Efl undergraduate students’ perceptions of paraphrasing in academic writing = nhận thức của sinh viên tiếng anh bậc đại học về kỹ thuật diễn giải trong viết học thuật

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

EFL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’
PERCEPTIONS OF PARAPHRASING IN
ACADEMIC WRITING

Supervisor: Nguyễn Thu Hiền, Ph.D
Student: Nguyễn Thị Thanh Tâm
Course: QH2017.F1.E1.SPCLC

HÀ NỘI – 2021


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

NHẬN THỨC CỦA SINH VIÊN TIẾNG ANH BẬC
ĐẠI HỌC VỀ KỸ THUẬT DIỄN GIẢI TRONG
VIẾT HỌC THUẬT

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: TS. Nguyễn Thu Hiền
Sinh viên: Nguyễn Thị Thanh Tâm
Khóa: QH2017.F1.E1.SPCLC

HÀ NỘI – 2021


ACCEPTANCE
I hereby state that I: Nguyễn Thị Thanh Tâm, class QH2017.F1.E1.SPCLC,
being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements
of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper
deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in
the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance
with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or
reproduction of the paper.

Signature

Nguyễn Thị Thanh Tâm
Hanoi, May 4th, 2021


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my
supervisor, Mrs. Nguyen Thu Hien for her invaluable guidance and support
throughout the process. Her advice and feedback had a profound impact on my way
of conducting the study and writing the paper. Without her, the thesis would hardly
have been completed.
In addition, I am grateful to students of University of Languages and
International Studies (ULIS) for their cooperation. More specifically, I wish to thank
25 interviewees from the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education (FELTE).
Their active participation in the interview greatly assisted the data collection process
and was instrumental in the success of the study.

Last but not least, I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and
suggestions from my classmates, the members of class 17E1. Besides, the
completion of my thesis would not have been possible without the continuous
encouragement from my parents who always have profound belief in my abilities.

i


ABSTRACT
Paraphrasing is one of the skills that academic writers, especially EFL ones
struggle most. In order to enhance the paraphrasing skill of students, apart from
equipping them with a host of strategies, it is vital to examine their perceptions of
the matter first. Nonetheless, this has not been the subject of many studies. To
address this gap, the research utilized semi-structured interviews, whose data
indicate that the L2 university participants have fair knowledge of what
paraphrasing refers to and what acceptable paraphrases entail. However, they have
yet to develop full awareness of its purposes and some of them still made mistakes
when asked to identify appropriate paraphrasing versions. Regarding the
paraphrasing difficulties, limited lexical repertoire is the major one. Based on the
findings, several pedagogical implications are provided for teachers in the process
of introducing the concept and designing tasks for practice.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... i
Abstract .................................................................................................................... ii
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................ v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1

1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study ........................................ 1
1.2 Aims and objectives ........................................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope of the study .............................................................................................. 3
1.4 Significance of the study .................................................................................... 3
1.5 Organization of the study ................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 5
2.1 The concept of paraphrasing .............................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Definition of paraphrasing ........................................................................ 5
2.1.2 The role of paraphrasing in academic writing .......................................... 6
2.1.2.1 Purposes of paraphrasing ................................................................... 6
2.1.2.2 The importance of paraphrasing ........................................................ 6
2.2 Appropriate and inappropriate paraphrasing ...................................................... 8
2.2.1 A topic of controversies ............................................................................ 8
2.2.2 Classification of paraphrasing .................................................................. 9
2.3 Past research on paraphrasing in academic writing ......................................... 11
2.3.1 Students’ perceptions of paraphrasing in academic writing ................... 11
2.3.1.1 Students’ conceptualization of paraphrasing .................................... 12
2.3.1.2 Students’ recognition of appropriate paraphrasing........................... 14
2.3.1.3 Students’ perceived difficulties in paraphrasing ..............................15
2.3.2 Summary ................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 19
3.1 Setting of the study ........................................................................................... 19
3.2 Target population.............................................................................................. 19
3.3 Research design ................................................................................................ 20
3.4 Sampling method .............................................................................................. 20
3.5 Data collection instrument ................................................................................ 20
3.6 Procedure of data collection ............................................................................. 23
iii

