

new light. Angelil-Carter (2000, p. 43) points out that attributing sources is one way
to control the voices of others so that the student writer’s own voice can speak
through them. Competent citing of information will not only identify clearly who the
student writer is conversing with, but it can also help the writer to clarify her own
position in relation to her sources (Penrose and Geisler, 1994). Thus, accurate
referencing is not just an optional extra in an academic essay-- something to be
added on at the end of the process, when the main text is complete-- but it is,
rather, an integral and constitutive component, since knowing who said what and
when and where it was said is essential to understanding the nature of knowledge as
something constructed, debated and contested (Angelil-Carter, 2000, p. 114).

6. Students need to learn how to patchwrite, as both a transitional phase in the

development of writing skills (Howard, 2004) and as an end in itself. Many Qatar
University students, in spite of the work they have done in reading, vocabulary and
grammar courses, lack resources to put the language of a text into their own words.
For example, a student wanted to use the following text (part of a newspaper article)
as a source for her essay on causes and effects of the increased numbers of
unmarried women in the Gulf.

The number of spinsters in the UAE is increasing at an alarming rate, calling for the
involvement of all segments of society, as well as the authorities, to find a practical
solution, according to a study conducted by the Police Research Centre of the
Ministry of Interior. (Ibrahim, 2004)

Three interrelated skills are involved here: finding simpler synonyms for some of the
words, using alternative grammatical constructions and summarizing the
information. A considerable amount of class time was taken to produce the following
sentence:
The UAE is trying to find a solution to the serious problem of growing numbers of
unmarried women.

And yet in the final essay, reference to the information may need to be even shorter
than this; perhaps it will be synthesized into a single point including several other
countries. Patchwriting is not a general skill but is related to how the information fits
into the overall structure of an essay.

7. If the topic of the academic essay is carefully chosen (by the student or the
teacher or by both working together), then the possibilities for plagiarism are
reduced. The wording of a topic is crucial, as it will determine how information is
selected and organized. Precise language in a topic is essential for constructing a
logical argument. “Should Qatari women have plastic surgery?” (all of them? forced
to?) is a different proposition from the more considered “Should Qatari women
choose to have plastic surgery in order to improve their appearance?” Standard,
perennial topics, which are assigned regularly, invite plagiarism, since essays on
them are likely to be available on the internet and/or from students who have
previously taken a course. So teachers need to be imaginative enough to ensure that
topics are sufficiently different from year to year. Topics ought to be new in two
senses: they should not have been written on before, and they should reflect the
student’s unique approach to an issue. The ideal topic relates existing literature to a
student’s own experience and opinion. A student in Qatar once chose to write on the
history of women’s fashion. The essay she presented was almost entirely copied from
the internet, and it was exclusively about changing styles in nineteenth and
twentieth century American and European dress. Never once was Qatar or the Arab
world mentioned. What prevented the student from exploring this obvious aspect of
the topic? Did she find it inappropriate to write about Arab fashions in English? Was
there a lack of available written information? (But it had been explained that one
source of information is what one already knows.) Was there a barrier in her mind
separating old (what she knew) from new (what she read) information? Was this
reinforced by a language gap between what she knew in Arabic and what she was
writing about in English? What was missing in this rather futile exercise was an
assertion of the writer’s own identity in relation to her topic, which in turn led to an
undefined purpose and an uncritical use of sources. What could have been
supporting information (one side of a contrast between Arab and European fashion,
perhaps) became the main point of the essay.

8. Teachers need to articulate their expectations to students, including their views on

what counts as plagiarism and what does not. There is a good deal of variation
among teachers and how they mark essays in this regard, as Angelil-Carter (2000,
pp. 61ff) shows. It may be advisable to adopt a general departmental and/or
institutional policy on plagiarism (including agreed-upon punitive measures for
various types of infringements), which teachers enforce and students follow. But
whatever the individual teacher’s or institution’s attitude to plagiarism is and
however it is defined, both need to be communicated clearly to students beforethey
submit assignments, preferably through specific examples discussed in class.

9. One result of the pervasiveness of information technology is that for some

students searching for and finding information on the internet takes priority over
what they do with it after it is found. Thus, the use and referencing of sources may
seem to be of secondary importance. But processing “raw” into “cooked” information
is a major writing task. A writer needs to understand how to make other writers’
ideas serve her own purposes. In this respect, judging what to leave out of an essay
is at least as important as deciding what to put in. The text in the Appendix is an
extract from what was found on the internet (Keel, 2000) by a student whose topic
was harassment of women in Qatar. It is from a Canadian magazine for use in
schools (although the student did not record this information). References to the
“Criminal Code” are obviously to the laws of another country, not Qatar. Much of the
text is not directly relevant to the student’s topic. This does not mean, though, that
the source is inappropriate or useless. The categories and subdivisions given in the
first paragraph are apt, as well as the ways of resolving harassment cases outlined in
the third paragraph. The student needed to read the whole text carefully and to
decide about the relevance of each part. All academic writing involves
“recontextualization” (Angelil-Carter, 2000, p. 27), the selection and transformation
of information as focused on topic, purpose and theme. Most published scholars are
aware of how various writers may use the same information in different ways. (This
is one reason why the personal ownership of ideas is a complex issue.) But what for
the experienced scholar entails recontextualizing ideas may seem to the novice
writer to be falsifyingor distortingthem. From the reader’s perspective, Fairclough
(1995) views this process of recontextualization as central to all interpretation. He
claims that coherence resides not in the text itself but, rather, is imposed by readers
when they decode the text for their own purposes, with “different interpreters…
generating different coherent readings of the same text” (p. 134). This, of course, is
as much a concern for writers as it is for readers, and, once again, it can be helpful
for students to realize that in selecting information they are extending to another
level the strategies they use in reading.

10. The production of the final essay is a painstaking process for both students and
teachers. There are challenges at every stage. Students must be prepared to make
mistakes, revise and try again. Teachers need to be patient and able to engage in
one-to-one discussions, to critique and advise. (And administrators are responsible
for ensuring that teachers of writing have sufficient time to carry out these tasks
effectively.) Teachers and students should agree on a timetable for producing the
essay, consisting of the following stages. Ideally, teachers could monitor students’
progress by requiring assignments at each stage, except perhaps for (c). These
assignments can provide a record of the process of writing, which has been
recommended as a means of monitoring and avoiding both intentional and careless
plagiarism (Hunt, 2002; Rocklin, 1996; Wolff, 2006).

(a) formulate the topic, in consultation with and approved by the teacher;
(b) locate the possible sources of information related to the topic and prepare a
working bibliography;
(c) undertake an initial and general reading of the sources in order to gain an
impression of their contents and the way discourse is conducted in a particular field;
(d) make a general format for the essay (the main headings for what will become
the plan);
(e) prepare a detailed plan for the essay by considering the format in conjunction
with the information found;
(f) take detailed notes on the sources, using summary and patchwriting skills and
selecting from the sources only that information which fits into the plan made in
stage (e);
(g) integrate the notes into the plan to produce the completed essay, following
appropriate referencing conventions.

