UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Summary writing performance of ESL exchange students Feng , Guoqing 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-0466.pdf [ 3.85MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078213.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078213-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078213-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078213-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078213-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078213-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078213-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078213-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078213.ris

Full Text

Summary Writing Performance of ESL Exchange Students by Guoqing Feng B.A., Tianjin Foreign Studies University, China 1987 M.A, Nankai University, China 1999 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFUULMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department Of Language And Literacy Education (Teaching English as a Second Language) We accept this thesis as confirming to the requires standard The University of British Columbia August 2002 © Guoqing Feng, 2002 In p resen t ing this thesis in partial fu l f i lment of t h e requ i remen ts f o r an advanced d e g r e e at t h e Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a , I agree that t h e Library shall m a k e it f reely available f o r re ference and s tudy. I f u r the r agree that pe rmiss ion f o r ex tens ive c o p y i n g o f this thesis f o r scholar ly pu rposes may b e g r a n t e d b y t h e h e a d o f m y d e p a r t m e n t or by his o r her representat ives. It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f th is thesis f o r f inancial ga in shall n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t m y w r i t t e n pe rmiss ion . D e p a r t m e n t The Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a Vancouver , Canada Date 'Jlw<L BO , O 3 DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T This study examines performance of summary writing of 14 Japanese students. Participants completed a summary task on two pre-selected texts at the beginning of an eight-month exchange program and then revised or rewrote the summaries at the end of the program. Students' original and revised drafts were analyzed in terms of 1) number of important points/ideas included from the source texts; 2) number of single summary sentences that combined important points from the source texts; 3) number of topic sentences invented to summarize source paragraph(s) or text(s); and 4) number of sentences that were paraphrased or copied from the source texts. Apart from these textual analyses, students' own perceptions of their summary writing tasks were also collected through a follow-up interview after they completed the second drafts. Results show that most of the students included half or more of the ten important points identified by two doctoral students who were native speakers of English. Students included more than half of the important points using the reproduction strategy. Most of them used paraphrasing and partial copying, while a third of the students used exact copying. Most of the students applied the combination strategy at least once in each draft, but half of the students included only 50% or fewer important points using this strategy. When students combined important points, no one used exact copying, a third of students used partial copying and most of them used paraphrasing. Results also show that most of the students could write topic sentences using their own words. A third of the students wrote topic sentences by copying the titles of the original texts, but in contrast, almost the same number of students produced their topic sentences totally in their own words. The writing and interview data revealed that most of the students had difficulties in comprehending the source texts or the writing task, and many were not aware of summary writing strategies. Results suggest that some students copied rather than using their own words because of difficulties with the source texts, or because of their lack of confidence in their own English competence or cultural differences. I I T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables v List of Charts vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 1.1 Background of the Study 1 1.2 Sample of the Study 3 1.3 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 4 1.4 Overview of the Other Chapters 5 1.5 Definition of Terms 5 Chapter Two: Literature Review 7 2.1 Theory on Micro-processing and Macro-rules 7 2.2 Research on LI Summary Writing 9 2.2.1 Experienced and Inexperienced Writers' Writing Processes 10 2.2.2 Experienced and Inexperienced Writers' Performance in Including Information from the Source Texts 12 2.2.3 Instruction on Summarization Rules 22 2.3 Research on L2 Summary Writing 26 2.3.1 Summary. Writing Processes and L2 Proficiency 26 2.3.2 Summary Writing Ability and L2 Proficiency 27 2.4 Summary of the Literature Review 30 Chapter Three: Methodology 34 3.1 Introduction 34 3.2 Participants 34 in 3.3 Source Texts 36 3.4 Procedures 36 3.5 Data Analyses 38 Chapter Four: Results and Discussion 43 4.1 Results of Research Question One 43 4.1.1 Inclusion of Important Points in Both Drafts 43 4.1.2 Reproduction of Single Important Point in Both Drafts 47 4.2 Results and Discussion of Research Question Two 53 4.3 Results and Discussion of Research Question Three 58 4.4 Discussion of the Findings 63 Chapter Five: Conclusion 70 5.1 Summary of the Findings 70 5.2 Significance of the Present Study 72 5.3 Limitations of the Present Study 72 5.4 Recommendations for Further Study 74 References.... 76 Appendix A: Source Tasks 80 Appendix B: Sample of a Coded Draft 82 Appendix C: Excerpt from Interview of the Instructor 83 Appendix D: Interview of a student 85 iv L I S T O F T A B L E S Table One Profile of Participants 35 Table Two Scales of Summary Protocols 40 Table Three Illustration of Coding 41 Table Four Number of Important Points Included in Each Draft 45 Table Five Important Point Repetition in Each Draft....... 47 Table Six Reproduction of Important Points 48 Table Seven Percentages of Reproduction in Each Draft. 49 Table Eight Strategies in Simple Important Point Reproduction 51 Table Nine Difference in Copying and Paraphrasing between the Two Drafts in Reproduction 52 Table Ten Combination of Important Points ; 54 Table Eleven Percentages of Combinations in Each Draft : 55 Table Twelve Illustration of Students' Use of Combination Skills in Each Draft 56 Table Thirteen Strategies in Combination 57 Table Fourteen Invention of Topic Sentences ' 59 Table Fifteen Comparison of Generalization Sentences and the Introduction of Titles in Both Drafts 60 Table Sixteen Strategies in Invention 61 Table Seventeen Comparison of Exactly Copied, Partially Copied and Paraphrased Invention Sentences in Each Draft 62 LIST OF CHARTS Chart One Frequencies of Each Important Point Included in Both Drafts 46 vi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study This study investigated the summary writing performance by 14 Japanese students in terms of applying summary writing skills. Summary writing is a useful skill to learn for students because it fosters and monitors reading comprehension (Palincsar & Brown, 1983). Kitsch (1977) and van Dijk (1977) indicate that when people comprehend, summarize and remember source texts, they apply the following summarization rules: deleting unnecessary information, generalizing or combining information, and constructing information or summarizing a sequence of actions or events. Brown and Day (1983) later added an invention rule that skilled summarizers use as they invent topic sentences for the whole paragraph or text. Researchers have observed English summary writing processes of experienced and less experienced L l writers (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al., 1983; Garner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Taylor, 1984). They have found that experienced and inexperienced writers engage in the same processes when they summarize: reading, referencing, noting, writing, planning and commenting (Kennedy, 1985), though they put different effort and amounts of time into planning (Brown et al., 1983; Gardner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Taylor, 1984). Studies of L2 writers' summary writing processes have found that L2 writers use the same strategies as L l writers (Boshier, 1998; Raimes, 1987; Sasaki, 2000; Zamel, 1983; Zamel, 1985; Zamel, 1987), and that the difference between experienced l and inexperienced L2 writers also was in their effort in the planning process. Researchers suggest that English language proficiency affects L2 writers' revision strategies (Whalen & Menard, 1995). Another group of studies on summary writing has focused on the inclusion of important information from the source texts. When comparing the abilities of experienced and inexperienced LI writers in applying summarization rules, researchers have found that students of various ages experience difficulties in identifying important ideas from the source text (Brown & Day, 1983; Hare & Borchardt, 1984). Compared with the ability to include important information, the ability to combine information in one's single summary sentences was even more demanding. Even college students failed to combine important information from the source text properly (Gardner, 1985). In addition, inventing topic sentences was late developing; only experts can produce them efficiently (Brown & Day, 1983; Johns, 1985; Winograd, 1984). These studies show that there is a developmental trend in summarization skills. The more experienced writers are, the more integrated information they produce and the less reproduction they make by the "copy-delete" strategy (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al., 1983; Johns, 1985). In a word, the ability to use summarization rules increases with experience (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al., 1983; Gardner, 1985; Johnson, 1982; Taylor, 1983; Winograd, 1984). Compared with LI research, findings from studies on L2 writers' ability to apply summarization rules suggest the importance of language proficiency in summary writing. Students with lower language proficiency have been found to copy more (Campbell, 1990; Johns & Mayes, 1990). 2 Although L2 writers' ability in using summarization rules increases with language proficiency (Cumming, 1989), applying such summarization rules as combining information and inventing topic sentences remains a challenge even to L2 students with high English language proficiency (Johns & Mayes, 1990). Researchers (e.g., Friend, 2001a; Friend, 2001b; Garner & McCaleb, 1985; Hare & Borchardt, 1984) on L l writing have suggested that students from elementary to university level need explicit instruction on summarization rules. Students appear to improve their summary writing performance in deletion, generalization and invention A after receiving instruction. Writing practice in various genres other than in summary writing, however, does not facilitate students' summary writing skills (Taylor, 1983). Findings from the above studies suggest more studies are needed to investigate whether ESL students copy or paraphrase source materials when they summarize with certain summarization strategies such as reproducing or combining important information or write topic sentences. 1.2 Sample of the Study Participants in the present study were 14 Japanese exchange students of similar age and education background studying at a Canadian university. They wrote two drafts on two expository texts. The first drafts were written at the beginning of the exchange program. Students either revised their first drafts or wrote another summary1 at the end of ' I am not able to distinguish who revised and who rewrote when participating students did their second draft, because when I analyzed the data, all of the students had left Canada. 3 the eight-month exchange program, based on the same source texts. Soon after their second writing task, subjects were interviewed on how they revised their first writings and the reasons for the changes. Their writing instructor was also interviewed about students' summary writing learning experiences while they were studying under the exchange program. In the present study, each sentence in the two drafts was examined in three categories: 1) single sentence reproduction of identified important information from the source texts, 2) combination of important information from the source texts in single sentences, and 3) inventing topic sentences that summarized the whole source texts. Sentences under each category were further examined as to whether they were copied or paraphrased. 1.3 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to provide further information on E S L students' summary writing performance on applying summarization rules or strategies, especially on whether E S L students copy or paraphrase the source text when they apply those strategies. The following questions guided this study: 1) H o w do students include important points in both drafts? A n d do they restate each important point by copying or by paraphrasing the original sentence? 2) H o w do students combine important points in both drafts? A n d do they combine original ideas or sentences by copying or by paraphrasing? 3) H o w do students produce topic sentences (invention) to summarize the whole 4 source paragraph or text in both drafts? 1.4 O v e r v i e w o f O t h e r C h a p t e r s Chapter Two reviews the literature on both L l and L2 summary writing i n terms of writing processes and abilities of using summarization skills by writers with different academic experiences. Positive effects of instruction on summarization skills are also reviewed in this chapter. In Chapter Three, methodology of the present study is introduced. Results and discussion on the three research questions appear in Chapter Four. Finally, in Chapter Five, the main findings are summarized, and the limitations and significance of the present study as well as recommendations for the further research are included. 1.5 D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s The following terms appear frequently in the present study. I define them as below: 1. Important Points: refers to the identified important information or ideas in the source texts. There are 10 important points identified in the source texts employed in this present study (see Data Analysis in Chapter Three for the identification of the 10 important points). 2. Reproduction: refers to a single sentence which includes only one important point. 3. Combination: refers to a single sentence which includes more than one important point. 4. Invention: refers to sentences of two categories: 5 a) Introduction of Titles: copying or nearly copying of the title(s) of the source text(s). b) Generalization of Information: generalizing information of a paragraph or paragraphs, the whole text or texts. 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, I review research on rules that people apply when they summarize a text and studies on applying summarizaition rules as well as the effect of instruction on these rules. Results show that both experienced and inexperienced LI and L2 writers use similar strategies when they summarize, except for the time and effort they put into each process (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al, 1983; Garner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Taylor, 1984). Compared with LI researchers who suggest that the ability to summarize increases with experience (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al, 1983; Gardner, 1985; Gardenr et al., 1985; Johns, 1985; Johnson, 1982; Taylor, 1986; Winograd, 1984), L2 researchers indicate that L2 competence plays an important role in the application of summarization rules and in the quality of sumamry writing by ESL students. 2.1 Theory on Macro-processing and Macro-rules —Key to Produce the Gist of a Discourse According to van Dijk (1977), reading comprehension takes place by applying summarization rules called macro-rules: deleting irrelevant information, combining related information and replacing sequences of information with higher level information or macro-propositions. Applying these macro-rules repeatedly can produce a summary of a text. The reason is that, in a discourse of any reading texts, a micro-structure, or a detailed representation of the surface of an original text, represents the organization of 7 basic information that consists of sequences of propositions. In the process of comprehension, macro-propositions are first derived by deleting non-significant propositions or replacing sequences of propositions expressed locally in a text with macro-rules. Then, much higher level macro-propositions are macro-processed and connected into sequences. As one text may contain several levels of propositions, one macro-meaning may constitute the basis of a still more global macro-meaning. By applying and reapplying macro-rules, several levels of macro-propositions form the macro-structure or summary of a text. Kintsch (1977, p. 44) summarized van Dijk's summarization rules as the following: 1) Deletion (1): It selects and deletes accidental propositions in the text base. Accidental propositions are propositions which are not used in text base as propositions of other propositions. Essentially, this rule deletes irrelevant, i.e., non-presuppositional material. 2) Deletion (2): It removes redundant material from the story. It deletes constitutional propositions, that is, propositions that may be derived from other propositions in the text base. 3) Generalization: It substitutes category names for category members, both with respect to arguments of propositions (a specific term is replaced with a more general concept) and the relational terms of propositions (permitting one to use a more general predicate in place of a more specific one). 