3.7 Data analysis method ........................................................................................ 24
3.8 Ethical considerations ....................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................... 25
4.1 Students’ conceptualization of paraphrasing .................................................... 25
4.1.1 Students’ understanding of the concept .................................................. 25
4.1.2 Students’ perceptions of the purposes of paraphrasing .......................... 27
4.2 Students’ recognition of appropriate paraphrasing .......................................... 29
4.3 Students’ perceived difficulties in paraphrasing .............................................. 31
4.4 Summary........................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION .................................................................... 34
5.1 Summary of findings ........................................................................................ 34
5.2 Pedagogical implications .................................................................................. 34
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research ............................................. 36
5.4 Concluding remarks.......................................................................................... 37
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 38
APPENDICES....................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................ 51
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................ 61

iv


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ESL

English as a Second Language

L1

First Language

L2

Second Language

PKS

Plagiarism Knowledge Survey

v


CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The first chapter presents an overview of the research, which consists of six
main parts (1) statement of the problem and rationale for the study, (2) aims and
objectives, (3) method of the study, (4) significance of the study, (5) scope of the
study and (6) organization of the study.
1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study
Making use of source texts has become an indispensable part of tertiary
education (Carson, 2001). To illustrate, students have to compile information from
related sources for such writing assignments as evaluative essays, reports, article
summaries and critiques, and research papers (Keck, 2006). As a result, the process
of writing from sources, or more specifically, of “reading source text material and

transferring content from that reading to writing” (Hirvela & Du, 2013, p.1) plays a
key role in academic success. Given the ultimate importance of this “new literacy”
(Wette, 2017, para. 1), it has been a central issue in academic writing instruction
over the past decade (Carson, 2001; Choi, 2009; Keck, 2006).
Looking into the combination of reading and writing in academic contexts,
Barks and Watts (2001) have proposed the term ‘‘triadic model’’ which includes
‘‘paraphrase, summary, and quotation’’ (p. 252). According to this model,
paraphrasing, apart from summarizing and quoting, is a core skill for incorporating
source texts into writing that students need to develop, which has been
acknowledged by several researchers (Barks & Watts, 2001; Loranc-Paszylk, 2019;
Shi, 2001). The significance of paraphrasing also lies in the fact that it acts as one
of the commonly used plagiarism avoidance strategies in academic writing (Keck,
2006; Shi, 2004). As noted by Campbell (1990), the inability to paraphrase well
may lead to illegitimate use of sources.
Nonetheless, paraphrasing is, at the same time, “a complicated device for the
treatment of source text material” (Hirvela & Du, 2013, p.1). It is demanding in that
students have to make use of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies
1


(Khrismawan & Widiati, 2013), not only comprehending the materials and selecting
the suitable information for their writing but also knowing how to effectively
integrate that information into their own texts for the sake of the writing purpose
(Hirvela, 2004). This is a universal challenge (Howard, Serviss, & Rodrigue, 2010;
Keck, 2014; Shi, 2004), particularly for second language (L2) writers who “move
between dual (if not multiple) languages, cultures, and rhetorical systems” (Hirvela
& Du, 2013, p.2). Both studies and classroom observation have indicated that L2
writers struggle with this activity (Hirvela & Du, 2013) and often commit either
intentional or unintentional plagiarism when using source texts (Pecorari, 2003,
2008). One of the main reasons is their limited understanding of paraphrasing, as

confirmed by various studies such as those of Hirvela and Du (2013) and
Khairunnisa, Sutapa and Surmiyati (2014). Paraphrasing instruction, therefore, is
not simply a matter of helping students master a set of paraphrasing strategies. To
maximize instructional effectiveness, it is essential to investigate into how students
perceive the concept first as a way to help them build the solid foundation for later
paraphrasing practice (Hirvela & Du, 2013). Nonetheless, this research area has not
been fruitful with few studies exclusively digging into students’ perceptions
(Hirvela & Du, 2013). In light of these facts, the researcher feels the urge to conduct
a study entitled “EFL undergraduate students’ perceptions of paraphrasing in
academic writing”.
1.2 Aims and objectives
The researcher’s aim is to gain additional insights into students’
understanding of paraphrasing within the paradigm of academic writing. To be more
specific, their conceptualization of paraphrasing, appropriate paraphrasing as well
as their perceived difficulties was examined. In other words, the study sets to find
the answer to the question: What are students’ perceptions of paraphrasing in
academic writing? The three following sub-questions help to address the overall
question:
2


1.

How do students conceptualize paraphrasing?

2.

How do students recognize appropriate paraphrasing?

3.