Conclusions

The use of information sources is a central, vital aspect of academic writing, not a
burdensome convention to which teachers and students must pay lip service before
moving on to more important concerns. Showing and explaining the reasons why this
is so is an important function of the writing teacher. The pursuit of academic work, in
whatever guise (as student, teacher or researcher), is a matter of engaging in a
discourse with others in the field. The academic essay is a record of that discourse.
Hence, information sources are not merely reproduced; they must be incorporated
into the argument that is being made. One can agree, disagree, elaborate, support,
accept, or reject; but without reference to the views of others, there can be no
discussion.
Sometimes students in Qatar have not understood, for instance, why, in
presenting a case, one would want to refer to a source with which one disagrees. An
explanation for this attitude may lie in the discourse structures of Arabic. There has
been much discussion of the hypotheses of contrastiverhetoric. (See Brown 1998,
Connor 2002 and Spack, 1997 for contributions to and summaries of this debate.)
Do Arabic speakers really argue through repeating, reinforcing and paraphrasing a
thesis they support, in contrast to the “western” method, which is supposed to
involve giving equal attention to counter arguments? To the extent that this view is
valid, students may need to acquire English discourse structures just as they do
grammatical and lexical structures. It is not remarkable in academic life to pay
tribute to a scholar with whose views one is engaged in disputing. Without the initial
ideas, there can be no reaction against them. On the other hand, students have
justified plagiarizing sources by claiming that they say “exactly what I think,” so
there is no need to say anything else. This attitude also involves a misconception
about academic writing. If scholarship is to develop, then each writer must add
something unique to the on-going project—however humble it might appear. What
has Qatar contributed to the history of women’s fashion? What particular forms does
sexual harassment take in Doha? (See Recommendations 6 and 7 above and the
Appendix.)
Perhaps this is the best self image to impart to the student academic writer: as a
contributor to a developing body of knowledge. And, as with most developmental
processes, we can never be sure of what the end results might be: it is a foolhardy
writer indeed who predicts with certainty how her ideas will be used by others. In the
end, the mechanics of referencing, attribution and appropriate use of sources matter
less than understanding the reasons for writing an academic essay. Acquiring the
ability to engage in academic discourse is not merely a matter of mastering its
defining characteristics (Price, 1999, p. 593). Particular conventions may change (as
any writer knows who is expected to conform to the different house styles of various
journals), but what remains constant is the process through which writers engage
with their material and their readers to produce a unique contribution to scholarship.

References

References

Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow: Longman.

Brown, D.D. (1998). Academic protocol and targeted rhetoric. Literacy across
cultures, 35(2). Retrieved 21st January, 2006 from
http://www2.aasa.ac:jp/~dedycus/LA98/FEB98/BROWN298.HTM

Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C. and Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism:

Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity
and Education, 3(3), 171-93.

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 3(4),

493-510

DePauw University (2003). Avoiding plagiarism. Academic Resource Center.

Retrieved 19th January, 2006 from
http://65.54.161.250/cgibin/getmsg/DepauwUAcademicResourceCenter.htm
?&msg=4039EDFC-3FAI

Fairclough, N. (1995). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Georgetown University Honor Council. What is plagiarism? (n.d.). Retrieved 31st

December, 2005 from
http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/hc/plagiarism.html
Howard, R.M. (2004a). Culture and academic discourse: Cultivating authority in
language and text. Texas A and M University. Retrieved 11th January 2006 from
http://wrt.howard.syr.edu/Papers/TAMU.htm

Howard, R.M. (2004b). Mapping the territory of plagiarism. Washington State

University. Retrieved 31st December 2006 from
http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/Papers/WashingtonState/Address/WSU.htm

Hunt, R. (2002). Four reasons to be happy about internet plagiarism. Teaching

Perspectives (St. Thomas University). Retrieved 20th January 2006 from
http://www.stu.ca/hunt/4reasons.htm

Abstract

EFL students’ problems in using textual sources in academic writing have been
considered negatively as plagiarism and more positively as a manifestation of
intertextuality. This paper argues that treating plagiarism from the perspective of
intertextuality is a productive approach to teaching writing skills, as it can help to
foster student writers’ self confidence. After examining the theoretical status of both
concepts, practical suggestions for teaching academic writing are made with
reference to the relation of writing to reading, the writer’s assumptions about the
reader, the writer’s development of an individual identity, formulating a topic and the
need for careful planning. Academic writing is best taught as a process through
which teachers monitor development from a reproduction to an incorporation of
textual sources.

Keywords: academic writing, intertextuality, plagiarism, tertiary education

Introduction

How university students deal with textual sources in academic writing poses
particular problems for EFL pedagogy. These have been considered from a number of
perspectives. At one extreme is the notion of plagiarism, usually defined as the
unattributed reproduction of the language, information and/or ideas of other writers.
The term is pejorative, and the practice is viewed by scholars as intellectual
dishonesty and by teachers as a barrier to academic development. This point of view
can be contrasted with the postmodern theory of intertextuality, which postulates
that since all texts are necessarily related to prior texts through a network of links,
writers (often unwittingly) make use of what has previously been written and thus
some degree of borrowing is inevitable. Indeed, it is seen to be a necessary
requirement for successful communication since a text is always in a "dialogue" with
other texts. A comparison between these two perspectives and their implications can
offer some helpful insights to the teacher of academic writing.