4) Construction: It summarizes a sequence of actions or events by introducing a name that refers to the sequence as a whole. This macro-processing model contributes to the understanding of summarizing processes and provides guidelines to evaluate summary writing. It contains the theory of how readers structure and comprehend the micro-structure as well as the macro-structure of a text. It also highlights the relationship between micro-structure and macro-structure as a key to explain how semantically complex information is reduced to its gist in 8 summarizing a text (Kinstch & van Dijk 1978). Kintsch (1977) indicates that people of different ages apply these macro-rules when they comprehend, summarize and remember stories or any texts. Although some texts contain sequences of propositions that may be neither obviously connected (exhibiting related facts) nor linearly coherent, people are still able to get macro-structures of those texts by taking account of the implicit or unstated propositions while following the macro-rules. van Dijk's summarization rules were extended by Brown and Day (1983) who tried to capture the summary writing methods employed by both young and adult writers. Apart from adopting van Dijk's deletion rule, Brown and Day combined the generalization and construction rules into a superordination rule and also added selection and invention rules. They arranged the rules according to the order of predicted difficulty: 1) Deleting unimportant or trivial information; 2) Deleting redundant information; 3) Superordinating a category name for instances of a category; 4) Selecting a topic sentence if there is any; and 5) Inventing a topic sentence if there is not any. (Brown & Day, 1983, p. 2) 2.2 Research on LI Summary Writing Based on van Dijk's (1977) summarization rules or Brown and Day's (1983) extended summarization rules, research on LI summary writings has focused on three areas. It has 1) observed differences in the summary writing processes of experienced and inexperienced writers; 2) compared how experienced and inexperienced writers include 9 important information from the source text; and 3) explored the effect of classroom instruction in summarization rules to students of various ages. 2.2.1 Experienced and Inexperienced Writers' Writing Processes Several studies have observed English summary writing processes of both experienced and less experienced native English speaking writers (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al., 1983; Garner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Taylor, 1984). Results of these studies show that both experienced and inexperienced writers engage in six major processes when they summarize source texts: reading, referencing, noting, writing, planning and general commenting, but they differ in the amount of time and quality of effort spent on each process (Gardner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Taylor, 1984). Experienced writers spend much time thinking and planning before writing (Brown et al., 1983; Kennedy, 1985). They start their summary writing by reading the title of the text carefully because they believe titles help them understand the article better (Taylor, 1984). Then they go over the material several times: first for an overall meaning and then for key ideas or details (Gardner, 1982b; Taylor, 1984). During their reading, the experienced writers take notes about important points and study the entire article carefully until they understand the text precisely (Gardner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985). Before they put down anything on paper, they would think carefully (Taylor, 1984). While experienced writers write, they repeatedly refer back to the text for key ideas or details to check the accuracy of what has been written, including whether ideas are appropriately maintained 10 or deleted (Gardner, 1982b; Taylor, 1984). Experienced writers may comprehend the text with the help of their "related personal experience" (Garner, 1982b, p. 164), but they are objective in their summary writings (Taylor, 1984). They are confident of their abilities to express themselves and make very few changes in revising or editing once their written task is done (Taylor, 1984). Compared with experienced writers, inexperienced writers do not treat prereading, writing and planning as important. They spend much less time reading the text, looking for its main idea, and examining the title. Their focus is mainly on the beginning and the ending of a text (Taylor, 1984). While reading, instead of marking important points, they make marks only on individual words (Taylor, 1984). If they reread the source text, they do it "chiefly to incorporate direct quotations into their essays" (Kennedy, 1985, p. 443). Since inexperienced writers start writing without sufficient planning, they spend a great amount of time going back to cross out the irrelevant parts in their writings, reorganizing ideas and trying to "decide what to write next" (Taylor, 1984, p. 698). It is hard for them to write objectively since they cannot "look objectively at what they had read" (Taylor, 1984, p. 698) The above studies suggest that peoples' different writing experience contributes to their different strategies in applying summarization rules. Experienced writers tend to get a broad-brush of the macro-structure of a source text first by going over it once quickly. Then, their attention goes to every sequence of propositions and macro-process the propositions accordingly. As a result, their summaries are better organized and include i i more necessary information. In comparison, inexperienced writers treat a text as a number of isolated propositions; thus they write with only some separated propositions in their minds. Their summaries may therefore appear less fluent and contain less important information (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al., 1983; Garner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Taylor, 1984). 2.2.2 Experienced and Inexperienced Writers' Performance in Including Information from the Source Text Brown, Day and Jones (1983), Brown and Day (1983) and Taylor (1986) observed experienced and inexperienced writers' performance in including infromation from the source text. They found inexperienced writers copy more than experienced writers when they reproduced information. Brown, Day and Jones (1983) examined summary writing performance among 16 Grade Five, 15 Grade Seven students, 15 Grade Eleven students and 11 first-year college students. Students were required to paraphrase six reading materials for Grade Five students, then write for each of six reading text a 40-word and a 20-word summary. The summary protocols were rated for word-for-word copying, partially copying and paraphrasing. Results showed that Grade Five and Grade Seven students mainly produced summaries by word-for-word copying or partial copying with a "copy-delete" strategy. That is, they read the text elements sequentially and decided to include or delete each of them. If they decided to include them, they just copied 12 them from the text. In their writing, only 16% of their production was true paraphrasing. In contrast, 69% of production by Grade Eleven and college students were paraphrased. Brown and Day (1983) also found inexperienced writers used more "copy-delete" strategies when they compared performance of using summarization rules by writers with different experience. Brown and Day (1983) conducted a series of three summary writing experiments using six professional writers and three groups of students: 18 Grade Five students, 16 Grade Seven students, 13 Grade Ten students (group one), 20 first-year college students (group two), and 20 junior college students (group three) who experienced problems in critical reading. Participants wrote two summaries, one length-constrained and the other with no restriction on length, based on two expository texts from a Grade Seven textbook. The two source texts were reconstructed for observing participants' use of deletion, selection, combination and invention rules (van Dijk, 1977). Results showed Grade Five and Grade Seven students copied more than Grade Ten and college students did, and Grade Ten students copied more than the college students did. Meanwhile, junior college students used as much "copy-delete" strategy as Grade Seven students. Brown and Day indicated that the less mature the writers were, the more "copy-delete" strategy they used. However, Taylor (1986) pointed out that the summary length constrait was very improtant because a proper summary length constraint could prevent students from copying. He suggested young elementary students departed from copying if they were required to write short summaries. Taylor (1986) did two experiments on how 17 Grade • 13 . Four and Grade Five (one group of above-average readers) students wrote six sentence summaries of expository and narrative prose. The two texts were chosen from Grade Four and Grade Five textbooks. Students' writings were assessed from 4 aspects: accuracy or clarity, identifying the main ideas, brevity, and how the source texts were paraphrased, or plagiarized. Results showed students' summaries of the expository text were as good as summaries of the narrative text in terms of using their own words. They got very high marks for both their summaries in this aspect. When comparing summary writing performance of writers of different ages and with different experience, researchers found there was a developmental trend in applying summarization rules (selecting important information, combining important information and inventing topic sentences), and the ability to apply summarization rules increased with academic learning experience (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al., 1983; Gardner, 1985; Gardenr et al., 1985; Johns, 1985; Johnson, 1982; Taylor, 1986; Winograd, 1984). Brown and Day (1983) found students in Grade Five and Grade Seven could delete unnecessary information as effectively as the experienced writers did, but they failed to include as many important points. Junior college students who experienced reading difficulties performed at essentially a Grade Seven level in including important information, and there was no difference between college students and professional writers. In regard to combining information, experts were perfect (30% higher) compared to college students. Junior college students, as a whole group, fell midway between Grade Seven and Grade Ten levels. Grade Five students performed the least efficiently. They 14 were unnecessarily repetitious especially in the unconstrained writings. As for inventing topic sentences, Grade Five and Grade Seven students seldom produced any, and junior college students performed at a Grade Seven level. Grade Ten students produced appropriate topic sentences on only one-third of the occasions. Inventing topic sentence was a challenge even to college students since they applied the rule accurately only on half of the units. Professional writers outperformed college students, and provided a synopsis of a paragraph when the topic sentence was absent in the source text. Brown and Day's (1983) study showed a clear developmental pattern, in which the deletion rule was most likely to be applied first, followed by generalization, then selection (select the topic sentence) and invention. Brown and Day (1983) suggested the reason for younger writers' less efficiency in applying summarization rules was that the summary writing task "demanded different degrees of text manipulation on the part of the learner, and perhaps because they depart to a greater or lesser extent from the already existing strategy favored by younger participants" (p. 12). Brown et al. (1983) also found more experienced writers were more skillful in including more important information and combining information from the source text. In their study, Grade Eleven and college students had better sensitivity than Grade Five and Grade Seven students to fine gradations of importance in those texts while maintaining important event sequences in their summaries. In contrast, Grade Five and Grade Seven students dropped supporting details in their writings. In addition, Grade Eleven and college students were more skillful in condensing ideas than Grade Five and Grade Seven 15 students. Brown et al. (1983) concluded that as summary writing requires judgment, knowledge and strategy, the ability to produce an adequate written summary of a text is a late developing skill and they indicated the this ability could be continuously refined throughout school years. Brown et al (1983) believed that a lack of cognitive sense of what effort should be made towards the summary writing task contributed to the failure of Grade Five and Grade Seven students to include all necessary information in their summaries. Johnson (1982) also did a study on the summarization skills of students with different experience: Grade One, Grade Three, and Grade Five elementary students and college students. She analyzed students' oral summaries of a descriptive text and found that children had a tendency to delete parts of the story in their summaries, whereas college students included all the story parts. She suggested that children had difficulty making concise statements because summaries required syntactic construction, which could be too sophisticated for them. She also indicated children were lacking in vocabulary or strategies, or both, which were necessary to categorize objects and events. The finding that some children failed to summarize well indicated that summary writing was more difficult than recalling information and that children did not have the ability to summarize the text although they understood it (Gardner, 1985). Johnson also supported Brown and Day's (1983) finding of a developmental trend in including and combining information. College students were better than elementary students in employing these two skills. Students' ability to apply the invention rule was not a focus in this study. 16 Gardner (1985) examined how 42 Grade Nine students, 44 Grade Eleven students and 40 undergraduate students generated a poorly-written and a well-written summary on a seven-paragraph descriptive text according to their own sense of what made a short summary acceptable or unacceptable. Students' summaries were assessed in three aspects: number of judged-important ideas included, number of words, and integration level for judged-important information. Gardner found many students (73%) in the study differentiated their well-written and poorly written summaries by including more judged-important ideas in the former ones. Gardner found all the students were aware that important ideas from the passage should be included in the summary, but only undergraduate students' awareness level matched their production level. In other words, high school students were more aware of the need to include important information than they were able to perform. Unlike Brown et al (1983) who concluded that lack of cognitive sense was the reason for young students to include less important information, Gardner suggested that this phenomenon was related to students' production ability. In combining information, most students were not aware that important ideas from a descriptive passage should be integrated in a short summary. Across the age groups, only 17% of the students differentiated their well-written and poorly-written summaries by using more integration in their well-written ones. Although undergraduate students did better than Grade Nine and Grade Eleven students, their performance, too, was far from ideal and they were even less good than high school students at keeping their well-written summaries relatively shorter than the poorly-written summaries. Gardner concluded that 17 students in this study showed low levels of integration and little awareness of the importance of the skill. Winograd (1984) also examined differences between writers at different ages and with different experience in using inclusion, combination and invention strategies when they summarized. Participants were two Grade Eight groups (36 poor readers and 39 good readers according to their scores on the Reading Comprehension Subtest of the Stanford Achievement Test) and 37 graduate and undergraduate students. Students were required first to select and rate important sentences in eight expository passages (ranging from upper third-grade level to lower sixth-grade level), then to produce a 60-word summary. Students' summaries were assessed in terms of reproductions, combinations, run-on combinations (information was combined in a less organized way in the combination) and inventions according to the punctuated sentences. Results showed that all readers were aware that summaries should include most important ideas. However, good readers were better at identifying important sentences because they defined importance in terms of both contextual and textual information compared with poor readers who regarded details that they were interested in most important. Winograd (1984) found that adult readers in this study exhibited the strongest relationship between what they considered important and what they included in their summaries; good Grade 8 readers exhibited less consistency than the adult readers, but more consistency than the poor Grade 8 readers in this aspect. This is consistent with one of Gardner's (1985) findings. Winograd also found graduate and undergraduate students showed superior ability in combining more information 18 without using more words. Similar to what Brown and Day (1983) found, graduate and undergraduate students outperformed younger students in inventing topic sentences. Poor readers also less skillful in inventing topic sentences than good readers. This study showed "increased reading skill led to fewer reproductions and run-on combinations and more combinations and inventions" (Winograd, 1984, p. 415). In this study, poor readers had difficulty integrating individual propositions into larger units and using summarization transformations. Winograd (1984) suggested these difficulties were not necessarily confined to comprehension problems but due to the inability to condense and transform a passage into its gist. Taylor's (1986) study supported Winograd's finding that less experienced writers regarded the most unusual or unfamiliar ideas in the source text the most important and should be included in the summaries. Taylor