What are students’ perceived difficulties in paraphrasing?

1.3 Scope of the study
In this study, the research focus is on students’ perceptions of paraphrasing
and more specifically, their perceptions of the concept itself and appropriate
paraphrasing. 25 fourth-year students of the fast track program were selected as
participants of the study.
1.4 Significance of the study
The study is expected to gain more insights about knowledge of paraphrasing
among Vietnamese university students. From the perspective the researched
university and faculty, the results obtained may become a source of reference for
support, guidance and any policy changes to facilitate students in paraphrasing and
avoiding plagiarism. Additionally, pedagogical implications for teachers are
provided to help them make their instructions more helpful in bridging the gap in
students’

knowledge

of

paraphrasing.

As

for

students,

any

previous

misunderstandings, confusion and ignorance may be brought to light, urging them
to learn more about paraphrasing. As a result, they can effectively incorporate the
voices of other authors into their own work, which is a vital step in becoming an
effective academic writer.
1.5 Organization of the study
The rest of the paper consists of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 2: Literature review – presents definitions of the key terms and concise
review of related studies.
Chapter 3: Methodology – explains in detail the employed method and procedure of
collecting and analyzing data.
Chapter 4: Findings and discussions – delivers and discusses results about
undergraduates’ understanding of paraphrasing

3


Chapter 5: Conclusions – summarizes the key points and conveys the implications,
limitations and suggestions for future studies

4


CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is devoted to the theoretical foundation of the study, namely the
concept of paraphrasing, appropriate and inappropriate paraphrasing, and past
research concerning students’ perceptions about these matters.
2.1 The concept of paraphrasing

2.1.1 Definition of paraphrasing
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary (n.d.) suggests that the word
‘paraphrase’ was first reported to be used in 1548. It stemmed from Latin
‘paraphrasis’ and Greek ‘paraphrazein’ which means ‘to point out’ (Loh, 2013, p.
7). Since then, it has evolved into a concept that is widely used in academic writing.
Although there is no consensus on a single definition of paraphrasing (Hirvela &
Du, 2013; Shi, 2012; Yamada, 2003), some common elements have emerged from
the work of different researchers.
The first element is the use of writers’ own words (Akbar, 2020; Howards et
al., 2010). This is evident in Howards et al.’s definition “paraphrasing is restating a
passage from a source in fresh language” (2010, p. 81) or Akbar’s one “paraphrasing
is re-delivering the ideas in one’s own language (2020, p.2). Together with words,
the change of form is mentioned by several researchers. Driscoll and Brizee (2011)
defined paraphrasing as “your own rendition of essential information and ideas
expressed by someone else, presented in a new form” (para. 2). Uemlianin (2000)
also stated that paraphrasing is “the reproduction of the information content and
structure of source text” (p. 349). The retention of meaning is the third element
added by Amoroso (2007), Davies and Beaumont (2007), McCarthy, Guess, and
McNamara (2009) and Shi (2012). They all reckoned that the rewritten and original
sentences should be essentially equivalent in meanings. Lastly, there are calls for
the necessity of citations (Campbell, 1998, as cited in Hirvela & Du, 2013; Shi,
2012; Shi, Fazel, & Kowkabi, 2018; Tabor, 2013). According to Tabor (2013), they

5


act as “a signal” to readers that the information presented was borrowed from
another source (p. 13).
Considering these common elements, within the frame of this research,
paraphrasing refers to the practice of restating a source text with proper citations,

lexical and grammatical changes while retaining the basic meaning of the original
source.
2.1.2 The role of paraphrasing in academic writing
2.1.2.1 Purposes of paraphrasing
The two main purposes of paraphrasing documented in literature are
“knowledge telling” and “knowledge transforming” (Hirvela & Du, 2013; Na &
Nhat Chi Mai, 2017; Shanmugaraj, Wolfe, & Wodzak, 2020; Shi et al., 2018;
Zhang, 2020). While knowledge telling refers to writers’ act of faithfully retelling
others’ ideas, often “at the level of item-by-item text generation” (Bereiter &
Scardamalia, 1987, p. 164) without further interpretation, analysis or evaluation
(Shanmugaraj et al., 2020), knowledge transformation happens when “writers use
source text material more substantively” (Hirvela & Du, 2013, p. 1) to achieve their
“authorial intentions” (Shi et al., 2018, p. 32). They can respond to the original
author, change the focus of the text or make inferred conclusions based on the
content (Shanmugaraj et al., 2020). In other words, knowledge telling demonstrates
the role of paraphrasing as a linguistic tool for incorporating outside sources into
one’s writing, and knowledge transformation reflects its role as a rhetorical tool for
conveying ideas (Na & Nhat Chi Mai, 2017; Shanmugaraj et al., 2020).
2.1.2.2 The importance of paraphrasing
The significance of paraphrasing has been acknowledged for several reasons.
First of all, it is effective in helping students avoid plagiarism (Barry, 2006; Elander,
Pittam, Lusher, Fox, & Payne, 2010; Keck, 2006; Landau, Druen, & Arcuri, 2002),
or the act of “appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words
6