Plagiarism

Teachers respond to plagiarism in different ways (Angelil-Carter, 2000). At one

extreme, they are censorious and sententious; at another they are tolerant or
indifferent. The typical stages of reaction are succinctly summarized by Wolff (2006):
“outrage, frenetic activity, resignation”. Plagiarism has been considered a “crime,”
and various methods have been used to “police” it (Chandrasoma et al., 2004) -
most recently, by using internet searches through websites and software packages
specifically designed to uncover the practice. Official university statements and
guidelines to students are intended to help them avoid plagiarism (for example,
DePauw University, 2003; Georgetown University Honor Council, n.d.; Indiana
University, 2004a and b; Moravian College, 2004). Often though, official warnings
are issued, in formal legal language, concentrating on the dire consequences that
can result from this practice. Such policies may work for some students, but they can
be intimidating to the novice EFL writer who may lack a clear understanding of what
plagiarism involves. Many of these exhortations assume that avoiding plagiarism is
the responsibility of the student; little attention is given to the complementary role of
the writing teacher. But at least the problem is acknowledged. Sometimes academics
ignore plagiarism in students’ work, preferring not to spend the time and effort
involved in finding sources, making accusations and following institutional
disciplinary procedures to deal with infringements.
Several writers who have confronted this phenomenon in the classroom take a
different approach to plagiarism. Most radically, the validity of traditional
assumptions has been questioned altogether, and responsibility for plagiarism is
placed on educational and social structures. Hunt (2002), for example, views
plagiarism in students’ writing as symptomatic of what he considers to be such
ineffective educational practices as essay assignments, grades and the view of
knowledge as “stored information”. Adopting a wider perspective, Scollon (1994,
1997) tries to deconstruct the concept by probing the underlying social, political,
cultural and intellectual power relationships that underpin it. He doubts that ideas
can be considered as individual “property” at all.
More practically perhaps, Howard (2004 a and b) uses the notion of plagiarism to
develop a teaching strategy. For her, plagiarism is less a crime than a “learning issue
to be addressed”. She concludes that academic writing is “not a reflex of morality or
property but a complex intellectual skill” (2004a, p. 9). In this sense the tendency of
students to plagiarize is a necessary stage in learning how to write and can become
incorporated into a practical teaching methodology. Howard (2004b, p. 2) coins the
term patchwritingfor what is involved: putting the ideas of another writer into one’s
own language, through deletions and substitutions of vocabulary and changes in
grammatical construction. Patchwriting is taken to be a transitional form, in which
the writer is reproducing the ideas but not the language of her sources.
Plagiarism, as usually applied to students’ writing, raises several unresolved
issues. When confronted, for instance, with the problem of referencing, students are
often advised that what is “common knowledge” need not be attributed to a source.
Yet, if common knowledge is taken to be basic information members of a group
(e.g., academics) can be assumed to know in order to discuss an issue of mutual
interest, then it is clear that the knowledge of one group may be different from that
of another (Chandrasoma et al., 2004, p.181). If the student writer is not fully
integrated into an academic discourse community (which, by definition, she is not),
then she will be confused about when to reference and when not to. The problem is
exacerbated for EFL students, since “what constitutes ‘common knowledge’ for
diverse student populations [in different cultures and with varying degrees of
language proficiency] is … difficult to establish” (Thompson, n.d., p. 6).
Plagiarism can be intentional or careless, and intentional plagiarism may involve
copying from either published works or from assignments of other students. But
intentionality is relative. Whether or not sources have been plagiarized can have
more to do with the interpretation of a reader than with the conscious intention of a
writer. What is accepted, and even expected, by readers with respect to unattributed
information varies among genres. Some genres-- and readers’ schemata-- show a
greater tolerance for unattributed information than do others. For example,
newspapers commonly do not reference sources, and their readers accept this as
normal journalistic practice. Yet ambiguities can arise. The following paragraphs
appeared consecutively in a report on the front page of the Doha Peninsula (3 April
2006):

“Qatargas 3 and Qatargas 4 will be shipping most of their volumes to the US

markets. Our partners in these projects have put strong emphasis on the
development of infrastructure…,” the Minister said.

Qatargas 3 is an integrated project, jointly owned by QP (68.5 per cent),

ConocoPhillips (30 per cent) and Mitsui (1.5 per cent)….

Is the second paragraph here a continuation of what the minister said, the words of
a press release, or the comments of the journalist? It can be read in any of these
ways. Such failures to show attribution clearly go unremarked in journalism. But in
an academic article, they might be considered plagiarism.
Plagiarism, then, seems inadequate as a way to deal with infelicities in students’
academic writing. A number of ironies arise when students and teachers consider
writing from this perspective. Plagiarism detection websites-- in contrast to their
ostensible purpose-- have not only made it easier for students to plagiarize, but they
have also exposed academics and universities as doing the same. Disgruntled
students have turned the tables on their teachers and submitted lecture notes and
handouts to internet search engines with “interesting results” (Share, 2004, p. 6).
Some universities have been found to have plagiarized their rules and guidelines for
plagiarism by copying those of other institutions (Howard, 2004a, p. 9). Teachers
can be forced into a position of double-think and students into a Catch 22 situation.
Angelil-Carter’s (2000, p. 122) research has shown that an overmonitoring of
students’ work to detect plagiarism discourages them from using their own original
ideas for fear that they will be accused of copying, since they have been told that
every idea must be clearly referenced. And other investigations suggest that
teachers search for language errors in an essay as evidence that it has not been
copied (Chandrasoma et al., 2004, p. 179).

Intertextuality
Approaching writing from the perspective of plagiarism, then, has led to confusions
about common knowledge, intentionality, genre conventions and originality. For such
reasons, intertextuality seems to be a more productive way to consider how student
writers deal with textual information. Chandrasoma et al. (2004) replace the notion
of plagiarism with that of transgressiveintertextuality, which they contrast with
nontransgressiveintertextuality. By including these two concepts under one
superordinate term, they acknowledge that textual borrowings are endemic to all
writing. This dichotomy also helps overcome ambiguities about intentionality. It
makes the subtle distinction that what matters is the way texts are constructed
rather than whether they infringe against institutional regulations against plagiarism.
The writers point out (p. 174) that, “… textual borrowing is more of an issue of
academic literacy [i.e., engagement with the conventions of a scholarly community]
than academic dishonesty.” Thus, intertextuality can provide a lens through which
plagiarism may be observed from a pedagogical perspective. The potential for
plagiarism is a presence in all writing, especially academic writing. So, from the
student’s perspective, the phenomenon can be interpreted as less an aberration than
an extreme manifestation of a natural tendency.
Since the reuse and borrowing of images, ideas and language has become
“routinised within both popular culture and a range of institutional practices,” Share
(2004) proposes that avoiding plagiarism is a matter of “managing” intertextuality.
This idea decenters the contrast between originality and copying and foregrounds the
manner in which ideas are organized, arranged and used. What should be original in
a students’ essay, according to Share, is the realignment of previously existing
knowledge in new combinations. Scollon (1994, p. 33) sees a recent change in the
nature of writing, away from an “emphasis on the presentation of a unique,
individual author who is the ‘owner’ of a text” to the concept of a text as composed
by a community, a formulation that resembles authorship in oral traditions. What is
original in traditional story telling is not the events themselves but the ways they are
combined by a particular teller and used to achieve specific ends. Thus, information
is less important than the writer’s stance in relation to the information. In a similar
way, Penrose and Geisler (1994) consider the question of how university students
write academic essays by exploring the connections between the terms author and
authority. They conclude that authority in writing is an aspect of manipulating and
controlling intertextuality. Student writers are engaged not so much in creating
ideas, as in offering new perspectives on the links between them and their
relationship to a reader.
The way students write is related to the way they read. If readers assume that
texts present definitive and unassailable knowledge, then they may develop an
unhealthy respect for the absolute authority of texts, which can in turn result in the
reproduction of these texts in their own writing. An alternative way of reading
involves considering texts as “authored and negotiable” (Penrose and, Geisler, 1994,
p. 507). This means that knowledge is presented not as facts but as claims offered
to be questioned, tested, and evaluatedby a reader. Thus, the model for reading
centers less on the transfer of information than on the reader’s constructing a
dialogic position in relation to the text: reader and writer are engaged in an
imaginary conversation with one another. The implication of this for the student
academic writer (who is also of course a reader) is that in asserting her own
authority, she should understand that academic knowledge involves a continuous
process of interactive engagement with a reader, and that meaning must be
negotiated, not simply reproduced.
Fairclough (1995), in considering how texts are incorporated into other texts,
proposes two types of intertextuality, both of which are relevant to students’ writing
skills. Manifestintertextuality (pp. 117ff) occurs when previous texts are explicitly
present, either by the use of direct quotation (as in the first paragraph of the excerpt
from the newspaper article quoted above), or, more complexly, in presuppositions of
previous-- and perhaps imagined-- “texts”. Examples of the latter would be the use
of the otherwise unexplained word terrorist in a speech by George Bush and
(perhaps) the second paragraph quoted from the Qatargas report. They would also
include various markers by which writers distance themselves from the texts they
allude to-- for example, expressions such as “metaphorically speaking…,” “in
scientific terms…,” or “as X might have put it”.
Fairclough’s idea of constitutiveintertertextuality (pp. 124ff) is more global. It
refers to the way old genres are used and combined to constitute new ones. A genre
is taken to be a stable set of communicative conventions determined by social
practice, implying not merely a type of text but also the processes involved in its
production, distribution and consumption. New genres are formed through
intertextualchains, by means of which they are linked to other previously existing
genres. When we apply this theoretical framework to the genre of student academic
writing, several questions arise. What are the other genres to which the academic
essay is related? It seems to have features of a scholarly essay (as published in a
journal) as well as those of a class exercise. If we learn to write mainly through
reading, then what genres should students read in order to acquire the skills to
produce an academic essay? EFL students cannot be expected to observe all the
conventions of scholarly academic writing (even if they have read widely in a field).
Which conventions, then, should they observe? Academic articles are written for a
community of scholars; the student’s essay is written for a teacher who may be a
scholar too. In which role does the student writer address her reader? A failure to
resolve such issues underlies much of the uncertainty about not only the nature of
academic writing but also how it should be taught.
Scholarly writing, like newspapers and advertisements, can be a prime source for
investigating intertextuality. The way academic writers use, recycle and reorganize
other writers’ ideas is pervasive, even a defining feature of this genre. Student
writers need to acknowledge the intertextual dimensions of their enterprise. This, of
course, is not to suggest that they can plagiarize with impunity. However, when seen
in the context of intertextuality, plagiarism in the traditional sense becomes
retrogressive not because it is criminal or immoral but because it impedes students’
intellectual development. The plagiarist misunderstands the nature of academic
writing and prevents herself from revealing her own intellectual abilities in an essay.
She fails to perceive that scholarship largely involves applying other people’s ideas to
a new problem or situation. What is original is the relationships asserted between
ideas and the results of their application.