found an imspecified number of Grade Four and Grade Five children in his study stressed that a summary should contain what they think audience would like to know and not just the important ideas in the article. In this study, Taylor also found it difficult for Grade Four and Grade Five students to state the moral in the narrative, even though they grasped the essence of the plot quite well. Students were not aware of the topic and thesis sentences in the expository text, and they thought everything in the text was equally important. Taylor indicated their failure in identifying the main idea lay in their lack of awareness of an audience that varied from themselves and their peers. Gardner, Belcher, Winfield and Smith's (1985) study also supports the finding that 19 experienced writers are more skillful in applying summarization rules than the less experienced. They examined summaries written by successful (15) and less successful (15) Grade Five students on an expository text chosen from their supplementary textbook. Researchers also analyzed students' ability to identify good and bad summaries of an expository text. Students' summaries were assessed according to inclusion and integration of important information. Results showed all participants demonstrated some skill at recognizing appropriate text summarization processes and products, but successful readers were more skilful than unsuccessful readers in production task and recognizing summarization rules. Researchers indicated "confusion about the task goal appears not to be a major problem at fifth-grade level" (Gardner et al., 1985, p. 150). The study also showed that Grade Five students were aware of the need to deviate from surface structure in summary writing since one-third of them rated a concise, integrated summary that had a clear topic sentence the best summary and those written with only the "copy-delete" strategy were rated as the incoherent summaries. Yet, students failed to produce their summaries in the way of what they expressed the best summaries. Johns (1985) compared summary writing skills of people at the university level. She examined three groups of students' 100-word summaries based on one short selection from a freshman American history textbook. One group was 54 under-prepared freshman with low- grade averages in secondary school. The second group was 53 adept freshman who had similar educational experiences to the under-prepared group (received at least three years of high school education in the United States). The third group was 21 adept 20 graduate students who were quasi- ESL teachers. Johns coded students' writing to distinguish correct replication and distortions in reproduction, combination and macro-propositions. She found that under-prepared freshmen were able to include objective information from the whole text, but they omitted a number of main ideas. They mainly used sentence-level reproduction and failed to combine more than one idea into a sentence that was not combined in the original. In contrast, graduate and adept freshmen produced a much higher percentage of correct combinations of ideas, with the latter group's percentage slightly lower than that of the former group. Johns suggested it was necessary to teach summarization rules to the under-prepared university students. The above eight studies examined differences between writers at different ages and with different experiences in using summarization strategies. Participants were from elementary children to college students or adult professional writers. Researchers found summarization skills increased with academic learning experience or reading and writing skills. Although invention skill was observed only in the studies by Brown and Day (1983) and Winograd (1984), findings from these eight studies indicate the order of development appears to be reproduction (deleting and selecting important information), combination (integrating important information) and invention (inventing topic sentences of a paragraph or passage). These studies have shown that all the participants, including Grade Five students, have the knowledge that important information should be included in a summary, but only at the undergraduate level did students' awareness match their production ability (Gardner, 1985; Winograd, 1984). Although high school and 21 undergraduate students outperformed elementary students in condensing information, their performance was at "far less than the ideal level" (Gardner, 1985, p.557). Invention skill is a late development in that only experts seem to be able to use it (Brown & Day, 1983). The reason for the deficiency in applying summarization skills by younger or inexperienced writers could be a lack of cognitive sense of what kind of effort should be made towards summary writing (Brown et al, 1983). They could also lack the ability to integrate information (Gardner, 1985) as well as strategies for transforming a passage into its gist (Johnson, 1982; Winograd, 1984). 2.2.3 Instruction in Summarization Rules Coffman (1994), Hare and Borchardt (1984), McCaleb (1985), Friend (2001a) and Friend (2001b) compared differences in summary writing performance between students who received and students who did not receive instruction in summarization rules. Results showed proper instruction in summarization rules were effective to students at various ages in applying summarization skills. Coffman (1994) examined whether asking questions on source texts could help Grade Six students summarize. A total of 405 participants were randomly divided into three groups to write summaries on narrative stories selected from basal readers. After students read the texts, two of the three groups practiced writing to answer a set of comprehension questions about the texts. One group answered casually designed questions based on the content of the source texts, and the second group answered a chain 22 of questions based on rankings of the information from the greatest importance to the least. Results showed that the chain questions not only helped students include important units but also increased the accuracy of the information they presented in their summaries, but casual questions failed to bring this effect. And there was little difference between the groups who practiced casual questions and the third control group in including information. Hare and Borchardt (1984) did an experiment with high school students. They taught two groups of low-income, minority high school students separately, one via the inductive method and the other vie the deductive method. Instruction was given in five 2-hour sessions. They taught three summarization rules: deleting unnecessary information, combining information and inventing topic sentences. When comparing students' summary performance on a reconstructed and a non-reconstructed passage before and after instruction, researchers found well-prepared instruction in summarization skills did increase the quality of students' summaries (results based on Duncan's multiple range: p<.05). Although the deductive method appeared easier to teach, both methods were effective. Students receiving either method of training made progress in summarizing not only specially-constructed passages but also authentic texts at the level of high school students. They suggested "high school students can be taught to apply macro-rules to summarize school-like texts effectively" (p.76). Studies by Garner and McCaleb (1985), Friend (2001a) and Friend (2001b) found university students also need help to produce successful summaries. In Garner and .23 McCaleb's (1985) study, 120 undergraduate students were divided into three groups, one control group and two experimental groups. One of the experimental groups was taught how to identify topic sentences, and the other experimental group was taught how to identify key words as well as topic sentences. Results showed that the group that received instruction in identifying both key words and topic sentences produced more points in their summaries (mean: 3.5) than the group that received instruction only on identifying topic sentences (mean: 3.0), with the latter group producing more points than the control group (mean: 1.7). In terms of integration, difference was also found between the group that received instruction on identifying key words and topic sentences (mean: 2.0) and the control group (mean: 1.0), although no obvious difference was found between the two experimental groups (0.3 difference in mean). Friend (2001a) also divided a group of university students (147 freshmen) into three groups, one control group and two experimental groups. One of the experimental groups was taught to use repeated references (following the repeated ideas expressed in different ways in the surface structure of a text), while the other experimental group was taught to use generalizations (identifying ideas at the highest-level). Results showed that students who received instruction in either repeated reference or in generalization did significantly better than the control group in including important points (p< .01), deleting unnecessary points (p<.01) and producing topic sentences for the whole passage (p< .01). Taylor's (1983) study showed explicit instruction in summarization rules is necessary. In this study, he observed 22 first-year community college students' ability to 24 use summarization skills when they were not taught summarization rules. Students were asked to write summaries of interesting articles from magazines and newspapers after they had practiced writing of various genres other than summary writing for six months. Results showed that the practice of all other types of writing did not seem to help this group of students' summary writing. They failed to include enough information, and the points they included were either too specific or too general. According to the information from interviews, students.said they were looking for the acceptable level of generality, but no one had provided them with any information on that. This group of college-students experienced the same difficulty as that of the Grade Six students in Coffman (1994) study: they could not condense information from the source texts. When they read a short passage containing 150 to 500 words, everything seemed equally important to them. They could not distinguish main and subordinate ideas. Based on his findings from continued experience, Taylor suggested students should move through several stages from simply copying to using their own words to condensing information into a gist. Research on summary writing instruction suggests positive effects of teaching summarization rules. It also presents evidence that not only young students but also adult university level students may improve summary writing performance in deletion, generalization and invention after receiving instruction. Results in Taylor's (1983) study responds to what Hare (1992) summarized: students should be taught directly or provided with "expert scaffolding" about how to delete unnecessary details, condense information and invent topic sentences. The fact that students improved their writing ability after 25 receiving explicit instruction provides further evidence that summary writing ability increases with academic learning experience (Friend, 2001a; Garner & McCaleb, 1985; Hare & Borchardt, 1984). 2.3 R e s e a r c h o n L 2 S u m m a r y W r i t i n g Like studies of L l summary writing, studies of L2 summary writing also have found experienced and inexperienced writers use similar strategies when they summarize. However, researchers suggest second language proficiency is crucial to ESL students in their ability to apply summarization rules and the quality of their summary writings. 2.3.1 S u m m a r y W r i t i n g P r o c e s s e s a n d L 2 P r o f i c i e n c y When writing processes of experienced and inexperienced ESL writers are observed, results also show experienced and inexperiened writers used similar strategies (planning, rehearsing, revising and editing) (Boshier, 1998; Raimes, 1987; Sasaki, 2000; Zamel, 1983; Zamel, 1985; Zamel, 1987). However, experienced writers appear to have a clearer undersanding of what composing requires (Zamel, 1983). As a result, they do more planning and rehearsing, and they write based on their detailed overall organization plans. In contrast, inexperienced writers are too rushed to write and have to stop frequently to plan what to write next. Furthermore, Lay's (1982) and Sasaki's (2000) studies show that both first language and second language proficiency affect ESL writers' summary writing processes in that they make a lot of L1/L2 switches while they write. Sasaki (2000) 26 noticed inexperienced ESL writers mainly depend on first language translation while they write summaries in English. Lay (1982) suggests that first language faciltates both experienced and inexperienced ESL writers' second language writings because students translate key words into their first language and get a stronger impression and association of ideas. Also, studies have found second language proficiency has little correspondence to students' composing strategies (Raimes, 1985; Raimes, 1987) since both experienced and inexperienced writers are more concerned about transfering ideas from the source text to their summaries rather than finding linguistic errors in their writings. Nevertheless, low second language proficiency seems to constrain the effectiveness of the summary writing process and reduce the quantity of the planning process (Jones & Tetroe, 1987). It also affects students' revision strategies at pragmatic and textual levels (Whalen & Menard, 1995). 2.3.2 Summary Writing Ability and L2 Proficiency Using Johns' (1985) coding systems, Johns and Mayes (1990) analyzed summaries written by two groups of ESL students with different language proficiency in an American university: 40 (low proficiency) students from a remedial class in the Academic Skills Center and 40 (high proficiency) sophomores. Students were given a 588-word text at low-intermediate English level to write a 100-word summary within one hour. Johns and Mayes (1990) hypothesized that low proficiency students would copy more, employ fewer combinations and macro-proposition skills than high proficiency students. Their writings 27 would also consist of more distortions of the original text compared with those of the high proficiency students. Results of the study supported their hypotheses that low proficiency students copied significantly more (mean of low proficiency group=2.375; mean of high proficiency group-0.775) and that the high proficiency group combined more idea units within paragraphs (mean of low proficiency group=1.15; mean of high proficiency group=2.15). The researchers found, however, both groups experienced difficulties in condensing and generalizing ideas. Producing macro-propositions was a challenge for both groups as they failed to produce appropriate ones. This study indicated that like LI writers, most ESL students need practice in combining ideas across paragraphs and producing high-level propositions while obtaining the meaning from the original text. The difference between high efficiency and low efficiency students in this study suggests that language proficiency plays an important role in summary writing. This study showed that summaries by ESL students with low language proficiency consisted mainly of reproduction of content units or punctuated sentences produced by copying. Campbell (1990) also investigated differences between more proficient and less proficient non-native students performing summary writing tasks. In this study, a group of native speakers was also observed. One group (n=10) was from a low-level ESL composition course, another group (n=10) was from a standard-level ESL composition course, and the last group (n=10) was from a standard-level composition course for native speakers at UCLA. The native speaker group had the highest score on the written portion of Scholastic Aptitude Test. In this study, students read one chapter from an undergraduate 28 anthropology textbook, then wrote on a topic involving the use and explanation of terminology from it. Their writings were analyzed in terms of quotations, exact copying, near copying, paraphrases, summaries, original explanation (explanation of information from the text from reader's view) from the least to the most degrees of integration. Results show non-native low-level students relied on the source text to start their writing significantly more (mean=.20) than native speakers did (mean=.10). In the body paragraphs of their writing, all students used some information from the source text as well as their own ideas. In the last paragraph, all students used a great deal of information from the source text. The study also showed less-proficient non-native speakers used most '-> near copies and exact copies especially in the first paragraphs of their writings, with less-proficient students coping more. Campbell suggested the reason for this might be that students were given only one text as source. As they assumed their professor knew which reference they consulted, there was no necessity to acknowledge the author in their writings. Results showed more-proficient students also did better than the less-proficient in terms of summaries (mean for low-level students=0; mean for high-level students=.07) and paraphrases (mean for low-level students=0; mean for high-level students=.25). Native speakers' performance was the best and got the highest holistic scores. This also indicates language proficiency affects summary writing ability. Cumming's (1989) study also described the relationship between language proficiency and writing ability in one's second language. He examined 23 adult Francophone students performing several writing tasks, including summary writing in 29 English. Students were classified at three levels in their first language writing expertise (professionally experienced, average students and basic writers), and two levels in their second language proficiency (intermediate and advanced level). He found students with higher English language proficiency received higher scores in all the writing tasks (p<.0001). By comparing results of writings by intermediate and advanced level students, he concluded that "As people gain proficiency in their second language, they become better able to perform in writing in their second language, producing more effective texts, attending more fully to aspects of their writing" (Cumming, 1989, p. 121). Findings from the above three studies suggest language proficiency is critical in L2 summary writing. Students with lower language proficiency tend to copy more (Campbell, 1990; Johns & Mayes, 1990). Applying summarization rules is a challenge not only for low language proficiency students but also for high language proficiency students (Johns & Mayes, 1990); and the ability to use summarization rules increases with language proficiency (Cumming, 1989). 