without giving appropriate credit” (The U.S. Federal Government, 2000, as cited in
Anderson & Steneck, 2011, p. 90). This kind of academic misconduct is on the
increase in the field of higher education (Carroll, 2002; Ercegovac & Richardson,
2004; Park, 2003) due to the ubiquitous online writing resources accessible to

university students (Yamada, 2003). In countering plagiarism, several researchers
have proposed interventions that focus on paraphrasing and achieved fruitful results
(Elander et al., 2010). For example, Landau et al. (2002) and Barry (2006) both
found that paraphrasing practice enhanced students’ understanding of plagiarism
and the ability to paraphrase without plagiarizing.
Furthermore, good paraphrases improve the quality of one’s written work.
Because of knowledge transforming or “mean-making” purposes (Na & Nhat Chi
Mai, 2017, p. 3), paraphrasing can be used not only to blend the language of other
authors into their writing but also to develop further ideas from existing ones,
creating new understanding (Shi et al., 2018). To illustrate, writers can demonstrate
support and justifications for another writer’s view, point out any misconceptions
or present a contrasting point (Trupe, 2005). In this way, paraphrasing contributes
to the depth, coherence and persuasive power of a piece of writing (Na & Nhat Chi
Mai, 2017; Shanmugaraj et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2018). Evidence of this effect is
exemplified in Keck (2010), Petrić (2012), Sun and Yang (2015) and Yamada
(2003).
Furthermore, from pedagogical perspective, paraphrasing is a good indicator
of learners’ reading and writing skills (Li & Casanave, 2012; Mira & Fatimah, 2020;
Keck, 206; Wette, 2010). A successful paraphrase is the result of accurate
comprehension of a text and skillful ability to use the text to one’s advantage (Keck,
2006; Wette, 2010). Therefore, teachers can make use of students’ paraphrases to
collect evidence about their learning, as confirmed by one participant in Mira and
Fatimah (2020). As for students, a paraphrasing activity is a good learning
opportunity to practice close readings and writing from assigned texts (Hirvela and
7


Du, 2013; McCarthy et al., 2009). Research by Branch and Safashahr (2011), Ilter
(2017), Setiawati (2011), Stevens, Park, and Vaughn (2019), Stevens, Vaughn,
House, and Stillman-Spisak (2020) have proved that paraphrasing intervention

improved reading abilities of participants, including those with reading disabilities.
More specifically, students showed progress in identifying main ideas (Stevens et
al., 2019; Stevens et al., 2020) and text structure (Stevens et al., 2020) as well as in
recalling information of the text (Ilter, 2017; Stevens et al., 2019).
2.2 Appropriate and inappropriate paraphrasing
2.2.1 A topic of controversies
In response to the question of what constitutes appropriate paraphrasing,
researchers have made several attempts. The first milestone is Howard’s concept of
patch-writing, which she defined as “copying from a source text and then deleting
some words, altering grammatical structure, or plugging in one-for-one synonymsubstitutes” (Howard, 1993, as cited in Howard, 1999, p. 89). According to Howard
(1995), this simplistic approach of writing is closely linked to plagiarism. Many
years later, Pecorari (2003, 2008) took a step further with the study about patchwriting of L2 writers pursuing post-graduate degrees. In her reports, she
conceptualized patch-writing as a form of paraphrasing, viewing it “not as the
process of finding an independent formulation to transmit the ideas in a source, but
as a process of editing the source and changing its language” (Pecorari, 2008, p.
105).
Nonetheless, since then there has not been consensus on an operational
definition of appropriate paraphrasing (Roig, 2001) and the associated standards
(i.e., the degree of rewording and the allowed number of successive word strings)
(Henderson, 2008; Kennedy, Kennedy, & Muth, 2008; Powell & Teare, 2010). In
studies related to academic writing, researchers hold divergent views in how
acceptable paraphrases should be identified (Eberle, 2013; Keck, 2006). Some take
a harsh view towards any trace of the source text (Benos, Fabres, & Farmer, 2005;
8