Recommendations

Considering plagiarism in terms of intertextuality can contribute to the teaching of

academic writing skills. Dealing with the mechanics of plagiarism is fairly
straightforward: the teacher checks whether students are copying directly from
sources and metes out punishments and rewards accordingly. But this approach is
unlikely to provide students with insights into the nature of academic work. In the
remainder of the discussion, practical ways are suggested for implementing the
theoretical observations outlined above. They emphasize how teachers, through
taking into account the intertextual nature of academic writing, can help make
students aware and self confident to use what other writers say without being used
by them, surely a sine qua non in the training of effective scholars. These
recommendations are not made in order of importance, and there is overlap among
them. Some are teacher-centered; others are student-centered. But all are all
proactive, since they involve students and teachers working together in an effort to
avoidplagiarism, in contrast to teachers taking unilateral punitive action after it
occurs.

1. Students learn to write from reading not just by becoming familiar with the
content and generic features of relevant texts. They should also acquire a critical
attitude towards them. To refer to a text as discourse implies that what is being read
presents not undisputed facts but one side of an imagined conversation in which a
reader is interactively engaged: questioning, doubting, elaborating, developing what
a writer says. Angelil-Carter (2000) points out how EFL students’ previous
experience can militate against the assertion of their own identity when reading:
“The study and respect for religious texts, such as the Bible or the Koran, reinforced
by the notion of the school textbook …, may lead to a particularly entrenched notion
of the text as fact” (p. 103). Students also need to determine whether they are the
intended reader. This is especially important when EFL students read from the
internet, where most texts are clearly meant for a western (and specifically
American) readership. In an essay on the European Renaissance an Arab student
wrote that it has changed “our” culture significantly. By staying too close to her
source and failing to understand that she was not the intended reader, the writer
made a contentious assertion. Teachers need to develop strategies to overcome such
barriers to effective reading. A course in academic writing, then, presupposes a
course in academic reading. Curriculum planners do not always take this into
consideration.

2. Students learn best to engage in academic discourse through observing others

doing it. Teachers cannot assume that students internalize schema knowledge
without having read widely and analyzed a number of examples of a genre. But
where are suitable models of academic writing to be found? Although students
obviously need to be familiar with professional scholarship in their fields, it is not
advisable for them to base their writing exclusively on published work. What they
ought to read too are successful essays written by their peers. Over time, writing
teachers can build up a collection of student essays from previous years and provide
them as texts for class discussion. Rocklin (1996, pp. 5-6) suggests how internet
websites that offer students ready-made papers to download, plagiarize and submit
can be co-opted for more respectable academic purposes. A teacher might identify
from these sources several relevant papers of good quality and analyze them with a
class. Alternatively, students could be asked to download a paper of their choice and
critique it. In such ways students are reading and engaging with examples of
academic writing that are within their own competence to produce.

3. Often in academic writing done as a class assignment, the identity of the assumed
reader is obscured. But effective writing depends upon a clear notion of the reader
for whom the text is intended. As Hunt (2002, p. 1) observes, “Having something to
say is… absolutely indistinguishable from having someone to say it to, and an
authentic reason for saying it.” The model of reading as a dialogue means that a
writer (no less than a reader) needs to imagine an interlocutor. There are two
possible assumed readers of academic writing. First, and most immediately obvious,
is the actual reader-- the teacher to whom the essay is presented and who will
assess it and give it a grade. But this reader can be problematic; some teachers try
to efface themselves by pretending that the essay is for a nebulous general reader.
The more general the assumed reader, however, the less effective the writing is
likely to be. A more productive concept of the student writer’s assumed readers are
the writers whose texts are being used and referenced. In other words, the student
writing an academic essay can be thought of as extending the conversation in which
she has been engaged when reading the source material: she is continuing to react
to, disagree with and/or develop what these writers have said. As in a conversation,
both participants in the discourse exchange roles and interact. This formulation
resolves the problem of common knowledge, which can now be defined as what the
parties to the interaction are assumed mutually to know.

4. Focusing on the reader can help student writers develop a unique writing voice, so
that what they are saying is distinguished from what their sources are saying. If the
writer sees herself as engaged in a discourse with her sources, she is more likely to
find an individual way of expressing herself when putting forward her own views.
This involves what Penrose and Geisler (1994, p. 517) refer to as rhetorical
knowledge and Leki (1991) terms textualorientation:the writer’s awareness of the
discourse expectations of the readers, particularly an understanding of how
“structures promote meanings in texts” (Leki, p. 135). A reader who is also a
nascent writer examines the organization, methods of argumentation and tone of a
text, not just its content or domain (Penrose and Geisler, p. 516). Liki points out that
the development of this ability, difficult enough for L1 writers, is contingent upon EFL
students’ understanding that rhetorical traditions they are used to may be different
from those of an essay in English (p. 138). It may even involve them in temporarily
adopting a parallel “English self,” to fulfill the expectations of an assumed
reader.