2.4 Summary of Literature Review Researchers investigating summary writing processes suggest experienced readers and inexperienced readers use similar processes in summary writing; however, they put different amounts of time and effort into each process (Gardner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Taylor, 1984). Experienced writers macro-process each sequence of propositions recursively and produce their summaries by distilling information from all important 30 information (Gardner, 1982b; Kennedy, 1985; Raimes, 1987; Sasaki, 2000; Taylor, 1984; Zamel, 1983). In contrast, inexperienced writers tend to write based on a few separated propositions (Kennedy, 1985; Raimes, 1987; Sasaki, 2000; Taylor, 1984; Zamel, 1983), which results in less information and more reproduction in their summaries. For ESL writers, their languge proficiency likely affects their revision strategies at both pragmatic and textual levels (Whalen & Menard, 1995). Findings from research on LI writers' performance in producing information from the source text in summary writing also show people with different experience (educational background, reading competence) produce different qualities of summaries due to their varying abilities in using summarization rules. Most elementary readers cannot include as much important information as high school or college readers, although they are aware that important information should be included in a summary (Gardner, 1985; Winograd, 1984). They produce their summaries mainly with the reproduction skill that involves "copy-delete" strategy. High school and undergraduate students outperform elementary students, and expert writers are the most skillful in condensing information (Brown & Day, 1983). When the text is short, some inexpereinced readers think everything in the text is important (Coffman, 1994; Taylor, 1983). Invention skill is late in developing: only experts use it (Brown & Day 1983, Winograd, 1984). This shows a developmental trend: summary writing ability increases with age and experience (Brown & Day, 1983; Brown et al., 1983; Coffman, 1994; Gardner, 1985; Gardner et al, 1985; Johnson, 1982; Taylor, 1983, Taylor, 1985). Findings from some research also suggest 3 1 that an increase in age does not necessarily bring about an increase in summary writing ability (Brown & Day, 1983), that summarizing ability only increases with writing experience (reading competence or academic learning competence) (Gardner, 1985; Gardner et al., 1985; Winograd, 1984). Studies of L2 summary writing suggest the level of language proficiency is critical to the quality of ESL students' summary writing. Rsearchers have found low language proficiency ESL writers employ mainly reproduction or the "copy-delete" strategy. They depend more on the source text and copy more information from the text than high language proficiency students do (Campbell, 1990; Johns & Mayes, 1990) and, of course, even more than native speakers (Campbell, 1990). Findings in Cumming's (1989) study of ESL writers show the ability to use summarization rules increases with language proficiency. And Johns and Mayes (1990) find that applying summarization rules is a challenge not only to low language proficiency students but also to high language proficiency students. Research on summary writing instruction provides evidence that not only young students but also adult university level L l students may improve summary writing performance in applying deletion, generalization and invention rules after receiving explicit instruction (Friend, 2001a; Garner & McCaleb, 1985; Hare & Borchardt, 1984; Taylor, 1983). Taylor (1983) also provides further evidence that even college native-speaking students need explict instruction in summarization rules. He demonstrated the difficulties those students had in applying summarization rules even after their six-month's practice of writing in all genres except summary writing. None of the reviewed studies provides information on whether 32 ' ESL students need explict instruction in summarization rules, espeically when their general English language competence has improved. 33 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction This study is part of a larger research project of a group of Japanese exchange students in a Canadian university. The study was designed to explore Japanese exchange students' English learning and writing experiences while they were studying under an eight-month exchange program from September 2000 to April 2001. The principal investigator of this research was a professor in language education at the participating university. Ethical review was obtained to collect students' writing samples and to interview them about their experiences in English writing. I participated in data collection and conducting the interviews. The participating students volunteered to write either a summary or an opinion on the same source texts. In the present study, only the summary writing group was analyzed. 3.2 Participants A total of 14 (1 male, 13 female) students did the summary task. These students were either second or third year students from a Japanese university. They were between 19 and 21 years of age, studying various majors (Table One): Four from International Relationships, four from Letters, two from Social Science, one from Business, one from Economics, one from Policy Science and one from Science 3 4 and Engineering. Before they came to Canada, they all took the "English Composition" course, which was specially designed for students intending to study in this exchange program. That course, given by a native English Table One: Profile of Participants Name Major TOEFL TOEFL Interview before after program program Nako Science & Engineering 523 507 Yoko International Relations 493 540 face-to-face e-mail Horimi Social Sciences 483 537 face-to-face e-mail Mayuko Letters 520 503 Naoko International Relations 563 537 face-to-face Mako International Relations 497 527 face-to-face e-mail Sae Economics 483 500 face-to-face Shinya International Relations 537 523 face-to-face Noriko Social Sciences 483 497 e-mail Akiko Letters 483 527 e-mail Masako Letters 533 527 e-mail Yuko Business 487 523 Mariko Letters 460 483 Miyako Policy Science 467 507 Mean score 500 517 Standard Deviation 25.23 professor, focused on English academic writing format. Students practiced English 35 academic writing in that course. During this eight-month exchange program, the students studied in a sheltered program that allowed them to receive instruction in both content and English language. The courses they took included "Arts Studies", "Introduction to Social Sciences and Educational Research", "Introduction to Canadian Studies", "Language Across the Curriculum", and "Sociolinguistics". Their average score from the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) received before they came to Canada was 500. At the end of the program, their average score was 517 (Table One). The standard deviation was 25.23. In order to preserve their anonymity, the names of participants are pseudonyms. 3 .3 Source Texts The source texts used in this study consists of two passages (a total of 484 words) with opposing views on euthanasia. They were selected from Opposing Viewpoints (Michael Biskup, 1992). (See Appendix A for original source texts and task instruction.) According to the instructor who was teaching one of the courses to this group of students, both the language and content of the text were within students' comprehension. 3 .4 Procedures Soon after the exchange program started in the Canadian university in September 2001, students who volunteered to participate in the research (about 25) did the summary writing task in their regular classroom. According to the prompt for the summary/opinion 36 task, they were to write a 200-300 essay with no time constraint. During their writing, they could take notes, underline the text, use dictionaries and generally do whatever made them feel comfortable. The source texts were available to them while they were writing. Students took various lengths of time, ranging from 45 minutes to 2 hours, to finish the task. At the end of the exchange program, students were given back their writings, together with the source texts to revise or rewrite their summaries. The second writing task took them 30 minutes to one hour. A total of 14 students completed both drafts. They were then interviewed via email or face-to-face with the same questions (see interview questions). The face-to-face interviews were conducted by me and another researcher. Each interview lasted for about an hour. To encourage students' participation, I gave each student feedback on both writings after the interview. Nine of the 14 students expressed their views through either face-to-face interviews or e-mail (see Table One). The following were the interview questions: 1) Can you tell me how you revised your second writing? 2) Why did you make those changes? 3) What have you learned during your study at this university? Do you think there are differences between what you learned in Japan and in Canada in terms of academic writing? If there are, could you tell me some of the differences? Both e-mail and face-to-face interviews were conducted in English. The face-to-face interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. Compared with the information provided in face-to-face interviews, information offered by e-mail was quite brief. We .37 were not able to ask for further detail, as students all left immediately after the program was finished. 3.4 Data Analysis After all the summary protocols were typed with all the spelling mistakes corrected, they were numbered and bound, with the writers' names concealed. The two summary drafts were assessed in two steps. First, I identified the important points each draft included. Then, I coded them for further analysis. I invited two native doctoral students in the area of language education (from the Canadian university where the exchange program was offered) to identify important points in the source texts. Both the two doctoral students have had a lot of English language teaching experience. One of them taught English for more than 20 years in North America; the other taught English more than 10 years in North America and taught English as a Foreign Language in Japan for more than 15 years. They did their writings separately and produced an identical list of 10 important points from the source texts. The following is the list of the 10 important points they identified with slight modification of the wording: (See Appendix A for the original text) 1. Physicians should minimize patient's pain. 2. Physicians should not hasten patients' deaths. 3. Relieving, suffering from patients should be physicians' primary goal. 4. Physicians should follow medical ethics independently of legal decisions. 5. Physicians should follow patients' wishes. 6. Physicians should not withhold pain relief for patients. 7. Assisting suicide is not comforting to patients. . 3 8 8. Assisting suicide undermines the doctor-patient relationship. 9. Physicians should be aware of the possible reasons for patients' choosing death: a) Patients think others are tired of them; and b) Patients want to spare their families the emotional and financial burden of their care. 10. Implementation of assisted suicide can be problematic because it is hard to tell whether assisted suicide is the patient's competent decision. I first compared students' inclusion of these important points in their two drafts. Next, I observed whether students included the important points by reproduction (produced only one important point in a single sentence) or by combination (combined two or three important points in a single sentence). In addition, I further identified whether students presented these important points by exact copying, partial copying or paraphrasing. I combined Johns and Mayes'(1990) method for examining reproduction strategies (copying versus paraphrasing) and Winograd's (1984) method for examining application of summarization rules and came up with my own coding system (Table Two). All the summary protocols were evaluated on sentences as punctuated by students, the method used by Winograd (1984). In this coding system (Table Two), there are three major categories: single sentence "reproduction" of an important point, "combination" of two or three important points in a summary sentence and "invention" of a topic sentence to summarize paragraphs or source texts. Each category is further divided into whether sentences are partially copied or paraphrased in one's own words. The categories of "reproduction" and "invention" also have a third subcategory of words "exactly copied" to distinguish 39 Table Two: Scales of Summary Protocol Category Sub-category Sub-category Example Reproduction of one point in a single sentence Exactly copied Consequently, i t may be d i f f i cu l t to ensure that a competent decision is being made. (Point Ten. Nako, first draft) Partially copied so they think...to adhere to the patient 's wishes as much as possible. (Point Three, Yuko, second draft) Paraphrased in one's own words to reduce pain and hardship, proper condition of pain and suicide is needed for :..(Point One, Akiko, first draft) Combination of two or three points in a single sentence Partially copied ... seriously undermine an essential of pat ient-physician relat ionship, ...the patient tired mentally and physically must be hope to assist suicide...(Point Eight and Nine, Noriko, first draft) Paraphrased in one's own words ... seriously undermine an essential o f pat ient-physician relat ionship, ...the patient tired mentally and physically must be hope to assist suicide...(Point Eight and Nine, Noriko, first draft) Invention of topic sentence Introduction of topics Exactly copied ...reverse idea is insisted that physicians cannot ethical ly assist in suicide. (Shinyo, first draft) Generalization of information of a whole paragraph or text(s) Partially copied they think it should not to support to the patient 's interest in suicide.(Horimi, second draft) Paraphrased with one's own words About assisted suicide, some people agree it but other people not. (Toga, first draft) Other Non-important points or repetition of important points That is to say, they may want to decrease burden of their family or other prople. (Yuko, second draft, repeat Point Nine) Information outside the source text then the nice doctor will tell his patient that suicide is not good. (Akiko, first draft) Note: 1) A combination of 2 points or a combination of 3 points is marked on each coded sentence produced by combining important points. 2) Partially copied includes all instances of more than two sequenced content words from the original text being copied. 3) If one identified important point appears more than once, the one produced by comparatively better means is coded, the other(s) is/are coded as "other", e.g., If Point No 1 is produced in one sentence by paraphrasing, and produced again by partially copying the original text, the former one is coded accordingly and the latter one is coded as "Other". sentences that are copied word for word from source texts. Students' repetition of certain important points or inclusion of unidentified important points and use of information 40 outside the source texts are coded under "other". In order to ensure the reliability of the above coding system, I invited a second coder, a doctoral student in the area of second language writing from the same Canadian university. We randomly chose 10% of the summary protocols (3 writings) and coded them separately according to the Protocol Coding System. We reached 100% agreement. Table Three is part of one of the summary protocols: (see Appendix B for a sample of a coded draft). Table Three: Illustration of Coding Important Point Original Sentences from the Source Texts Sentences Produced by Students Point Three: Relieving suffering from patients should be physicians' primary goal. It is morally correct to increase the dose of narcotics to whatever dose is needed, even though the medication may contribute to the depression of respiration or blood pressure, the dulling of consciousness, or even death, provided the primary goal of the physician is to relieve suffering, To take care of the patients by drug and any other medicines to remove pain should be encouraged, (paraphrased in reproduction) (Point Three, Akiko, second draft) Point Nine: Physicians should be aware of the possible reasons for patients' choosing death: a) Patients think others are tired of them b) b) Patients want to spare their families the emotional and financial burden of their care. Patients who are enfeebled by disease and devoid of hope may choose assisted suicide not because they are really tired of life but because they think others are tired of them. Some patients, moreover, may feel an obligation to choose death to spare their families the emotional and financial burden of their care. Patients are suffering from heavy diseases and they are anxious about the emot ional and f inancia l burden of their family, so it is natural that they interested in suicide, (partially copied in reproduction) (Point Nine, Horimi, first draft) Point 10: Implementation of assisted suicide can be problematic because it is hard to tell whether assisted suicide is patient's competent decision. Consequently, it may be difficult to ensure that a competent decision is being made. Consequently, i t may be d i f f i cu l t to ensure that a competent decision is being made. (completely copied in reproduction) (Point Ten, Nako, first draft) Note. Words identical in the source texts and students' drafts are highlighted; Important points are the points identified by the doctoral students. 