Glenn & Gray, 2007; Shi, 2004). For example, according to Benos, Fabres, and
Farmer (2005, p. 62), “duplication of words and phrases, however brief, may be
indicative of plagiarism”. In Shi’s study (2004), a total paraphrase was defined as
having “no trace of direct borrowing of two or three consecutive words from source

texts” (pp. 178-179). Glenn and Gray (2007) agreed with this view: “Your
paraphrase should be almost entirely in your own words.’’ (pp. 15-16). However,
some others find a certain degree of similarities acceptable and have determined
appropriate paraphrasing in terms of the percentage of borrowed words together
with other factors (Pecorari, 2003; Keck, 2006). As for Pecorari (2003), writings
with less than 40% of borrowed words were free of plagiarism. He also commented
that issues such as word or phrase frequency also merit attention. Keck (2006)
likewise counted more than 50% of textual borrowing as failed paraphrasing but the
20-49% range as arguable cases; other factors such as the frequency of vocabulary
need taking into account. Others set no clear boundaries between appropriate and
inappropriate paraphrasing. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association regarded paraphrasing as a matter of ‘‘rearrang[ing] the order of
sentences and chang[ing] some of the words’’ (American Psychological
Association, 2010, pp. 15-16).
As previously mentioned, paraphrasing is a particularly challenging skill for
L2 learners. As a consequence, compared to expecting total difference from the
original in EFL students’ paraphrasing products, identifying appropriate
paraphrasing by means of percentage is more realistic and reasonable. In fact, this
technique has also been applied in other research conducted in similar settings, such
as Pinjaroenpan and Danvivath (2017) and Shi et al. (2018).
2.2.2 Classification of paraphrasing
To date, several ways of classifying paraphrasing have emerged. Shi (2004)
proposed three types of paraphrasing “exactly copied”, “modified slightly” - adding
or omitting words or utilizing synonyms for content words, and “closely
9


paraphrased” - changing syntax or wording of the original text (p. 178). As for Keck
(2006) and Roig (1999), there are two types: “superficial” and “substantial”
paraphrasing. While superficial paraphrasing entails minor modifications, namely

word substitutions, deletions or reordering of sentence structures (Keck, 2006; Roig,
1999), substantial paraphrasing involves major modifications of the source text
(Keck, 2006). Nonetheless, these abovementioned classifications, as indicated by
Marzec-Starwiazska (2019) and Keck (2006), involve a high level of subjectivity
with no clear cut-off points. Consequently, the Taxonomy of Paraphrase Types
(Keck, 2006, 2014) was created to solve the problem of setting specific criteria for
different types of paraphrasing (See Appendix A).
Keck (2006) first developed the taxonomy as she conducted a study on 165
L1 and L2 undergraduates at a university in the US. In order to identify their
attempted paraphrases in a summary task, two independent coders (the researcher
and another graduate student with experience in teaching higher education writing)
traced each orthographic sentence in the students’ summary to a sentence or
sentences in the source text using line number annotations in computers. As noted
by Keck (2006), this analysis method was also employed by Sherrard (1986), Shi
(2004) and Winograd (1984). In the next step, each paraphrase was coded according
to the following linguistic characteristics: “length” (in words), “reporting phrase”
(used or not used), “unique links”, and “general links” (Keck, 2006, p. 266). Among
the four features, unique links is the variable used for creating four distinct
categories, namely “Near Copy”, “Minimal Revision”, “Moderate Revision” and
“Substantial Revision”. By definition, unique links are individual words or strings
of words that only occur in the original excerpt and nowhere else in the original text
(Keck, 2006). By contrast, general links are words that occur both in the original
excerpt and somewhere else in the original text (Keck, 2006). Considering the four
types, “Near Copy” refers to paraphrases with almost no differences from the
original. “Minimal Revision” is used for paraphrases with minimal differences from