5. A consideration of the reader-writer relationship presents referencing skills in a

new light. Angelil-Carter (2000, p. 43) points out that attributing sources is one way
to control the voices of others so that the student writer’s own voice can speak
through them. Competent citing of information will not only identify clearly who the
student writer is conversing with, but it can also help the writer to clarify her own
position in relation to her sources (Penrose and Geisler, 1994). Thus, accurate
referencing is not just an optional extra in an academic essay-- something to be
added on at the end of the process, when the main text is complete-- but it is,
rather, an integral and constitutive component, since knowing who said what and
when and where it was said is essential to understanding the nature of knowledge as
something constructed, debated and contested (Angelil-Carter, 2000, p. 114).

6. Students need to learn how to patchwrite, as both a transitional phase in the

development of writing skills (Howard, 2004) and as an end in itself. Many Qatar
University students, in spite of the work they have done in reading, vocabulary and
grammar courses, lack resources to put the language of a text into their own words.
For example, a student wanted to use the following text (part of a newspaper article)
as a source for her essay on causes and effects of the increased numbers of
unmarried women in the Gulf.

The number of spinsters in the UAE is increasing at an alarming rate, calling for the
involvement of all segments of society, as well as the authorities, to find a practical
solution, according to a study conducted by the Police Research Centre of the
Ministry of Interior. (Ibrahim, 2004)

Three interrelated skills are involved here: finding simpler synonyms for some of the
words, using alternative grammatical constructions and summarizing the
information. A considerable amount of class time was taken to produce the following
sentence:
The UAE is trying to find a solution to the serious problem of growing numbers of
unmarried women.

And yet in the final essay, reference to the information may need to be even shorter
than this; perhaps it will be synthesized into a single point including several other
countries. Patchwriting is not a general skill but is related to how the information fits
into the overall structure of an essay.

7. If the topic of the academic essay is carefully chosen (by the student or the
teacher or by both working together), then the possibilities for plagiarism are
reduced. The wording of a topic is crucial, as it will determine how information is
selected and organized. Precise language in a topic is essential for constructing a
logical argument. “Should Qatari women have plastic surgery?” (all of them? forced
to?) is a different proposition from the more considered “Should Qatari women
choose to have plastic surgery in order to improve their appearance?” Standard,
perennial topics, which are assigned regularly, invite plagiarism, since essays on
them are likely to be available on the internet and/or from students who have
previously taken a course. So teachers need to be imaginative enough to ensure that
topics are sufficiently different from year to year. Topics ought to be new in two
senses: they should not have been written on before, and they should reflect the
student’s unique approach to an issue. The ideal topic relates existing literature to a
student’s own experience and opinion. A student in Qatar once chose to write on the
history of women’s fashion. The essay she presented was almost entirely copied from
the internet, and it was exclusively about changing styles in nineteenth and
twentieth century American and European dress. Never once was Qatar or the Arab
world mentioned. What prevented the student from exploring this obvious aspect of
the topic? Did she find it inappropriate to write about Arab fashions in English? Was
there a lack of available written information? (But it had been explained that one
source of information is what one already knows.) Was there a barrier in her mind
separating old (what she knew) from new (what she read) information? Was this
reinforced by a language gap between what she knew in Arabic and what she was
writing about in English? What was missing in this rather futile exercise was an
assertion of the writer’s own identity in relation to her topic, which in turn led to an
undefined purpose and an uncritical use of sources. What could have been
supporting information (one side of a contrast between Arab and European fashion,
perhaps) became the main point of the essay.

8. Teachers need to articulate their expectations to students, including their views on

what counts as plagiarism and what does not. There is a good deal of variation
among teachers and how they mark essays in this regard, as Angelil-Carter (2000,
pp. 61ff) shows. It may be advisable to adopt a general departmental and/or
institutional policy on plagiarism (including agreed-upon punitive measures for
various types of infringements), which teachers enforce and students follow. But
whatever the individual teacher’s or institution’s attitude to plagiarism is and
however it is defined, both need to be communicated clearly to students beforethey
submit assignments, preferably through specific examples discussed in class.

9. One result of the pervasiveness of information technology is that for some

students searching for and finding information on the internet takes priority over
what they do with it after it is found. Thus, the use and referencing of sources may
seem to be of secondary importance. But processing “raw” into “cooked” information
is a major writing task. A writer needs to understand how to make other writers’
ideas serve her own purposes. In this respect, judging what to leave out of an essay
is at least as important as deciding what to put in. The text in the Appendix is an
extract from what was found on the internet (Keel, 2000) by a student whose topic
was harassment of women in Qatar. It is from a Canadian magazine for use in
schools (although the student did not record this information). References to the
“Criminal Code” are obviously to the laws of another country, not Qatar. Much of the
text is not directly relevant to the student’s topic. This does not mean, though, that
the source is inappropriate or useless. The categories and subdivisions given in the
first paragraph are apt, as well as the ways of resolving harassment cases outlined in
the third paragraph. The student needed to read the whole text carefully and to
decide about the relevance of each part. All academic writing involves
“recontextualization” (Angelil-Carter, 2000, p. 27), the selection and transformation
of information as focused on topic, purpose and theme. Most published scholars are
aware of how various writers may use the same information in different ways. (This
is one reason why the personal ownership of ideas is a complex issue.) But what for
the experienced scholar entails recontextualizing ideas may seem to the novice
writer to be falsifyingor distortingthem. From the reader’s perspective, Fairclough
(1995) views this process of recontextualization as central to all interpretation. He
claims that coherence resides not in the text itself but, rather, is imposed by readers
when they decode the text for their own purposes, with “different interpreters…
generating different coherent readings of the same text” (p. 134). This, of course, is
as much a concern for writers as it is for readers, and, once again, it can be helpful
for students to realize that in selecting information they are extending to another
level the strategies they use in reading.

10. The production of the final essay is a painstaking process for both students and
teachers. There are challenges at every stage. Students must be prepared to make
mistakes, revise and try again. Teachers need to be patient and able to engage in
one-to-one discussions, to critique and advise. (And administrators are responsible
for ensuring that teachers of writing have sufficient time to carry out these tasks
effectively.) Teachers and students should agree on a timetable for producing the
essay, consisting of the following stages. Ideally, teachers could monitor students’
progress by requiring assignments at each stage, except perhaps for (c). These
assignments can provide a record of the process of writing, which has been
recommended as a means of monitoring and avoiding both intentional and careless
plagiarism (Hunt, 2002; Rocklin, 1996; Wolff, 2006).

