Stage 1: Comparative Linguistic Analyses on Source Use

In this stage, a corpus-based linguistic analysis was conducted on source use to compare five features of source use in the A graded papers with those in the B graded papers of the students in Fall 2014 and Spring 2015. The outcomes of the first stage are the comprehensive theoretical framework on source use, the concrete methodology on source use for the linguistic

Stage 1: Comparative Linguistic Analyses on Source Use • Corpus-based linguistic analyses on source use in A- and B-graded documented essays Stage 2: Re- selection of A graded Papers • Reselect the A- graded essays for the materials development Stage 3: Linguistic Full- analyses on Source Use • Corpus-based linguistic analysis on source use in the selected A-graded essays

Stage 4: Application

• Use the results of the corpus-based analysis to develop content for the materials

analysis and the development of the teaching materials, and an empirical ground for the proposal of the design and development of the teaching materials on source use.

Theoretical framework on source use

As presented in Chapter 2, the theoretical framework on source use for my study and the development of the teaching materials is based on the literature review on source use.

Specifically, in terms of teaching students how to integrate external sources effectively into their writing, researchers recommend that source use instruction should include both linguistic forms and the rhetorical functions of citation. For example, drawing on their findings on how

undergraduates engage in source-based writing and reading, Hirvela and Du (2013) assert that paraphrasing, a form of source use, should be taught both through linguistic resources and their respective rhetorical functions in a specific context. It also should be especially taught as a learning tool of knowledge transforming, not simply as knowledge telling.

Five major features of source use are included in the corpus-based linguistic analysis and the teaching materials for my study. These five features are citation types based on the presence of parentheses, author integration (how the name of a cited source is incorporated), textual integration (how the original text in a cited source is integrated into a citing sentence), reporting verbs (how different types of verbs based on their reported actions and the reporter’s stance and commitment towards the reported proposition are chosen), and rhetorical functions (how citing sentences function in one’s writing). The first four features are considered to be related to linguistic forms, and they are brought together in one systemic framework based on the dialogic engagement perspective by Coffin (2009).

The methodology for analyzing source use

Future corpus-based studies on citation including my full analysis of source use in the A graded papers can benefit from the methodology used in the pilot study. First, the analysis on source use should take Kaltenbacher’s (2007) combined approach demonstrated in this pilot study in order to retrieve more instances of citations. Accordingly, the approach was proposed to bridge the current gap between qualitative systemic analyses of individual texts and quantitative electronic analyses of a large collection of texts. The author suggested that preliminary findings of manual analyses of a small number of texts could be used to inform queries for quantitative electronic analyses of a great number of texts. Following the suggestion, the full analysis of source use in the A graded papers followed a combined approach in order to include more non- canonical citations in the other less-explicitly marked citation types. Specifically, manual analyses of individual texts on citation were conducted to identify possible and important

patterns of linguistic realizations of the non-parenthetical citation types. Such knowledge helped identify new queries to find citations in addition to the available automatic queries for citation, resulting in more sentences reporting others’ ideas and opinions to be retrieved for the corpus- based analyses. Once citations were identified in the corpus, each citation was analyzed for a range of aspects in order to understand its use.

In addition, the expanded framework for citation detection together with the citation tagger and the reporting verb tagger can be employed for the analysis in the following sta ge of the materials development. Also, the integrative framework on citation by Coffin (2009) should be adopted as it lays a systematic analytic ground for further studies on citation across genres in academic writing. Moreover, due to some slight differences between A and B graded papers, future corpus-based studies on citation practice should constrain their corpus to one grade group

(i.e., A graded papers) in order to better describe the citation practice in this grade group. The inclusion of both A and B graded papers under the highly-graded papers might not be beneficial to the provision of a comprehensive description of citation features by good student writers due to some variation in linguistic features between the two groups

The proposal of the materials development and instruction on source use

My corpus-based investigation into citation practices of college student writers in their FY writing course relied on Coffin’s (2009) framework for citation which integrates multiple citation features under the unifying perspective of dialogic engagement. The results of the study revealed both similarities and differences in source use between the two sub-corpora of A and B graded papers which are source-based essays in a writing course at a Midwestern university.

Several shared patterns exist in citation practices by the two groups of student writers. First, both groups of writers use dialogic expanding and dialogic contracting resources of citation in their papers, but they tend to use more on dialogic expanding resources. For example, the students frequently select the named-author integral form in combination with the assimilation form to integrate external sources into their writing. In addition, they are also more likely to opt for acknowledgement verbs to report ideas from external sources. Secondly, both groups of student writers use citations for a number of functions in their papers such as position support, context establishment, and position identification although three out of eleven functions in the citation function taxonomy (i.e., knowledge building, technical knowledge, reference) are not present in both sub-corpora. In both sub-corpora, most of the citations are used with the position support function. There are also other patterns in the combination of citation features and citation functions in the two sub-corpora. For example, both groups of student writers use the

assimilation form and the non-integral form for citations with the context establishment function, which signifies the importance of the selected topic.