10


the original. Paraphrases with moderate differences from the original are called

“Moderate Revision”. “Substantial Revision” is to categorize paraphrases with
substantial differences from the original.
The taxonomy was further developed in Keck (2010, 2014). Noticing that
unique links are not adequate to distinguish between different types of paraphrases,
the researcher did qualitative analyses on 124 L1 writers and L2 students, thereby
finding shared characteristics and added other linguistic criteria, such as the average
length of copied strings and the types of structural changes made to the original
excerpt.
In this study, the Taxonomy of Paraphrase Types is adopted for two main
reasons. Firstly, it is confirmed by other researchers as “the most detailed and least
subjective division of paraphrase types” (Loranc-Paszylk, 2019, p. 117) and “a
reliable method for classifying attempted paraphrases” (Badiozaman, 2014, p. 16).
Secondly, it has been widely employed with or without adaptations in various
studies such as those of Almunawarah (2019), Badiozaman (2014), Choi (2012),
Injai (2015), etc. For the study purpose, the researcher use criteria for “Near Copy”
and “Minimal Revision” to evaluate Inappropriate Paraphrasing and “Moderate
Revision” and “Substantial Revision” for Appropriate Paraphrasing.
2.3. Past research on paraphrasing
2.3.1 Students’ perceptions of paraphrasing in academic writing
In the psychological sense, perception is defined as a “complex process by
which people select, organize, and interpret sensory stimulation into a meaningful
and coherent picture of the world” (Berelson & Steiner, 1964, p. 88). Similarly,
Barber and Legge (1976) stated that perception is “about receiving, selecting,
acquiring, transforming and organizing the information supplied by our senses” (p.
7). As there is a close link between one’s perceptions and their decision-making as
well as the output (de Oliveira et al., 2009; Hablemitoglu & Yildirim, 2008; Rogers

11

& Arkin, 1991), it is not surprising that in the context of academic writing,
researchers are interested in students’ perceptions of paraphrasing so as to find out
the relationship between it and their paraphrasing performance. In this part, past
results about students’ perceptions of the concept itself and appropriate
paraphrasing in the world and in Vietnamese setting will be reviewed.
2.3.1.1 Students’ conceptualization of paraphrasing
Review of literature shows that students have acquired good understanding
of what paraphrasing refers to (Khrismawan & Widiati, 2013; Mira & Fatimah,
2020; Ngan, 2018; Pinjaroenpan & Danvivath, 2017; Thadphoothon, 2019).
Nonetheless, not all students have awareness of the preservation of meanings and
change of structures. For instance, all the participants of Mira and Fatimah’s study
(2020) in Indonesia agreed that paraphrasing is a technique of using writer’s own
words to make the restated paragraphs different from the original. However, only
two out of 59 participants were able to offer the complete definition of paraphrasing
with the mention of the original meaning being kept intact. In Pinjaroenpan and
Danvivath’s work (2017), all of the subjects (university students learning English
language as a major in Thailand) defined paraphrasing as “transferring of another's
idea” (p. 50) using the students’ own words, based on their understanding of the
text. Indonesian advanced EFL students in Khrismawan and Widiati’s survey (2013)
shared the same idea and added the keeping of meaning compared to the original
text. Thadphoothon (2019) found out that the surveyed Thailand university students
successfully defined paraphrasing as the act of using different words and structures
while maintaining the meaning. English-majored students in a Vietnamese
university also have an accurate perception of what paraphrasing is (Ngan, 2018).
The interview shows that they are aware of the lexical, structural differences and
semantic similarities of the paraphrased text compared to the original one (Ngan,
2018).

12

Regarding students’ perceptions of purposes of paraphrasing, several studies
have been undertaken. Overall, it can be seen that students acknowledge the role of
paraphrasing, but only in complying with academic standards, not in constructing
or developing arguments (Badiozaman, 2014; Hirvela & Du, 2013; Khrismawan &
Widiati, 2013; Na & Nhat Chi Mai, 2017; Sun, 2009)
Hirvela and Du (2013) chose two undergraduate Chinese students as the
subject. Two instruments are think-aloud protocols which revealed students’
decision-making process while paraphrasing and text-based interviews which
elicited the memories of students about their decisions (why paraphrase, what to
paraphrase, when to paraphrase, etc.) when completing their research paper
assignments in an ESL composition program (Hirvela & Du, 2013). The result is
that instructions which focus on the linguistic aspects of paraphrasing shapes
students’ superficial view towards this activity (Hirvela & Du, 2013). To be more
specific, they did not see any of its significant values in their research paper writing,
apart from its usefulness in making their papers more linguistically and stylistically
diverse and appropriate (Hirvela & Du, 2013). Instead, they tended to embrace
direct quoting as a less risky and demanding way to use source texts without having
to worry about plagiarism (Hirvela & Du, 2013).
Khrismawan and Widiati’s research (2013) into Indonesian students shares
the same results with the above-mentioned study. Despite some variation, the
overall results show that the importance of paraphrasing is clear to all the four
Indonesian advanced students when they have to judge the extent of paraphrasing’
usefulness against the five-level scale from “very beneficial” to “not beneficial” as
part of the questionnaire. Nonetheless, being asked to tell about the purposes of
paraphrasing, they can only list the basic functional ones such as to avoid
plagiarism, to make the content clearer and to express the same ideas using different
wording (Khrismawan & Widiati, 2013).