(a) formulate the topic, in consultation with and approved by the teacher;
(b) locate the possible sources of information related to the topic and prepare a
working bibliography;
(c) undertake an initial and general reading of the sources in order to gain an
impression of their contents and the way discourse is conducted in a particular field;
(d) make a general format for the essay (the main headings for what will become
the plan);
(e) prepare a detailed plan for the essay by considering the format in conjunction
with the information found;
(f) take detailed notes on the sources, using summary and patchwriting skills and
selecting from the sources only that information which fits into the plan made in
stage (e);
(g) integrate the notes into the plan to produce the completed essay, following
appropriate referencing conventions.

Conclusions

The use of information sources is a central, vital aspect of academic writing, not a
burdensome convention to which teachers and students must pay lip service before
moving on to more important concerns. Showing and explaining the reasons why this
is so is an important function of the writing teacher. The pursuit of academic work, in
whatever guise (as student, teacher or researcher), is a matter of engaging in a
discourse with others in the field. The academic essay is a record of that discourse.
Hence, information sources are not merely reproduced; they must be incorporated
into the argument that is being made. One can agree, disagree, elaborate, support,
accept, or reject; but without reference to the views of others, there can be no
discussion.
Sometimes students in Qatar have not understood, for instance, why, in
presenting a case, one would want to refer to a source with which one disagrees. An
explanation for this attitude may lie in the discourse structures of Arabic. There has
been much discussion of the hypotheses of contrastiverhetoric. (See Brown 1998,
Connor 2002 and Spack, 1997 for contributions to and summaries of this debate.)
Do Arabic speakers really argue through repeating, reinforcing and paraphrasing a
thesis they support, in contrast to the “western” method, which is supposed to
involve giving equal attention to counter arguments? To the extent that this view is
valid, students may need to acquire English discourse structures just as they do
grammatical and lexical structures. It is not remarkable in academic life to pay
tribute to a scholar with whose views one is engaged in disputing. Without the initial
ideas, there can be no reaction against them. On the other hand, students have
justified plagiarizing sources by claiming that they say “exactly what I think,” so
there is no need to say anything else. This attitude also involves a misconception
about academic writing. If scholarship is to develop, then each writer must add
something unique to the on-going project—however humble it might appear. What
has Qatar contributed to the history of women’s fashion? What particular forms does
sexual harassment take in Doha? (See Recommendations 6 and 7 above and the
Appendix.)
Perhaps this is the best self image to impart to the student academic writer: as a
contributor to a developing body of knowledge. And, as with most developmental
processes, we can never be sure of what the end results might be: it is a foolhardy
writer indeed who predicts with certainty how her ideas will be used by others. In the
end, the mechanics of referencing, attribution and appropriate use of sources matter
less than understanding the reasons for writing an academic essay. Acquiring the
ability to engage in academic discourse is not merely a matter of mastering its
defining characteristics (Price, 1999, p. 593). Particular conventions may change (as
any writer knows who is expected to conform to the different house styles of various
journals), but what remains constant is the process through which writers engage
with their material and their readers to produce a unique contribution to scholarship.

References

References

Angelil-Carter, S. (2000). Stolen language? Plagiarism in writing. Harlow: Longman.

Brown, D.D. (1998). Academic protocol and targeted rhetoric. Literacy across
cultures, 35(2). Retrieved 21st January, 2006 from
http://www2.aasa.ac:jp/~dedycus/LA98/FEB98/BROWN298.HTM

Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C. and Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism:

Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity
and Education, 3(3), 171-93.

Connor, U. (2002). New directions in contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 3(4),

493-510

DePauw University (2003). Avoiding plagiarism. Academic Resource Center.

Retrieved 19th January, 2006 from
http://65.54.161.250/cgibin/getmsg/DepauwUAcademicResourceCenter.htm
?&msg=4039EDFC-3FAI

Fairclough, N. (1995). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Georgetown University Honor Council. What is plagiarism? (n.d.). Retrieved 31st

December, 2005 from
http://gervaseprograms.georgetown.edu/hc/plagiarism.html
Howard, R.M. (2004a). Culture and academic discourse: Cultivating authority in
language and text. Texas A and M University. Retrieved 11th January 2006 from
http://wrt.howard.syr.edu/Papers/TAMU.htm

Howard, R.M. (2004b). Mapping the territory of plagiarism. Washington State

University. Retrieved 31st December 2006 from
http://wrt-howard.syr.edu/Papers/WashingtonState/Address/WSU.htm

Hunt, R. (2002). Four reasons to be happy about internet plagiarism. Teaching

Perspectives (St. Thomas University). Retrieved 20th January 2006 from
http://www.stu.ca/hunt/4reasons.htm

Ibrahim, M.E. (2004). Alarm bells ring as rate of UAE spinsters rises. Khaleej Times
(Dubai), 16 July, 1.

Indiana University (2004a). Examples of plagiarism, and of appropriate use of others’

words and ideas. Retrieved 20th January 2006 from
http:www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.pdf

Indiana University (2004b). Plagiarism: What it is and how to recognize and avoid it.
Writing Tutorial Services. Retrieved 31st December, 2005 from
http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/plagiarism.shtml

Keel, R.G. (2000). The spectre of parental and intruder harassment. Orbit Magazine
for Schools, 32(2). Retrieved 21st June 2006 from
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/orbit/legal.html

Leki, I. (1991). Twenty-five years of contrastive rhetoric. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1),

123-43.

Moravian College (2004). Moravian College efforts to prevent plagiarism exemplify

national trend. Press release. Retrieved 19th January 2006 from
http://www.moravian.edu/news/releases/2004/094.htm

Penrose, A.M. and C. Geisler (1994). Reading and writing without authority. College
Composition and Communication, 45(4), 505-20.

Price, S. (1999). Critical discourse analysis: Discourse acquisition and discourse

practices. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4), 581-95.

Qatar Gas 3 and 4 projects to cost $14bn (2006), The Peninsula (Doha), 3 April, 1.

Rocklin, T. (1996). Downloadable term papers: What’s a prof. to do? University of

Iowa. Retrieved 11th January 2006 from

Scollon, R (1994). As a matter of fact: the changing ideology of authorship and

responsibility in discourse. World Englishes, 13(1), 33-46.

Scollon, R. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric, contrastive poetics, or perhaps something

else. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 352-58.

Share, P. (2004). Managing intertextuality - meaning, plagiarism and power. AISHE

Inaugural Conference, Trinity College, Dublin. Retrieved 19th January, 2006 from
www.aishe.org/conf2004/proceedings/paper23doc

Spack, R. (1997). The rhetorical construction of multilingual students. TESOL

Quarterly, 31(4), 765-74.

Thompson, C. (n.d.). Discourse on plagiarism: To discipline and punish or to teach

andlearn? Retrieved 20th January, 2006 from
http://www.bond.edu.au/hss/communication//ANZCA/ papers/
CThompsonPaper.pdf

Wolff, J. (2006). Does plagiarism matter? Answer in your own words, Guardian
Weekly (London), 3 – 9 March, 32.