In spite of a number of shared patterns in citation practices between the two groups of student writers, there are some slight differences in source use between them. First, the group of A graded papers uses more canonical citations and a wider range of reporting verbs than the group of B graded papers. Moreover, although the analysis of citation functions was based on a small sub-corpus of six student essays, the close examination on placement of citation functions in the selected essays also yielded two important differences. First, the group of A graded papers has one more function than the group of B graded papers. Specifically, half of the student writers of A graded papers use citations to give definitions of a concept and a term in their essays, but no citation of this function type is found in the group of B graded papers. Secondly, the writers of B graded papers use ‘context establishment’ citations, which signal the importance of a chosen topic under investigation, more frequently than the writers of A graded papers. While the students of A graded papers often use citations of this type as a background of the topic in the beginning of the introduction, the students of B graded papers employ citations of this type throughout the introduction and other parts of the essay. These shared patterns and differences in citation practices between the two groups of student writers lead to some implications for future studies on citation in student FY writing genres and instruction on source use in FY writing courses.

Supported by the aforementioned arguments on the role of findings of corpus-based linguistic studies in language instruction for student learners, the findings of my corpus-based investigation into source use by the student writers of A and B graded papers give important implications for citation instruction in college-level writing courses in general, and for the

materials development stage of my project in specific. These implications can be summarized into three major principles for materials development and instruction on source use for college student writers as following:

1. Informed by the shared patterns of using more dialogically expanding resources than dialogically contracting resources in citations by the writers of A and B graded papers, teachers should integrate the concept of dialogism and a simplified framework of citation into their citation instruction in FY writing courses before showing students the patterns of source use in the sub-corpus of A graded papers. In this way, students can better understand the purpose of citation practices by the writers of the A graded papers, which is to create and maintain a conversation among cited authors, and between cited authors and the target readers. By being explicitly taught about different aspects of citation, students can see how linguistic choices might create different rhetorical effects in terms of dialogic engagement. They will thus gain more awareness about the relationship between citations forms and functions. For example, a citation which uses more

dialogically expanding resources (e.g., insertion, acknowledgement reporting verbs) will be more likely to invite the audience’s alternative views on the cited proposition by making it less committed. In contrast, the heavy reliance on too many non-integral citations and assimilation in one’s writing may create a narrative feel, making their writing less dialogically engaging and critical.

2. The presentation of the simplified framework for citation should include three features of citation (i.e., author integration, textual integration, reporting verbs) and explanations on dialogic functionalities of their sub-categories. Based on Barbieri and Eckhardt’s (2007) argument that frequency of occurrence in real language should be a crucial factor when

determining what to prioritize in language materials design and classroom instruction, further details for giving instruction on each citation feature are provided below: a) Textual integration:

 Introduce three different ways of integrating a cited proposition into one’s writing (i.e., assimilation, insertion, and insertion + assimilation) and their relative frequency use in A graded papers (i.e., that assimilation is the most commonly used over the others)

 Distinguish the three ways of incorporating external sources by explaining how each option of textual integration might have a different functionality in terms of constructing a conversation among cited authors and engaging the target readers into that conversation.

 Prioritize the instruction on the assimilation form and the insertion+assimilation form. While the assimilation form and the insertion form are quite

straightforward, more citation examples in the insertion+assimilation form should be provided in order to familiarize students with this textual integration type and its use.

 Explain when insertion is appropriate and why writers should avoid relying on insertion in writing their documented essays because the A graded papers mostly relied on assimilation citations.

b) Author integration:

 Introduce three options of incorporating an author or a source of a cited proposition in a citation. (i.e., author integral, general-author integral, non- integral) and show their relative frequency use in the A graded papers.

 Distinguish the three options by explaining how each option of author integration might have a different functionality in terms of constructing a conversation among cited authors and engaging the target readers into that conversation.  Provide citation examples which use the author-integral form and the

assimilation form for different rhetorical purposes such as position support, position identification, and credit because this combination of citation features is the most frequently used in citations by the writer of A graded papers.

c) Reporting verbs:

 Introduce two different aspects of reporting verbs with their sub-categories (i.e., denotation and stance) and their relative frequency use in A graded papers.

 Select frequently used reporting verbs in A graded papers for each sub-category to introduce to students

3. Citation forms should be taught with their corresponding potential rhetorical functions in academic writing. After being presented information about individual features of citation and the concept of dialogism, students should be introduced to different functions of citation in FY academic writing. Examples for each function type should also represent its common combinations of author integration and textual integration in the A graded student papers. For example, the ‘context establishment’ function should be illustrated with citations in both the non-integral and assimilation forms. In addition, students should be given examples of an attribution citation (i.e., a citation does not have any rhetorical function besides attributing the cited proposition to its author) so that they could avoid using citations without a clear purpose.

Overall, the findings of the corpus-based research led to the formation of three main principles for language material design and instruction on source use as presented above. The next stage is the re-analysis of the A graded papers for the materials development before the implementation of these principles and the integration of the corpus-based findings into the materials and instruction on source use for the project.