13

In Vietnamese setting, data collected from analyzing the paraphrased texts
and interviewing ten second-year students majoring in English at a public university
in Vietnam revealed students’ limited understanding of the purposes of paraphrasing
(Na & Nhat Chi Mai, 2017). Although they are aware of its importance in avoiding
plagiarism, it never occurs to them that they can “engage meaningfully” with the
original authors or better convey their own opinions through paraphrases (Na &
Nhat Chi Mai, 2017, p. 10).
2.3.1.2 Students’ recognition of appropriate paraphrasing
Previous studies show that students have deficient or unclear views regarding
appropriate paraphrasing (Chandrasegaran, 2000; Hu & Lei, 2012; Khairunnisa et
al., 2014; Khrismawan & Widiati, 2013; Roig, 1997, 1999, 2001; Sun, 2009). In
Roig (1997), which asked students to compare the original texts and various restated
versions which were paraphrased to different extents (minimally, moderately, and
sufficiently) with or without citations, the findings indicate that the inclusion of
citations is the main criteria for L1 students in the U.S to identify whether a
paraphrase is satisfactory or not. In the first study, a version which was copied
verbatim lacked quotation marks and had correct citation was judged by 57% of the
sample to be acceptable (Roig, 1997). In the second study, there is a version with
surface-level changes and citation, and 65% of the students deemed this paraphrase
legitimate (Roig, 1997).
Concerning Sun’s study in 2009 which employed a two-layer paraphrasing
survey that comprise of nine paraphrasing scenarios, the most salient pattern is the
tendency of Taiwan university students to embrace patch-writing strategies as they
believe that accuracy of meaning compared to the source text is more important than
anything else. For the sake of keeping the original source intact, language can be
reused (Sun, 2009). Therefore, they show preference for superficial changes such as
using synonyms, inserting and rearranging sentences, instead of extensive and major
ones such as changing the syntax and combining (Sun, 2009).

14


In Khrismawan and Widiati (2013), the Indonesian university students have
no clear understanding of what appropriate paraphrasing entails. As a consequence,
upon completing the assigned paraphrasing task, they show lack of confidence in
their products, which is also reflected in their self-reports on the process of doing
the paraphrase, particularly when they draw on meta-cognitive strategies to monitor
their writings and evaluate their abilities (Khrismawan & Widiati, 2013). Similarly,
Khairunnisa et al. (2014) attributed Indonesian tertiary students’ poor results in the
paraphrasing test partly to their vague idea of what a good paraphrasing is.
2.3.1.3 Students’ perceived difficulties in paraphrasing
As a challenging part of working with source texts, paraphrasing has posed
many difficulties for writers (Howard et al., 2010; Keck, 2014; Na & Nhat Chi Mai,
2017; Shi, 2004). This part therefore focuses on their paraphrasing problems, which
are caused by internal factors, including their language proficiency and personal
characteristics as well as external ones, namely features of the source text.
To begin with, paraphrasing is the combination of two individually complex
skills, namely reading and writing (Wolfersberger, 2013). Consequently, language
competence is the key to paraphrasing success. In fact, researchers have shown that
that compared to L1 learners, L2 learners are at a disadvantage in paraphrasing due
to lower language proficiency (Bloch, 2009; Hirvela & Du, 2013; Keck, 2006, 2014;
Liao & Tseng, 2010; Milićević & Tsedryk, 2011; Pecorari, 2003; Shi, 2004).
Among the language problems, the most cited one is lexical problems (Abasi &
Akbari, 2008; Badiozaman, 2014; Bloch, 2009; Flores & Lopez, 2019; Hidayat,
2017; Liao & Tseng, 2010; Na & Nhat Chi Mai, 2017; Pecorari, 2003; Shi, 2012;
Wati, 2018). Students do not know the meanings of certain words in the text
(Badiozaman, 2014; Shi, 2012), have difficulties finding synonyms (Abasi &
Akbari, 2008; Bloch, 2009; Na & Nhat Chi Mai, 2017; Pecorari, 2003) and misuse
synonyms (Liao & Tseng, 2010; Wati, 2018). Another language-related problem is