Appendix

The Spectre of Parental and Intruder Harassment

By R.G. Keel

There are two categories of harassment recognized by law: criminal harassment and
civil harassment. Within each of these categories, there are four types of
harassment: oral, physical, telephone, and written. In some cases, an individual
criminal or civil harassment depends on the facts of each case. As defined more fully
below, there are sections in the Criminal Code dealing with nuisance and harassing
telephone calls. In general, fear for one’s safety is an essential element in a criminal
harassment charge. On the other hand, the factual components for nuisance and
harassing telephone calls are completely different. On the other side of the spectrum
are the civil harassment cases which do not require fear for one’s safety.

Whether the conduct constitutes criminal harassment, again, depends on the facts
of the case and the impact on the “victim.” This is reviewed in more detail under the
Criminal Code below. All of the forms of civil harassment are recognized by the
courts as constituting nuisance. The remedies fashioned in the courts include interim
injunctions pending trial, permanent injunctions, as well as damages.

In the majority of cases involving disruption or harassment, the matter can be

resolved without recourse to more serious forms of intervention such as the police or
the courts. In some cases, a letter from the supervisory officer or director or even a
trustee explaining the circumstances can resolve the issues. In other cases, referral
to mediation can solve a real or perceived dispute. For example, in a number of
special education situations, we have used mediation to resolve the conflict and
avoid judicial review and possible human rights complaints. In many cases, the
individual is looking for a way to vent their anger and, once this is done can
participate in resolving the substantive issues.

One reality that cannot be overlooked is the necessity to teach teachers and
administrators how to recognize and deal with disruptive parents or individual
harassment. Recognition of the problem can sometimes lead to an effective
resolution before the matter escalates. Many directors have commented that
educators are not well trained to deal with such confrontations. With appropriate
professional development, strategies can be developed to deal with both criminal and
civil forms of harassment. In many cases of civil harassment, the strategies may
effectively resolve the matter.

One complaint we have heard from administrators is that quite often the board
considers these issues to be the responsibility of the principal alone, and does not
provide sufficient back-up. Senior administrators should remember that the principal
is acting on behalf of the board. As a result, the strategy that is utilized should be
developed consensually between the principal and the appropriate supervisory
officer. Otherwise, principals are left to fend for themselves. In such cases, the
methods of dealing with the issues will differ from school to school, thereby creating
inconsistency within the board’s jurisdiction. Moreover, principals might act
inappropriately, causing greater friction or even placing a principal in some jeopardy
of liability for inappropriate action. Working together as a “team” and developing
appropriate strategies should eliminate this risk.

Action Research / Penelitian Tindakan

Diterbitkan 5 Juli 2008 Seputar SIMKES UGM 21 Comments

Rate This
 Technorati Tags: action research,penelitian,tindakan,penelitian tindakan

Definisi

Action research atau penelitian tindakan merupakan salah satu bentuk rancangan
penelitian, dalam penelitian tindakan peneliti mendeskripsikan, menginterpretasi dan
menjelaskan suatu situasi sosial pada waktu yang bersamaan dengan melakukan
perubahan atau intervensi dengan tujuan perbaikan atau partisipasi. Action research
dalam pandangan tradisional adalah suatu kerangka penelitian pemecahan masalah,
dimana terjadi kolaborasi antara peneliti dengan client dalam mencapai tujuan (Kurt
Lewin,1973 disitasi Sulaksana,2004), sedangkan pendapat Davison, Martinsons & Kock
(2004), menyebutkan penelitian tindakan, sebagai sebuah metode penelitian, didirikan
atas asumsi bahwa teori dan praktik dapat secara tertutup diintegrasikan dengan
pembelajaran dari hasil intervensi yang direncanakan setelah diagnosis yang rinci
terhadap konteks masalahnya.

Menurut Gunawan (2007), action research adalah kegiatan dan atau tindakan perbaikan
sesuatu yang perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan evaluasinya digarap secara sistematik dan
sistematik sehingga validitas dan reliabilitasnya mencapai tingkatan riset. Action
research juga merupakan proses yang mencakup siklus aksi, yang mendasarkan pada
refleksi; umpan balik (feedback); bukti (evidence); dan evaluasi atas aksi sebelumnya dan
situasi sekarang. Penelitian tindakan ditujukan untuk memberikan andil pada pemecahan
masalah praktis dalam situasi problematik yang mendesak dan pada pencapaian tujuan
ilmu sosial melalui kolaborasi patungan dalam rangka kerja etis yang saling berterima
(Rapoport, 1970 disitasi Madya,2006). Proses penelitian bersifat dari waktu ke waktu,
antara “finding” pada saat penelitian, dan “action learning”. Dengan demikian action
research menghubungkan antara teori dengan praktek.

Baskerville (1999), membagi action research berdasarkan karakteristik model (iteratif,

reflektif atau linear), struktur (kaku atau dinamis), tujuan (untuk pengembangan
organisasi, desain sistem atau ilmu pengetahuan ilmiah) dan bentuk keterlibatan peneliti
(kolaborasi, fasilitatif atau ahli.

Tujuan dan ciri-ciri Penelitan Tindakan.

Penelitian tindakan bertujuan untuk memperoleh pengetahuan untuk situasi atau sasaran
khusus dari pada pengetahuan yang secara ilmiah tergeneralisasi. Pada umumnya
penelitian tindakan untuk mencapai tiga hal berikut : (Madya,2006)

• Peningkatan praktik.
• Peningkatan (pengembangan profesional) pemahaman praktik dan praktisinya.
• Peningkatan situasi tempat pelaksanaan praktik.

Hubungan antara peneliti dan hasil penelitian tindakan dapat dikatan hasil penelitian
tindakan dipakai sendiri oleh penelitinya dan tentu saja oleh orang lain yang
menginginkannya dan penelitiannya terjadi di dalam situasi nyata yang pemecahan
 masalahnua segera diperlukan, dan hasil-hasilnya langsung
diterapkan/dipraktikkan dalam situasi terkait. Selain itu,
tampak bahwa dalam penelitian tindakan peneliti melakukan
pengelolaan, penelitian, dan sekaligus pengembangan.

Penelitian tindakan (action research) dilaksanakan bersama-

sama paling sedikit dua orang yaitu antara peneliti dan
partisipan atau klien yang berasal dari akademisi ataupun
masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, tujuan yang akan dicapai dari
suatu penelitian tindakan (action research) akan dicapai dan
berakhir tidak hanya pada situasi organisatoris tertentu,
melainkan terus dikembangkan berupa aplikasi atau teori kemudian hasilnya akan di
publikasikan ke masyarakat dengan tujuan riset (Madya,2006).