41 1. From the point of assistance in suicide, in the situation that a serious case who cannot avoid death, either reducing pain or bringing forward death is needed to choose depend on their hope of suffering relief, (combination of point One, Two and Three in the writer's own words) (Mako, second draft) 2. Use of medicine can be regarded to accord with reason even if it is likely to happen something bad like death because basic goal is lightening pain, (reproduction of Point Three in writer's own words) (Mako, second draft) After I coded the rest of the summary protocols, I calculated sentences produced with sentence reproduction, combination of 2 or 3 points and invention in the two drafts. Then I tallied sentences students produced by exact copying, partially copying or paraphrasing under each category. Students' first and second drafts were compared in these aspects. Table Three illustrates the coding of sentences produced with reproduction while using exact copying, partially copying or paraphrasing. 42 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Results of Research Question One This section reports findings to Research Question One: How do students include important points in both drafts? And do they restate each important point by copying or by paraphrasing the original sentence? I present the results in two steps. The first step focuses on observing participants' performance on including the important points and the frequencies of each important point included in each draft. The second step focuses on the frequency of single important point reproduction in both drafts and whether students reproduced important points by exact copying, partial copying or by paraphrasing in each draft. Results show there was a wide range of number of important points included in their drafts, and the average number of important points included was 5.3 which was 4.7 fewer than what the two doctoral students had identified. More than half of the students included seven of the ten identified important points. In addition, results also show that more than 60% of the important points were written by the strategy of single important point reproduction. And there were substantial differences between number of students who used exact copying, partial copying and paraphrasing in the two drafts. 4.1.1 Inclusion of Important Points in Each Draft I first investigated the numbers of important points that were included in both 43 drafts, and then examined the frequencies of each important point included in each draft. In order to observe students' performance in including important points in each draft, I identified and calculated each important point (see 3.4 Data Analysis, p. 38 for the list of important points) included in each student's draft. For example: "If the dying process is irreversible, patients have the right to choose death and physicians should respect for it." (Miyako, Point Five: Physicians should follow patients' wishes). Students included various numbers of important points in their two drafts, ranging form one point by Mariko to nine points by Mako. But 12 (85%) students included half or more than half of the 10 identified important points in at least one of their drafts. The average number of important points in the two drafts was 5.3, which was 4.7 fewer than what the two native-speaking doctoral students had identified. There were no large differences in the numbers of important points identified in the two drafts, 68 in the first and 78 in the second. As Table Four shows, one student, Sae who included only two points in her first draft had six in her second, accounted for four of the ten additional points identified in her second draft. Ten of the 14 students were within one point of difference on the two drafts. I also examined each important point separately in each draft. Chart One presents the frequencies of each important point included in each draft. Results show that Point Three, Four, Nine and Ten were the most frequently included points: more than ten participants included these four points in both drafts. In contrast, Point Two and Six were the least included in each draft: two or fewer participants included each of these two 44 points. Point Seven has the biggest frequency difference between the two drafts: only one participant included this point in the first draft, but six participants included this point in their second drafts. Besides Point Seven, Points Three, Four, Eight, and Ten were also included by more students, while Points One, Two, Six and Nine were included by fewer students in the second drafts. In general, more than half (8) of the participants included seven of the ten identified important points in at least one of their drafts. T a b l e F o u r : N u m b e r o f I m p o r t a n t P o i n t s I n c l u d e d i n E a c h D r a f t Participants Draft One Draft Two Degree of Change Nako 6 7 +1 Yoko 5 5 0 Horimi 7 6 - 1 Mayuko 6 7 +1 Naoko 5 3 -2 Mako 7 9 +2 Sae 2 6 +4 Shinyo 5 6 +1 Noriko 5 ' 5 0 Akiko 7 7 0 Masako 5 5 0 Yuko 3 4 +1 Mariko 1 3 +2 Mivako 4 5 +1 Sum 68 78 +10 Average 4.9 5.6 +0.7 In addition, some students repeated certain important points in their drafts. Table Five shows that all the students repeated a certain important point at least once. 45 Repetition was found in nine (9/14) of the first drafts and also nine (9/14) of the second drafts. Some points were even repeated three times in one draft. Akiko repeated four important points in her first draft and repeated three important points three times each in her second draft. For instance, in Akiko's Akiko's second draft, •«-» c ro Q . o '•c ro o_ O 6 Chart One: Frequencies of Each Important Point Included i n Both Drafts 14 12 10 8 6 1 4 _. 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 1 1 1 5 6 7 8 • D1 • D2 9 10 10 P o i n t s she repeated Point Three, Point Nine and Point Ten each three times respectively. Her repetition of Point Three "Relieving suffering from patients should be physicians' primary goal" in her second draft is as follows: Sentence Two: To take care of the patients by drug and any other medicines to remove pain should be encouraged. Sentence Three: It is a way to pain relief for patients even if they decrease respiration or blood pressure, which lead patient dead, as a result. Sentence Four: The important point is that relieve patients' pain . 46 and suffering. Table Five: Important Point Repetition in Each Draft Participants Draft One Draft Two Nako 3x2 8x2 10x2 Yoko 3x3 3x3 Horimi 0 10x3 3x2 Mayuko 0 8x2 Naoko 5x2 0 Mako 3x2 5x2 Sae 3x2 0 Shinyo 1x2 0 Noriko Q 9x2 Akiko 3x2 5x2 9x2 10x2 3x3 9x3 10x3 Masako 3x2 0 Yuko 9x2 0 Mariko 0 5x2 Miyako 0 3x2 5x2 Note. Numbers under the columns of Draft One and Draft Two indicate numbers of repetitions in students' two drafts. In each pair of numbers, the first one refers to the number of the important point and the second one refers to the times that the important point was repeated. E.g. 3x2 means important point three was repeated twice. Obviously, she repeated the content of three original sentences indicating one similar meaning: relieving pain for patients is important (see Appendix A for the source text). 4.1.2 Reproduction of Single Important Point in Each Draft Based on the results of important points included in each draft (in the first drafts: 68; in the second drafts: 78), I investigated the frequencies of these important points reproduced at the sentence level (reproduction) and the strategies students used in the two 47 drafts. I first calculated the number of points produced by means of single important point reproduction among the total important points included in the two drafts. Then I counted the number of sentences that were exactly copied, partially copied or paraphrased while students reproduced important points (Table Six). Table Six: Reproduction of Important Points Draft One Draft Two Number of Important Points Reproduction Number of Important Points Reproduction Participants No. exact copy Partial copy Paraphrase No. exact copy Partial copy Paraphrase Nako 6 6 2 4 0 7 5 0 2 3 Yoko 5 5 0 4 1 5 1 0 1 0 Horimi 7 5 1 4 0 6 3 0 0 3 Mayuko 6 4 1 3 0 7 3 0 1 2 Naoko 5 1 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 1 Mako 7 5 0 1 4 9 3 0 0 3 Sae 2 2 0 1 1 6 6 0 1 5 Shinyo 5 2 1 0 1 6 2 0 0 2 Noriko 5 1 0 1 0 5 3 0 0 3 Akiko 7 5 0 5 • 0 7 7 0 0 7 Masako 5 3 0 1 2 5 5 0 1 4 Yuko 3 3 0 2 1 4 4 0 2 2 Mariko 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 Miyako 4 4 1 3 0 5 3 0 1 2 Total 68 47 6 29 12 78 49 0 11 38 Note. The list of numbers under the Number of Important Points refers to the total numbers of important points included by means of both single important point reproduction and important points combination in each draft. Under reproduction, there are four categories: 1) total number of important points produced using the strategy of Reproduction in each draft; 2) total number of important points reproduced by exact copying in each draft; 3) total number of important points reproduced by partial copying; and 4) total number of important points reproduced by paraphrasing. Table Six shows among the 68 total important points included in the first drafts, 47 48 of them were written using the strategy of single important point reproduction. In the second drafts, 49 out of the total 78 total points were written using this strategy. That means more than 60% of the important points were written by the strategy of single important point reproduction in both drafts. I then examined the frequency of reproduction in each draft. I calculated the percentages of points produced by single important point reproduction out of the total number of important points included in each draft (Table Seven). Table Seven: Percentages of Reproduction in Each Draft Draft One Draft Two Participants No. Points No. of Points Summarized by Reproduction Percentage No. Points No. of Points Summarized by Reproduction Percentage Nako 6 6 100% 7 5 71% Yoko 5 5 100% 5 1 20% Horimi 7 5 71% 6 3 50% Mayuko 6 4 67% 7 3 43% Naoko 5 1 20% 3 3 100% Mako 7 5 71% 9 3 33% Sae 2 2 100% 6 6 100% Shinyo 5 2 40% 6 2 33% Noriko 5 1 20% 5 3 60% Akiko 7 5 71% 7 7 100% Masako 5 3 60% 5 5 100% Yuko 3 3 100% 4 4 100% Mariko 1 1 100% 3 1 33% Mivako 4 4 • 100% 5 3 60% Table Seven shows nine of the 14 participants included important points using only the strategy of single important point reproduction in at least one of their drafts as 49 indicated by "100%" in column four and seven. Among these nine participants, two of them (Sae and Yuko) did so in both of their drafts. Results also show that all participants, except one (Shinyo), included more than half number of important points using the strategy of reproduction at least in one of their drafts. There were not large differences between the frequencies of reproduction in each draft by most (11) of the students. Finally, I examined whether students reproduced important points by exact copying, partial copying or paraphrasing in each draft. All the sentences written using single important point reproduction in each draft were further marked whether they were exactly copied, partially copied or paraphrased according to the coding system (Table Two). For example: Patients choose assisted suicide not because they are really tired of life but because they think others are tired of them. (Nako, exact copying) Moreover, it should be considered patients decide their suicide to the point of the emotional and financial burden of their families. (Yoko, partial copying)2 Results in Table Eight show that when students included important points using single important point reproduction, five of the 14 participants used exact copying, but with low frequencies which were 50% or lower. And 12 of the 14 students used partial copying, with ten of them using 50% or higher frequencies of partial copying, and three of these ten students using 100% partial copying. All the students used paraphrasing in at 2 Words identical in the source texts and students' drafts are highlighted. 50 least one draft, and 12 used 60% or higher frequencies of paraphrasing, and seven of them using 100% paraphrasing. Among these seven students, two of them shifted from Table Eight: Strategies in Single Important Point Reproduction Draft One Draft Two Reproduction Reproduction Participants Number of Points Exact Copy Partial Copy Paraphrase Number of Points Exact Copy Partial Copy Paraphrase Nako 6 33% 77% 0 5 0 40% 60% Yoko 5 0 80% 20% 1 0 100% 0 Horimi 5 20% 80% 0 3 0 0 100% Mayuko 4 25% 75% 0 3 0 33% 77% Naoko 1 0 0 100% 3 0 77% 33% Mako 5 0 20% 80% 3 0 0 100% Sae 2 0 50% 50% 6 0 17% 83% Shinyo 2 50% 0 50% 2 0 0 100% Noriko 1 0 100% 0 .3 0 0 100% Akiko 5 0 100% 0 7 0 0 100% Masako 3 0 33% 77% 5 0 20% 80% Yuko 3 0 77% 33% 4 0 50% 50% Mariko 1 0 0 100% 1 0 0 100% Miyako 4 25% 75% 0 3 0 33% 77% Total 47 13% 42% 25% 49 0 22% 78% Note. The list of numbers under the Number of Points refers to the total numbers of important points written using single important point reproduction in each draft. These important points were produced by way of exact copying, partial copying or paraphrasing. Sentences written using each of these three strategies were shown by percentages. only partial copying in their first drafts to only paraphrasing in their second drafts, and 51 one (Mariko) of them used only paraphrasing in both of her drafts, although she included only one important point by single important point reproduction. Almost all students changed their frequencies in applying at least one of the strategies in their second drafts: no student used exact copying (five of the 14 students did exact copying), 10 of the 14 students used less partial copying and 13 of the 14 students used more paraphrasing. Table Nine presents examples of texts which students, in their second drafts, paraphrased the important points that were exactly copied or partially copied from source texts in their first drafts. Table Nine: Difference in Copying and Paraphrasing in Reproduction Between the Two Drafts Original Text Copied in the First Draft Paraphrased in the Second Draft Narcotics or.. .even though the medication may contribute to ...evendeath, provided the primary goal of the physician is to relieve suffering. (Point Three) Relieving pain should be the primary goal of the physician even if it results in death. (Partial copying, Masako) Doctors should use whatever method is necessary to make a patient feel better. (Paraphrasing, Masako) Patients who are choose assisted suicide not because they are really tired of life but because they think others are tired of them. (Point Nine) Patients choose assisted suicide not because they are really tired of life but because they think others are tired of them. (Exact copying, Nako) Patients suspect that other people who treat them are tired of the treatment. (Paraphrasing, Nako) Consequently, it may be difficult to ensure that a competent decision is being made... (Point Ten) Consequently, it may be difficult to ensure that a competent decision is being made (Exact copying, Nako) Physician can't (don't) have confidence if patients make decision by their own. (Paraphrasing, Nako) Note: Words identical in the source texts and students' drafts are by bold face. 52 4.2 R e s u l t s f o r R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n T w o This section reports the results on how well students combined important points in their two drafts, and whether they combined important points by copying or by paraphrasing. The first part of the question is addressed by analyzing students' performance in two-point and three-point combinations and frequencies that students applied combination strategies. The second part of the question is addressed by investigating frequencies of exact copying, partial copying and paraphrasing when students combined important points from the source texts in their summary sentences. Results (Table Ten) show that 12 of the 14 students applied a combination strategy; two of them also used three-point combinations in their second drafts, and seven of them combined some important points that they had not combined in their first drafts. Findings also show that no students used exact copying, five of the 14 students used partial copying and ten of the 14 used paraphrasing when they combined important points. In addition, results also show that 68% of combinations were produced by paraphrasing. I tallied sentences in students' first and second drafts that combined two or three important points in the source texts. For example: They should be allowed to do whatever the patients wish, even it they choose to die, because this is the way to reduce their pain and this is what the patients decides. (Naoko, combined Point Three: Relieving suffering from patients should be physicians' primary goal; and Point Five: Physicians should follow patients' wishes.) Table Eleven shows, in the first drafts, out of the total number of 68 important 53 points, 213(31%) were produced using the combination strategy. In the second drafts, 294 (37%) of the 78 important points were produced using the combination strategy. This Table Ten: Combination of Important Points Draft One Draft Two No. of Important Points Combination No. of Important Points Combination Student No. of combination Partially copied Paraphrased No. of combination Partially copied Paraphrased Nako 6 0 0 0 7 1(2) 1 0 Yoko 5 0 0 0 5 2(2) 1 1 Horimi 7 .1(2). 1 0 6 1(3) 1 0 Mayuko 6 1(2) 1 0 7 2(2) 1 1 Naoko 5 2(2) 0 2 3 0 0 0 Mako 7 1(2) 0 T 9 *2(2) 1(3) 0 3 Sae 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Shinyo 5 *2(2) 0 2 6 2(2) 0 2 Noriko 5 2(2) 2 0 5 1(2) 0 1 Akiko 7 1(2) 0 1 7 0 0 0 Masako 5 1(2) 0 1 5 0 0 0 Yuko 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Mariko 1 0 0 0 3 1(2) 0 1 Miyako 4 0 0 0 5 1(2) 0 1 Total points 68 21 8 13 78 29 9 20 Note: 1) The number in parenthesis indicates the number of points combined, e.g., "(2)" means two points were combined. 2) "*" refers to one important point that has been repeatedly combined, e.g., "*2(2) means 2 two-point combinations, but one of the points has been used twice; thus, in total, 3 points are used in this situation. 