limited comprehension abilities (Badiozaman, 2014; Flores & Lopez, 2019; Howard
15


et al., 2010; Hyytinen, Löfström, & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2016; McInnis, 2009; Loh,
2013; Pittam et. al, 2009; Wette, 2010). Students misinterpret the text (Howard et
al., 2010; Loh, 2013; Hyytinen et al., 2016), do not understand it thoroughly
(Badiozaman, 2014; Flores & Lopez, 2019) and find it challenging to identify the
main ideas of the original text (McInnis, 2009). Grammar also poses an obstacle in
Badiozaman, (2014); Liao and Tseng, (2010); Loh (2013) and Wati (2018). Loh
(2013) and Wati (2018) found that there are a lot of grammatical mistakes in
students’ paraphrasing.
Besides, features of a text, including the topic and difficulty level may
account for students’ failure to paraphrase well. As for the topic, one L2 student in
Badiozaman (2014) told that paraphrasing become harder when the text deals with
an unfamiliar topic. Liao and Tseng (2010) concluded that one of the top three
factors for students’ plagiarizing behaviors is unfamiliarity with the topic of the
reading. With reference to the difficulty level, Sedhu, Lee and Choy (2013), Sun
(2012) and Walker (2008) both revealed that low-readability texts prevent students
from engaging with them at a deep level and fully paraphrasing them.
Furthermore, personal characteristics should be taken into account. The lack
of self-confidence hinders students from paraphrasing the text substantially and
makes them rely on the source text more (Abasi & Akbari, 2008; Hyland, 2001;
Khrismawan & Widiati, 2013; Liao & Tseng, 2010). Hyland (2001) explained that
“After they mentally compare their texts with target ‘expert texts’, they may feel so
overwhelmed by the distance between what they are expected to achieve and what
they feel capable of doing” (p. 380). In other cases, the negative factors are laziness
and carelessness (Liao & Tseng, 2010) and lack of motivation (Pennycook, 1996).
In Vietnamese context, the questionnaire results of Dung (2010)
demonstrated that over half of the senior students find making syntactic changes a

challenge while comprehending source texts is not difficult for them. In contrast,
through semi-structured interview, Na and Nhat Chi Mai (2017) noted that
16


understanding the text is one of the three language-related paraphrasing problems
among Vietnamese undergraduate students. The other two are using synonyms and
changing the structure (Na & Nhat Chi Mai, 2017).
2.3.2 Summary
In light of previous research, paraphrasing is a challenging skill that is
impacted by the perceptions of students and various other internal and external
factors. Generally, students have a relatively good understanding of what
paraphrasing is and what it is used for; however, their inadequate view towards
appropriate paraphrasing, coupled with factors such as low English level, lack of
self-confidence and challenging text may account for their failed paraphrasing
attempts.
In spite of being a vital means of writing from sources which presents
considerable difficulties for students, paraphrasing has not been the subject of many
L2 academic writing research (Hirvela & Du, 2013). The handful of existing studies
have been devoted to examining L2 learners’ linguistic difficulties in attempts to
paraphrase (Na & Mai, 2017) through interviews, self-reports and analysis of their
writings. Notable results about the causes for their failure to paraphrase well such
as poor reading comprehension abilities, limited lexical and grammatical resources
have also been obtained (McInnis, 2009; Pinjaroenpan & Danvivath, 2017).
Nonetheless, their voices and perspectives about paraphrasing have hardly been
attended to (Hirvela & Du, 2013). In the context of Vietnam, paraphrasing is also
a seriously under-researched area (Na & Nhat Chi Mai, 2017) with few results
achieved.
This lack of studies delving into students’ perceptions of paraphrasing
highlights the need for more research into the matter. In addition, after conducting

informal discussions with fellow fast-track students, it turns out that paraphrasing is
a common concern in their current thesis writing process, about which they have a
great deal of things to share. Therefore, to address the identified gaps, this study is
17