Sementara itu, peneliti perlu untuk membuat kerjasama dengan anggota organisasi dalam
kegiatan ini, membuat persetujuan eksplisit dengan klien. Pelaporan secara rutin
mengenai jalannya kegiatan dapat mencerminkan ciri khusus dari kesepakatan ini. Baik
peneliti maupun klien dapat memiliki peran dan tanggungjawab ganda, meskipun ini
dapat berubah selama perjalanan kegiatan berlangsung, tetapi penting untuk menentukan
aturan awal pada bagian luar proyek agar dapat mencegah konflik kepentingan dan
menghindari ancaman terhadap hak prerogatif pribadi atau jabatan mereka. Adalah sangat
penting membuat kesepakatan terlebih dahulu mengenai sasaran dari penelitian,
kemudian dapat dilakukan perbaikan-perbaikan yang diperlukan. Berikut tahapan
penelitian tindakan (action research) yang dapat ditempuh yaitu : (Davison, Martinsons
& Kock (2004) lihat Gambar berikut : Siklus action research, (Davison, Martinsons &
Kock (2004)

Davison, Martinsons & Kock (2004), membagi Action research dalam 5 tahapan yang
merupakan siklus, yaitu :

1. Melakukan diagnosa (diagnosing)

Melakukan identifikasi masalah-masalah pokok yang ada guna menjadi dasar kelompok
atau organisasi sehingga terjadi perubahan, untuk pengembangan situs web pada tahap ini
peneliti mengidentifikasi kebutuhan stakeholder akan situs web, ditempuh dengan cara
mengadakan wawancara mendalam kepada stakeholder yang terkait langsung maupun
yang tidak terkait langsung dengan pengembanga situs web.

2. Membuat rencana tindakan (action planning)

Peneliti dan partisipan bersama-sama memahami pokok masalah yang ada kemudian
dilanjutkan dengan menyusun rencana tindakan yang tepat untuk menyelesaikan masalah
yang ada, pada tahap ini pengembangan situs web memasuki tahapan desain situs web.
Dengan memperhatikan kebutuhan stakeholder terhadap situs web penelitian bersama
partisipan memulai membuat sketsa awal dan menentukan isi yang akan ditampilkan
nantinya.

3. Melakukan tindakan (action taking)

Peneliti dan partisipan bersama-sama mengimplementasikan rencana tindakan dengan

harapan dapat menyelesaikan masalah. Selanjutnya setelah model dibuat berdasarkan
sketsa dan menyesuaikan isi yang akan ditampilkan berdasarkan kebutuhan stakeholder
dilanjutkan dengan mengadakan ujicoba awal secara offline kemudian melanjutkan
dengan sewa ruang di internet dengan tujuan situs web dapat ditampilkan secara online.

4. Melakukan evaluasi (evaluating)

Setelah masa implementasi (action taking) dianggap cukup kemudian peneliti bersama
partisipan melaksanakan evaluasi hasil dari implementasi tadi, dalam tahap ini dilihat
bagaimana penerimaan pegguna terhadap situs web yang ditandai dengan berbagai
aktivitas-aktivitas.

5. Pembelajaran (learning)

Tahap ini merupakan bagian akhir siklus yang telah dilalui dengan melaksanakan review
tahap-pertahap yang telah berakhir kemudian penelitian ini dapat berakhir. Seluruh
kriteria dalam prinsip pembelajaran harus dipelajari, perubahan dalam situasi organisasi
dievaluasi oleh peneliti dan dikomunikasikan kepada klien, peneliti dan klien
merefleksikan terhadap hasil proyek, yang nampak akan dilaporkan secara lengkap dan
hasilnya secara eksplisit dipertimbangkan dalam hal implikasinya terhadap penerapan
Canonical Action Reaserch (CAR). Untuk hal tertentu, hasilnya dipertimbangkan dalam
hal implikasinya untuk tindakan berikutnya dalam situasi organisasi lebih-lebih kesulitan
yang dapat dikaitkan dengan pengimplementasian perubahan proses.

Hasilnya juga dipertimbangkan untuk tindakan ke depan yang dapat dilakukan dalam
kaitannya dengan domain penelitian, terutama akibat kegiatan yang terjadi diluar rencana
awal (atau kelambanan) dan cara di mana peneliti dapat kurang hati-hati melakukan
penyelesaian kegiatan dan dalam hal implikasi untuk komunitas penelitian secara umum
dengan mengidentifikasi keuntungan penelitian di masa datang. Di sini, nilai action
research akan terangkat (bahkan sebuah proyek yang gagal dapat tetap menghasilkan
pengetahuan yang bernilai), dan juga merupakan kekuatan status quo dalam lingkungan
(organisasi) sosial untuk mencegah perubahan dari proses yang telah berlalu.

Dari penjelasan di atas kita dapat melihat dengan jelas bahwa penelitian tindakan
berurusan langsung dengan praktik di lapangan dalam situasi alami. Penelitiannya adalah
pelaku praktik itu sendiri dan pengguna langsung hasil penelitiannya dengan lingkup
ajang penelitian sangat terbatas. Yang menonjol adalah penelitian tindakan ditujukan
untuk melakukan perubahan pada semua diri pesertanya dan perubahan situasi tempat
penelitian dilakukan guna mencapai perbaikan praktik secara inkremental dan
berkelanjutan (Madya,2006).
Beberapa kawan-kawan di Simkes angkatan I dan II melaksanakan penelitian dimaksud.
Bila anda berminat dengan penelitian tindakan saran saya :

• Siapkan Rencana Yang Matang, bila perlu siapkan rencana cadangan.

• Usahan Schedule ditepati.
• Memperbanyak dokumentasi selama pelaksanaan penelitian.
• Siapkan alat perekam yang baik.
• CAR menurut saya sebaiknya dipergunakan karena mempertegas akhir penelitian.

Pustaka :

Baskerville,L.R. (1999) Journal : Investigating Information System with Action

Research, Association for Information Systems: Atlanta

Sulaksana,U., (2004), Managemen Perubahan, Cetakan I, Pustaka Pelajar Offset,

Yogyakarta.

Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., Kock N., (2004), Journal : Information Systems
Journal : Principles of Canonical Action Research 14, 65–86

Madya, S, (2006) Teori dan Praktik Penelitian Tindakan (Action Research), Alfabeta:
Bandung.

Gunawan, (2004), Makalah untuk Pertemuan Dosen UKDW yang akan melaksanakan
penelitian pada tahun 2005, URL : http://uny.ac.id, accersed at 19 Mei 2007, 15.25 WIB.
Title: Action Research diagrams
Category: Research techniques
Subject: Any

CONTEXT

Action research can be used as a tool to collect data for project or dissertation work.
Here are two diagrams which help to explain the process. These can be adapted to use
in a research methods type class.

THE ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE

There are four basic steps in the action research cycle:-Plan, act, observe/collect,
reflect/review.

Action Research is a form of

inquiry conducted by researchers
who wish to inform and improve:

• Their practice.
• Their understanding and
decision-making in their
practice.

• The effect of their practice

on the research.

These steps are repeated in sequence as work progresses, creating an upward spiral of
improving practice.
.

http://education.qld.gov.au/students/advocacy/equity/gender-sch/action/action-cycle.html

Contact vhingley@ccn.ac.uk