3) 1(2) means one two-point combination, 2(2) means two two-point combinations, 1(3) means one three-point combination. 4) The list of numbers under the Number of Important Points refers to the total numbers of important points included by means of both single important point reproduction and important point combination in each draft. Under combination, there are three categories: 1) total number of important points produced by a combination strategy in each draft; 2) total number of important points reproduced by partial copying; and 3) total number of important points reproduced by paraphrasing. 3 There were 11 two-point combination; one important point was combined twice by one of the participants. In this case, that repeatedly included point was only counted once. 4 There were 2 three-point combinations and 12 two-point combinations, with one point important point was included twice by one of the participants. 54 indicates students included about 34% of the important points with using combination strategy in both drafts combined. There were no large differences in the number of combinations between the two drafts. As Table Ten shows half of the students were within one combination difference in their two drafts. However, two of the 14 students (Horimi and Mako) used a three-point combination strategy once in their second drafts, which was not found in any of the first drafts. Table Twelve illustrates that students combined the important points that they did not in their first drafts. Table Eleven: Percentages of Combinations in Each Draft Draft One Draft Two Participants No. of Points No. of Points Summarized by Combination Percentage No. of Points No. of Points Summarized by Combination Percentage Nako 6 0 0 7 2 28% Yoko 5 0 0 5 4 80% Horimi 7 2 29% 6 3 50% Mayuko 6 2 33% 7 4 57% Naoko 5 4 80% 3 0 0 Mako 7 2 29% 9 6 77% Sae 2 0 0 6 0 0 Shinyo 5 3 60% 6 4 77% Noriko 5 4 80% 5 2 40% Akiko 7 2 29% 7 0 0 Masako 5 2 40% 5 0 0 Yuko 3 0 0 4 0 0 Mariko 1 0 0 3 2 77% Miyako 4 0 0 5 2 40%o Next, I investigated whether participants combined information by exact copying, by partial copying or by paraphrasing. I grouped each of the sentences produced using a combination strategy under three categories (exact copying, partial copying or paraphrasing) according to the coding system (Table Two). For example: 55 Table Twelve: Illustration of Students' Use of Combinations in Each Draft Important Point Draft One Draft Two2 Point Three. Relieving suffering from patients should be physicians' primary goal. Point Four. Physicians should follow medical ethics independently of legal decisions. Point Five. Physicians should follow patients' wishes. And the most important thing is that the physicians should follow these principles without exaggerated concern for legal prosecution. (Reproduce of Point Four) (Horimi) Note: Horimi omitted Point Three and Five in this draft. However, sometimes physicians hesitate to assist suicide because they think this support is against the principle of medical ethics, but the things we keep on our mind is to relieve pain and adhere to the patient's wish as much as possible. (Combine Points Three, Four and Five) (Horimi) Point Seven: Assisting suicide is not comforting to patients. Point Eight: Assisting suicide undermines doctor-patient relationship. Assisted suicide might seriously undermine an essential element of patient-physician relationship because the patient may not have the same degree of confidence in the physician's commitment to his or her care as previously. (Reproduce Point Eight) (Mayuko) Note: She omitted Point Seven in this draft. However, such an impression may not be very comforting to the patient and they cannot keep good relationship after the patient rejects the suggestion that the physician made because the patient does not have confidence (in the physician). (Combine Point Seven and Eight) (Mayuko) Note. The Points under the Important Point column are important points in the source texts identified by two doctoral students with slight modification of wording. However sometimes physicians hesitate to assist suicide because they think this support is against the principle of medical ethics, but the things we keep on our mind is to relieve pain and adhere to the patient's wishes.as much as possible5, (partial copying while combining Points Three, Four, and Five, Horimi, second draft)6 They should be allowed to do whatever the patients wish, even if they choose to die, because this is the way to reduce their pain and this is what the patients decides, (paraphrasing while combining Points Three and Five, Naoko, first draft). Table Thirteen shows that in both drafts, none of the participants used exact copying when they combined important points. However, five of the 14 students used a partial copying strategy, ten of the 14 students used paraphrasing. Among these 10 5 Words identical in source text and student's text are highlighted. 6 Identified Point Three: Relieving suffering from patients should be physicians' primary goal; Point Four: Physicians should follow medical ethics independently of legal decisions; Point Five: Physicians should follow patients' wishes. 56 Table Thirteen: Strategies in Combination Draft One Draft Two Reproduction Reproduction Student Number of Combination Exact Copy Partial Copy Paraphrase Number of Combination exact copy Partial copy Paraphrase Nako 0 0 0 0 1 0 100% 0 Yoko 0 0 0 0 2 0 50% 50% Horimi 1 0 100% 0 1 0 100% 0 Mayuko 1 0 100% 0 2 0 50% 50% Naoko 2 0 0 100% 0 0 0 0 Mako 1 0 o •• 100% 3 0 0 100% Sae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shinyo 2 0 0 100% 2 0 0 100% Noriko 2 0 100% 0 1 0 0 100% Akiko 1 0 0 100% 0 0 0 0 Masako 1 0 0 100% 0 0 0 0 Yuko 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mariko 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100% Miyako 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100% Total 11 0 36% 64% 14 0 29% 72% Note. The list of numbers under Number of Combinations refers to the total number of combinations of important points in each draft. These combinations were produced by way of exact copying, partial copying or paraphrasing. Sentences written using each of these three strategies are shown by percentages. students, two (Shinyo and Mako) used only the paraphrasing strategy in each draft. Results also show that 36% of the important point combinations in the first drafts and 29% of the important point combinations in the second drafts were produced by a partial copying strategy, which means that 32.5% of the combinations were produced by partial copying in the two drafts. In contrast, 67.5% of the combinations were produced by paraphrasing in the two drafts. In addition, I also found that among 12 of the 14 students 5 7 who combined important points in their drafts, ten of them used only one of the strategies: either partial copying or paraphrasing: only two of them (Yuko and Mayuko) used both strategies. 4.3 Results for Research Question Three The following part reports findings on Research Question Three: How do students produce topic sentences (invention) to summarize the whole source paragraph or text in both drafts. I present the findings in three steps. First, I examine students' performance in using invention strategies, which include generalization and introduction of titles. Then, I analyze the frequencies of partial copying and paraphrasing when students generalize information in the whole paragraph or whole text in both drafts and the then frequencies of exact copying when students generalize information by introduction of titles. Results show 11 out of the 14 students wrote invention sentences and 11 students applied a generalization strategy while they did so, but the highest number of topic sentences written by this strategy was only 4. Results also show most of the students used paraphrasing, with about a third students copying exactly and a few students copying partially. To start with, I counted the total number of topic sentences in the first drafts and in the second drafts: 20 in the first drafts and 23 in the second drafts. According to the coding system (p. 40), I sub-categorized those topic sentences into generalization of information of a whole paragraph or a whole text (described as generalization in the 58 following section) and introduction of title, which referred to copying the title(s) with or without words added. For example: Consequently, they believe physicians can ethically assist in suicide. (Introduction of Title, the highlighted part is the title of the original text) (Yoko, Draft One) To assist in suicide has considerable issues and it has been discussed for long time. (Generalization) (Akiko, Draft Two) Table Fourteen : Invention of Topic Sentences Draft One Draft Two Student Total Number of Inventions Introduction of Title Generalization Total Number of Inventions Introduction of Title Generalization Exactly Copied Partially Copied Paraphrased Exactly Copied Partially Copied Paraphrased Nako 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Yoko 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 3 Horimi 2 2 0 0 3 0 2 1 Mayuko 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 Naoko 1 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 Mako 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Shinyo 4 1 0 3 2 1 0 1 Noriko 2 0 0 2 3 2 0 1 Akiko 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Masako 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yuko 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 Mariko 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 Miyako 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total points 20 4 0 16 23 6 3 14 Table Fourteen shows that 11 out of 14 students applied an invention strategy. Among these 11 students, five of them applied both the generalization and the introduction of title strategies when they wrote topic sentences, while the rest of them applied only the generalization strategy. Mariko wrote 4 topic sentences, the highest number, using the generalization strategy in her first draft. Three students wrote only one topic sentence using the generalization strategy in one or both of the drafts. Table Fifteen shows that in the first drafts, among the total of 20 invention sentences, 16 (80%) are generalization sentences and 4 (20%) are introduction of titles. In the second drafts, 17 (74%) of total 23 invention sentences are generalizations, and six (26%) are introduction of titles. That means there was only limited difference in the numbers of sentences written by the strategy of generalization or by the strategy of introduction of titles in either draft. So, about 77% of topic sentences were written using the generalization strategy and the rest, 23%, were written using the strategy of introduction of title in both drafts. Table Fifteen: Comparison of Generalization Sentences and the Introduction of Titles Both Drafts Generalization Introduction of Titles Total Number Percent Number Percent First Draft 16 80 4 20 20 Second Draft 17 74 6 26 23 Lastly, I coded generalization sentences produced by partial copying or by paraphrasing of the source texts (see Table Thirteen for numbers in detail, p. 57). For 60 example: We can see both of opinions whether people agree to assist in suicide by physicians or not. (partially copied, Horimi, second draft) About assisted suicide, some people agree it but other people not. (paraphrased, Yuko, first draft) Table Sixteen : Strategies in Invention Draft One Draft Two Student Total Number of Inventions Introduction of Title Generalization Total Number of Inventions Introduction of Title Generalization Exactly Copied Partially Copied Paraphrased Exactly Copied Partially Copied Paraphrased Nako 0 0 0 0 1 0 100% 0 Yoko 1 100% 0 0 4 25% 0 75% Horimi 2 100% 0 0 3 0 77% 33% Mayuk 0 3 0 0 100% 1 0 0 100% Naoko 1 0 , o 100% 3 77% 0 33% Mako 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 100% Shinyo 4 25% 0 75% 2 50% 0 50% Noriko 2 0 0 . 100% 3 77% 0 33% Akiko 1 0 0 100% 1 0 0 100% Masako 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yuko 2 0 0 .100% 3 0 0 100% Mariko 4 0 0 100% 1 0 0 100% Miyako 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total points 20 20% 0 80% 23 26% 13% 61% Note. The list of numbers under the Total Number of Inventions refers to the total number of topic sentences produced by the generalization and introduction of title strategies. Topic sentences written using the introduction of title strategy were categorized as exactly copied from the source texts, while topic sentences written with generalization strategy were categorized as either partially copied or paraphrased. The numbers of these topic sentences written with each strategy are presented by percentages. 61 Table Sixteen shows that five of the 14 students employed the exact copying strategy while they wrote topic (invention) sentences. These five students also applied a paraphrasing strategy, with one of them (Yoko) also applied a partial copying strategy. Two of the 14 students employed a partial copying strategy: one of them (Nako) wrote only one invention sentence. However, ten of the 14 students used paraphrasing, and four of them used 100% paraphrasing in both drafts when they wrote invention sentences. Table Sixteen also shows that no students used partial copying in their first drafts when they produced invention sentences. Table Seventeen: Comparison of Exactly Copied, Partially Copied and Paraphrased Invention Sentences in Both Drafts Exactly copied Partially copied Paraphrased Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Draft One 4 20 0 0 16 80 20 Draft Two 6 26 3 13 14 60 23 Table Seventeen shows that in the first drafts, among the total 20 invention sentences, four (20%) were exactly copied from the titles of the source text and 16 (80%) were paraphrased in students' own words. In the second drafts, among the total 23 invention sentences, six (26%) of them were exactly copied from the titles, three (13%) were produced with lists of words lifted from the original text, and 14 were paraphrased using students' own words. That means compared with the first drafts, 6% more invention 62 sentences were exactly copied, 13% more were partially copied and 20% fewer were paraphrased in the second drafts. 4.4 Discussion of the Findings Students' summary writing performance can be better understood when the findings and the interview data are analyzed from the following aspects: 1) difficulty in comprehension of the source texts; 2) reasons for copying information directly from the source texts; 3) students'awareness of summarization strategies; and 4) task difficulty. First, most students, if not all, might experience difficulties in the comprehension of the source texts, especially in the comprehension of expository structure of the source texts. This is based on the fact that none of the students included ten identified important points; only one of the 14 students"'included nine in her second draft. And nine of the 14 students included six or fewer of the ten important points. In addition, students' lack of inclusion of important Points Two "Physicians should not hasten patients' death" and Point Six "Physicians should not withhold pain relief for patients" might reflect their difficulty with the expository structure. Only two students (2/14) in their first drafts and one student (1/14) in the second draft included each of these two points. In the source texts (Appendix A), Point Two is in the very first sentence in the first passage. (Original sentence: "In the patient whose dying process is irreversible, the balance between minimizing pain and suffering and potentially hastening death should be struck clearly in favor of pain relief") When students read this sentence, minimizing pain (Point One) 63 might be more "eye-catching" (Taylor, 1984) to them as it appears in the first part of the subject in the first sentence. I found nine of the first drafts and five of the second drafts included this point. But only two participants in their first drafts and one participant in the second draft included Point Two, although it immediately follows Point One in the original text. A similar situation also observed with Point Six, which appeared at the end of the first passage. (Original sentence: "To withhold any necessary measure of pain relief in a hopelessly ill person out of fear of depressing respiration or of possible legal repercussions is unjustifiable." Half of this sentence was printed at the end of the last line of page one and the other half of it was at the beginning of page two in the source texts. Again, it is in a less obvious position. Students might have jumped to the second passage without giving this sentence full consideration. They might not know the importance and the function of the beginning and ending sentences in an expository text, as Naoko expressed her confusion about important information in the interview: I can't find any key sentences, I think it has one, but I couldn't decide which is the best one. I couldn't decide which one is the most important. (Naoko) Repetition of certain points shows most of the students might confuse about the meaning of some of the important points, and they might have regarded each sentence in the original text as important, although some sentences are used as further explanation of a certain point. All students repeated some of the important points at least once. Repetition was found in nine (9/14) of the first drafts and also nine (9/14) of the second drafts. 64 The finding that students included only 34% of the important points using a combination strategy also indicates most of them did not fully comprehend the source texts, at least the deep structure of the source texts. Kitsch (1977) indicates that applying the combination skill requires far more than surface structure comprehension; it needs higher level macro-processing. In this present study, half of the students included 50% or less of the important points in their summaries by combination strategy. Second, the finding that most (10/14) of the students copied information when they summarized might also indicate that they did not understand the source text at least when they wrote the first drafts. What Yoko said may contribute to this: "I use authors' words in the article just because I did not understand, like the meaning of the words" However, the fact that some students copied information from the source texts instead of generalizing information in their own words might be due to the reason that they were not confident of their English language abilities. Several students copied directly from the source texts because they were concerned that their English would fail to express accurately what they intended to communicate. This is evident in the following interview comments: I was trying to compare both sides of the article (in my first writing), I just couldn't. Maybe, I understood the difference between the author's opinion, but I wasn't sure the exact difference between the authors. I just couldn't express myself. (Yoko) ...(in my first writing) sometimes I just copy them, even though I understand the meaning of the words, I just couldn't use other words to describe the same meaning. Even though I understand what the author want to say, describe, I just couldn't say 65 the same thing with my words...I didn't copy the whole sentence, but I just pick up part of the sentence, and use it, copy it. (Yoko) ...because these people are professionals, so they have special expressions. So it is hard, (to talk about the same idea using my own words in both writings) (Naoko) In addition, culture differences might also be one of the reasons for this group of students to copy information from the original texts. Japanese students were brought up in a culture in which people have a different perspective on using references or making citations than North Americans have. To some Japanese students, making a citation is not important. For example, Mako said she had hardly been taught how to use references, Actually, I won't (did not) know about how to cite or use reference, because I did not learn much about it. It is so difficult for me to use other materials, because many materials are around us, and so summarizing the materials and put it in a paper is very difficult. Third, students might lack awareness of the strategies for identifying key sentences and combining them in their summaries, and for writing topic sentences by generalizing information. According to the information I got from the interviews, except Naoko mentioned "I can't find any key sentences, I think it has one", no other students who mentioned anything related to the application summarization rules such as identifying and including important information by combining it or creating topic sentences. To some of the students, it seems that once one increases his vocabulary, writing will become easy including summary writing. What some of the students expressed in the interviews is evidence of this: The second one is easy. I did not know the word because I lack of my vocabulary (when writing the first draft). (Shinyo) 66 It (second draft writing) is different because my vocabulary is being improved." (Yoko) I learned a lot of new words and new concepts of words. That is, such learning let me summarize a text easier and more quickly. (Akiko) Last time I read two articles. I didn't understand them completely, but this time I could read and understand the contents. So I think I learned writing and reading skills. (Masako) In addition, findings also show that students might have difficulty in this summary writing task. Maybe some of them were not clear about the expectations for this writing task. A s what Yoko expressed, I was wondering...how...Hke ...the summary, I could write my summary only by one paragraph...I was not sure . . .I was not sure whether I had to write...like...papers or (in a) more casual way... the second time, I was not sure either. (Yoko) But, this group of students did a lot of academic writing practice studying under this exchange program, as the instructor who taught them academic writing mentioned in the interview. The following is part of the excerpt of this conversation. I: When you taught how to write academic writing, what did you focus on? Instructor: Anything from the format of the paper, from an introduction of the paper, literature review and then they start to write. I: When they write, did they write the whole paper? Instructor: The whole paper. I: What else did you do? Instructor: Actually a lot of practice. But they were not taught explicitly on how to write summaries at least in this academic writing class. The academic writing instructor mentioned summary was not listed as a 67 major teaching concept: No, not specifically. No, no summary writing. We did teach them how to write academic writing, I and the TA... But, at least myself, I did not teach them how to write summary, specifically when you do the literature review, you have to summarize things. So, this academic writing practice or instruction might not directly facilitate students' summarization skills (Taylor, 1983). However, it is hard to know whether explicit instruction on summary writing could make any difference to the present exchange students in their summary writing performance. For some of these students, their purpose in enrolling in this exchange program is not for academic study but to familiarize themselves with this culture. For example, Yoko said: Actually I didn't focus study, I didn't focus how to write, this is because...actually I want to spend time here, talking with many people, as many as possible, I think I could study English even in Japan, there are a lot of people who have never been abroad, I want to learn more about culture or people here, such as how people think about that, why they think in that way, why they are feeling like that." (Yoko) However, students might have improved their English competence, at least in reading comprehension, by the end of the exchange program. As students needed to do all subject readings in English while they studied in Canada, they might have increased their proficiency in English reading. Besides, preparing for the TOEFL tests might have facilitated their English reading competence because they need to do reading comprehension exercises. Students also noted or claimed that they had increased their English reading competence: 68 (...during the first writing)...there is a lot of new words, and the second time, I read the same article, so it is easier to understand in the article. (Yoko) Last time I read two articles, I didn't understand completely, but this time I could read and understand the contents. (Masako) One of the students also mentioned that he had improved on how to use citation and learned to avoid copying when he wrote,"I use the citation and paraphrase more than I first came here, that is a big difference." (Shinyo) In conclusion, results from analyzing students' writing and interviews show that this group of participating students might have difficulty comprehending the source texts, especially the deep structure of the texts. Although they were taught to write, not explicitly on summary writing though, and they had practiced academic writing, students might not know the expectations of summary writing tasks. Some of the participating students claimed that their reading competence had increased, and they thought this would enable them to write better summaries, but they might not be aware of the summarization strategies such as combining important information and creating topic sentences by generating information in their own words. However, some students claimed that the reasons for their copying source texts were due to their failure in understanding the source texts, cultural difference between North American and Japanese and a lack of confidence in their own English competence. 69 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION In this last chapter of the thesis, I first summarize the findings from the present study. Then I discuss the limitations of this study and recommendations for further study. Finally, I discuss the pedagogical implications of the study. 5.1. Summary of the Findings This study examined summary writing performance by a group of Japanese exchange university students. They studied under an eight-month exchange program in a Canadian university. They did the summary writing task twice on one source material. The first drafts were written at the beginning of the program and the second drafts were written at the end of the program. The purpose of the present study was to investigate how ESL exchange students summarize in terms of 1) including important information, combining ideas or original sentences, and inventing topic sentences; and 2) using paraphrasing or the "copy-delete" strategy. Three major findings emerged from the analyses of students' two drafts. First, students included different numbers of important points, ranging from 1 point to 9 points, and twelve out of 14 participants (85%) included half or more of the identified important points. But the average number of important points included was 5.3 which was 4.7 fewer than the number that the two doctoral students had identified. More than ten students included Point Three, Four, Nine and Ten, while only two or fewer 70 students included Point Two and Six. And five of the ten important points were included by more students, while four important points were included by fewer students in their second drafts compared with what they did in the first drafts. When students included important points, 60% of them were written using the strategy of single important point reproduction. And nine of the 14 students used this strategy. There were limited differences between the frequencies of reproduction by 11 of the 14 students in both drafts. When students included important points using single important point reproduction strategy, all of them used paraphrasing, 12 of the 14 students used partial copying and five students used exact copying in at least in one of their drafts. No one used exact copying and almost all students (13) used more paraphrasing in their second drafts. Second, 12 of the 14 students applied the combination strategy at least once and six of them included 77% or more important points using this strategy. Half of the students included 50% or fewer important points using combination strategy. However, seven students combined some of the points that they did not combine in their first drafts. Also, two of the students applied a three-point combination strategy in their second drafts, which was not found in any of the first drafts. When students combined important points, no one used exact copying, five of the 14 used partial copying and ten used paraphrasing. Among the total points that were included with combination strategy in both drafts, 33% of them were partially copied and 67% were paraphrased. Finally, in applying the invention rule, 11 of the 14 students wrote invention sentences using either the generalization or the introduction of title strategy, five of them 71 applied both strategies. The highest number of invention sentence written by generalizing information is 4, by Mariko. Altogether, 77% of the invention sentences were produced using the generalizing information strategy and the rest (23%) were written by introducing titles. When students produced invention sentences, five of them used exact copying, two of them did partial copying and ten of them used paraphrasing. Among the ten students who used paraphrasing, four of the students produced all their invention sentences by paraphrasing in both drafts. 5.2 Significance of the Study Results of this present study provide information on ESL students' performance in applying summarization rules such as including important information from the source texts using reproduction and combination strategies, and inventing topic sentences by generalizing information or introducing titles of the source texts. Findings of this study contribute to the. understanding of the nature of ESL students' summary writing; they can also be significant to pedagogy in that they help academic professionals be aware of the difficulties that ESL students might have when they do summary writing. This study also provides a method of analyzing summary writings, which enables researchers to examine participants' performance on applying summarization rules and investigate their performance in using language as well. 5.3 Limitations of the Present Study This is a case study on a very small scale with only 14 participants. Although 72 ' results of the present study contribute to the understanding of summary writing performance by ESL students, a number of limitations exist. First, this study might not present the real ability of this group of Japanese exchange students in terms of applying summarization rules. Although the instructor who taught one of the courses offered to this group of exchange students approved the source texts as being within these students' comprehension, a reading comprehension test could have been given to them to better ensure students could fully understand the texts, because too difficult or complicated texts hinder students' summarization performance (Anderson & Hidi, 1988/89). Besides, the length requirement (200-300 words) in the prompt for both summary and opinion tasks could also have affected students' applying the combination rule or misled students into doing a lot of repetitions. The word count of the original texts was 488 words; so students were supposed to condense the texts to only half of the original length. This would presumably have an impact on the students' writings. Second, the results of the present study might not have revealed the exact summary writing performance of the participating students. When the students did their second drafts based on the same source texts, they were told either to revise or rewrite. But when the writings and interview data were analyzed, they were treated in the same way, as there was no way to distinguish which students did revision and which students did rewriting. There us a possibility that some of the students would have produced their second drafts in a quite different way if they used the other method. And it is also possible 73 that students would have expressed different ideas if they had been interviewed based on the method (revision or rewriting) they used. Third, as the interview was conducted in English, so students' English proficiency might have affected their abilities to express themselves. Also participants left for their home country by the time the interview data were analyzed. So the content in the interview data could not be further clarified in terms of content and meaning. 5.4 Recommendations for Further Study In future studies, it would be helpful to involve more ESL exchange students doing summary writing tasks at more learning stages. For instance, students could do two revisions instead of only one, the first one on the second day after they wrote the summary, and the second revision taking place after a longer period of time. The investigation on the research of the two revisions could review different effects of revisions. More and comparable data might result. A study on both an experimental ESL group and a control ESL group doing the two writing tasks might bring out information which would enable better understanding of the nature of ESL students'summary writing. By teaching one group summary writing strategies and comparing the two groups, researchers might be able to obtain information not only on students' summary writing performance, but also how and whether students can perform better. Besides, results from that research might also help academic professionals create more proper and effective instructional design. 74 In addition, researchers need to ensure completely source texts are easy for participants to understand for a summary task. And participants in future studies should be required to write summaries with no length constraints, as this would enable participants to write according to their understanding of what good summary writing is. Also, students enroll themselves in exchange programs for different purpose, comparing a group coming for academic learning with another group coming for other reasons rather than academic learning, such as focusing on making friends or learning culture, might also help to better understand summary writing performance of ESL exchange students. 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, V., & Hidi, S. (1988/1989). Teaching students to summarize. Educational Leadership, 46 (1), 26-28. Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (1), 93-115. Bosher, S. (1998). The composing process of three southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (1), 205-241. Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54 (4), 968-979. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 22 (1), 1-4. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C , & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researches, 10 (1), 14-21. Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others' words: using background reading text in academic compositions. Kroll, B., (ed.), Second Language Writing, (pp. 221-230). New York: Cambridge University Press. Carrell, P. L. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (2), 441-469. Casazza, M. E. (1992). Teaching summary writing to enhance comprehension. Reading Today, 9, 26. Casazza, M. E.(1993). Using a model of direct instruction to teach summary writing in a college reading class. Journal of Reading, 37 (2), 202-208. Coffman, G. A. (1994). The influrence of question and story variations on sixth graders' summarization behaviours. Reading Research and Instruction, 34 (1), 19-38. Connor, U., & McGagg, P. (1983). Cross-cultural differences and perceived quality in written paraphrases of English expository prose. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 259-268. 76 Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39 ft), 81-141. Friend, R. (2001 a). Teaching summarization as a content area reading strategy. Available:wysiwyg://bodyframe.l3/http://ehostvgw5.e...um=2&booleanTerm=su mmarization&fussyTerm.html. [2001, June 5]. Friend, R. (2001b). Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26 ft), 3-24. Garner, R. (1982a). Efficient text summarization: Costs and benefits. Journal of Educational Research. 75 (2), 275-279. Garner, R. (1982b). Verbal-report data on reading strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14 ft), 159-167. Garner, R. (1985). Text summarization deficiencies among older students: Awareness or production ability, American Educational Research Journal, 22 (4), 549-560. Garner, R., Belcher, V., Winfield, E., & Smith, T. (1985). Multiple measures of text summarization proficiency: What can fifth-grade students do? Research in the Teaching of English, 19 (2), 140-153. Garner, R., & McCaleb, J, L.(1985). Effects of text manipulations on quality of written " summaries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10 (2), 139-149. Hare, V. C. (1992) Summarizing Text. In J. Irwine & M. A. Dale (Eds.), Reading/Writing Connections: Learning from research (pp. 96-118). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hare, V.C., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (1), 62-78. Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56 (4), 473-493. Irwin. J. (1986). Teaching Reading Comprehension Process. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 77 Jones, S., & Tretoe, J. (1987). Composing in a second language. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Writing in Real Time: Modeling Production Process (pp. 34-57). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Johns, A. M. (1985). Summary protocols of underprepared and adept university students: replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning. 35 (4), 495-517. Johns, A. M., & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 253-271. Johnson, N. S. (1983). What do you do if you can't tell the whole story? The development of summarization skills. In K.E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's Language, (Vol. 4, 315-383.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Johnston, P., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from text. Cognition and Instruction, 2 (2), 207-232. Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing processes of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2(4), 424-456. Kintsch, W. (1977). On comprehending stories. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive Processes In Comprehension Symposium on Cognition (pp. 33-62), Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. Kirkland, M.. & Saunders, M. (1991). Maximizing the student performance in summary writing: Managing the cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 105-121. Lay, N. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 406. Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). "Completely different worlds" : EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 3(1), 39-69. Orentlicher, D. (1992). Physicians cannot ethically insist in suicide. In M. Biskup (Ed.), Suicide: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 59-60). San Diego: Greenhaven Press. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1983). Reciprocol Teaching of Comprehension-Monitoring Activities (Tech. Rep. No. 269). Urbana: University if Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. 78 ^ Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (2), 229-258. Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37 (4), 439-467. Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (2), 259-291. Taylor, K. K. (1983). Can college students summarize? Journal of Reading, 26(7), 524-528. Taylor, K. K. (1984). The different summary skills of inexperienced and professional writers. Journal of Reading, 27(8), 691-699. Taylor, K.K.(1986). Summary writing by young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(2), 193-207. van Dijk, T. (1977). Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discourse comprehension. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive Processes In Comprehension Symposium on Cognition (pp. 3-32), Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press. Wanzer, S. H. (1992). Physicians can ethically insist in suicide. In M. Biskup (Ed.), Suicide: Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 59-60). San Diego Press. Whalen, K. & Menard, N. (1995). L l and L2 writer's strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45 (4)),3Sl-418. Winograd, P. N. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 404-425. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(1), 165-187. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 79-101. Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 697-715. 79 Appendix A: Source Texts 1. A summary paper: Can physicians ethically assist in suicide? The following are excerpts from two articles with opposing views on the topic of whether physicians can ethically assist suicide. Write a summary or an opinion paper ( 200-300) word summary using the two excerpts as sources. Excerpt One: Physicians can ethically assist in suicide Sidney H. Wanzer et al. In the patient whose dying process is irreversible, the balance between minimizing pain and suffering and potentially hastening death should be struck clearly in favor of pain relief. Narcotics or other pain medications should be given in whatever dose and by whatever route is necessary for relief. It is morally correct to increase the dose of narcotics to whatever dose is needed, even though the medication may contribute to the depression of respiration or blood pressure, the dulling of consciousness, or even death, provided the primary goal of the physician is to relieve suffering. The proper dose of pain medication is the dose that is sufficient to relieve pain and suffering, even to the point of unconsciousness. The principles of medical ethics are formulated independently of legal decisions, but physicians may fear that decisions about the care of the hopelessly ill will bring special risks of criminal charges and prosecution The physician should follow these principles without exaggerated concern for legal consequences, doing whatever is necessary to relieve pain and being comfort, and adhering to the patient's wishes as much as possible. To withhold any necessary measure of pain relief in a hopelessly ill person out of fear of depressing respiration or of possible legal repercussions is 80 unjustifiable. From Michael Biskup (Ed.) (1992) Suicide: Opposing viewpoints (pp.54-5) Excerpt 2: Physicians cannot ethically assist in suicide David Orentlicher This long-standing rejection of assisted suicide reflects a number of concerns with assisted suicide. A patient contemplating assisted suicide will naturally want to discuss that possibility with his or her physician. If the physician appears sympathetic to the patient's interest in suicide, it may convey the impression that the physician feels assisted suicide is a desirable alternative. Such an impression may not be very comforting to the patient. Moreover, if the patient decides to reject suicide, will the patient have the same degree of confidence in the physician's commitment to his or her care as previously? In short, assisted suicide might seriously undermine an essential element of patient-physician relationship. Patients who are enfeebled by disease and devoid of hope may choose assisted suicide not because they are really tired of life but because they think others are tired of them. Some patients, moreover, may feel an obligation to choose death to spare their families the emotional and financial burden of their care. Finally, assisted suicide is problematic in terms of its implementation. For many patients, the progression of disease will result in the impairment of decision-making capacity, either from the effects of the disease itself or those of drug treatment. Consequently, it may be difficult to ensure that a competent decision is being made. ... At what point in the contemplation of suicide by the patient, for example, can the physician be confident that the patient has made a firm decision to end his or her life. From Michael Biskup (Ed.) (1992) Suicide: Opposing viewpoints (pp.59-60) 81 Appendix B: Sample of a Coded Draft Yoko (second draft) 1. In this article, whether physicians can ethically assist in suicide or not is argued from two perspectives, (introduction of a title) 2. According to the first paragraph, the most important thing that physicians have to consider is how to relieve patients from pain, (reproduction: point 3, paraphrased) 3. Physicians should give a large amount of medications to their patients to remove pain incurable ill cause, even though those medications might lead patients into critical condition, (reproduction: point 3, paraphrased) 4. Physicians should do whatever they think it is necessary to relieve patients from pain and suffering, and patients wish, (combination: point 3 and 5, paraphrased) 5. In order to do so, the principles of medical ethics should be independent from legal decision, (reproduction: point 4, exact copied) 6. Because of above reasons, assisted suicide should be encouraged. ( invention: generalization of information, paraphrased) 7. On the other hand, according to the other paragraph, the most important thing that physicians have to consider is how to deal with patients' wish towards assisted suicide, (invention: generalization of information, paraphrased) 8. Physicians need to keep in their mind that their attitude could have an influence on patients' decision, (other) 9. Moreover, the reason patients' wish towards assisted suicide should be considered, because patients might choose assisted suicide when they care about their family, and it also should be considered that patients might be in trouble when they make a decision because of their ill and medications, (combination: point 9 and 10, partially copied) 10. Because of those reasons, assisted suicide should not be carried out. (invention: generalization of information, paraphrased) Note. 1. Sentences marked by the students are separated and numbered words exactly copied from sources texts are highlight. 2 . Words highlighted indicated they were exactly copied from the source texts. 82 Appendix C: Excerpt from Interview of the Instructor I: When you teach, how did you teach sumamry writing? T: No, not specifically. No, no summary writing. We did teach them how to write academic writing, I and TA. But, at least myself, I did not teach them how to write summary, specifically. I: When you taught how to write academic writing, what did you focus on? T: Anything from the format of the paper, which includes how complete academic paper should look like. From you should have introduction, and you should have rational, and you should have methodology, you should have discussions. You should have conclusions. And then we also talk about within each of the headings, what should be included. It is more like eh... we even have a model. Example paper to tell them what they should consider as a good paper so they can modelize them paper. I: So you gave them the outline and you gave them the model, did you ask them to write? T: Yes. I: For instance you gave them the topic. What can be a good introduction to that topic? T: It should tell the reader what is the paper about, what point are you making and how you reach the point that you are making and what those points say, the implication of those points. I: Do you think they can write according to what you ask? T: Yes, exactly. Most of them. Yes. I: That is the introduction part, and the next part. T: The rational. Some people call them statement of problem. What that means...try to explain why you are writing this paper, why do you think other people should read it. I: And the next part? T: We teach how to do the research part, and methodology. Students should include what methods they used to collect the data. For example, a document research. What kind of document you read and what kind of document you, if it is a periodic document. Participants, who did you interview, and tell me why this method was used. And then also say... tell people the context of your research. How it is done and how you analyse your data and goes on the discussion and tell me what are your findings and tell me what did you find and then in the discussion part, tell me what do these findings mean and then going on to the next finding section. And then in the 83 conclusion section, you restate your purpose of the study and restate your findings again. Mainly tell us the implications. Those are the stages they followed. I: Did you ask them to do that separately, or did you.. T: In the class, I would go through the whole thing, this is what I like in your paper, and through section by section, I tell them why they should have that, and when they goes to the TA, the TA would give them a model paper. And we go through each section more carefully. And setting analyzation, letting the students tell what is in the section. So the students would do by themselves. By doing it, analyzing the model paper, they realize that they remember what the teacher said. And then they start writing. I: When they write, did they write the whole paper, or just one part? T: The whole paper. They can ask questions and bring the paper to the TA. I: what else did you do. T: Actually a lot of practice, analysing a lot model papers. I: Do you think summary writing is also academic writing? T: Yes, because when you do the literature review, you have to summarizing things. I: Did you teach them how to do the literature review? T: No, not sepcifically. I: So in the literature review part, how should they summarize? T: I did not teach that, briefly TA. Taught them how to take notes, when do the literature, what should pay attention to. For example, when you review literature, when you are taking notes, you must remember where you got this message, the source, and the year, the page number and in major points, what was the problem is the writer talking about. And how did he come to this conclusion, how did he do this study. And who participated the research. I: Do you think the summary that student did is similar as what they did I the literature review? T: I am not sure because that is only a long paragraph, but it does say it is a study. No findings. It is just peoples' opinion, so I do not know how they wrote it. I: What is your criteria of summary writing? T: It depends on what the summary is for, if summary is just for making some points of what I read, I would just read the problems, and read mostly... yes, it is really has to be very specific. Note: I: myself T: the instructor I interviewed 84 Appendix D: Excerpt from Interview of a Student I: When you wrote the second draft, did you do it in any way different from the first one? S: Yes, I think so. I: What is the difference? S: I don't remember, but I wrote it quite recently. I: Do you remember what you did first time and .. S: First, I wrote main sentence, then the maim article, possibly, I have to understand what is in that paper. It was so hard in the first time. The topic is complicated, and the idea is., there is a lot of new words, and the second time, I read the same article, so it is easier to understand in the article, but in the first time, I think I use authors' words in the article just because I didn't understand, like the meaning of the words. I: I see, that is in your fist writing, you used a lot of authors' words from the source article. S: Yes. I: How did you use the words? You just pick out some words and sentences? S: Sometimes I just copy them, even though I understand the meaning of the words, I just couldn't use other words to describe the same meaning. Even though I understand what the author want to say, describe, I just couldn't say the same thing with my words. I: I see. S: So I just copy them. I: You want to express that meaning, but you can't express it with your own words, so you have to copy. S:Yes. I: Did you copy the whole sentence? S: I didn't think I did, I didn't copy the whole sentence, but I just pick up part of the sentence, and use it, copy it. I: What about the whole structure of what you wrote? Did you have any plan what to write in your first writing? S: Yes, I think so. But these ones, during this summary, at the first time, I have to in a certain time, in class time, I don't think I have enough time to think about it, like 85 enough. At the second time, I had time enough to think about it, or just because I wrote it in class, I could....the structure, summary.... I think that is the difference between the first time and the second time. I: So the difference between the first time and the second time , you mean language, in the first time, you didn't understand it, and at the second time, you are quite familiar with that. What about the structure you use? Did you try to follow any structure? S: At the first time, if I had enough time to write the summary, I might write it in a different way, I might try to think about the structure of the summary. Again, I didn't have enough time, even to write the summary. I: I see, if you were given enough time, how long did they give you that time? S: I don't remember exactly, maybe about 20-30 minutes. But I guess my English is not so good. I: If you were given enough time, what structure would you use? S: I think at the first time, I would....obviously I copy, not the whole sentence, but part of the sentence. But I tried to consider the first opinion and the second one, divide them into two paragraphs. I think I didn't quite sensing the second part, but I just tried to write the content on the summary by my words, not by using the words, not by using the article. Even though I us quite similar structure to write summary in terms of content of the summary. I: I see, if you were given more time, you would use the same kind of structure in your first writing as in your second writing. S: No. when I say.. .if I had enough time, I think the difference just because I tried to write my summary by a certain structure, anyways, how to write summary is completely different. I don't think I could do a quite a good job at the first time, even though I followed a certain way of writing summary, I was wondering, maybe you can see the difference, like summary or an essay, if I follow a certain way in the first time. I: Just now you mentioned a certain way of writing a summary, what is that structure? S: I want, like to compare to something. I: You mean you compare? At the very beginning? S: Yes, I like to do so at the first time too, but... 86 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078213/manifest

Comment

Related Items