Available online at [Link].

org
JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE
AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES
ISSN: 1305-578X
Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1), 976–987; 2022

The effects of paraphrasing on EFL Students’ academic writing

Thao Trinh Thi Tran a , Huan Buu Nguyen b 1

a
Can Tho University, Vietnam
b
Associate Professor, School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University, Vietnam

APA Citation:
Tran, T. T. T., & Nguyen, H. B. (2022). The effects of paraphrasing on EFL Students’ academic writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic
Studies. 18(1), 976-987. Doi: 10.52462/jlls.233
Submission Date: 18/10/2021
Acceptance Date: 23/12/2021

Abstract
Studies have shown that academic writing plays its significant role in enhancing students’ writing when learning
English as a foreign language. In particular, paraphrasing as a writing strategy of putting ideas generated in a
particular passage in different ways without changing the meaning of the original source, has been addressed as a
crucial tool in academia at tertiary education through which individual students integrate source texts into their
own writing. In order to succeed in academic writing in English, students are encouraged to understand how to
generate or restate the main points from a particular text passage while preserving the essential meanings of the
source. However, the question how paraphrasing influences students’ academic writing at a university in the
Mekong Delta remains unanswered. This paper therefore reports the effects of paraphrasing on English as a
foreign language (EFL) students’ academic writing performance. Using a quasi-experimental mixed-methods
design, pretests and posttests were conducted with one hundred and forty-three students majoring in English at a
Vietnamese university. The findings indicate that paraphrasing had positive effects on students’ academic
writing performance. Pedagogical implications for teachers and students are provided.
Keywords: academic writing; citation; source text; paraphrasing; plagiarism

1. Introduction

There is increased attention to the role of paraphrasing as part of academic writing for students in
tertiary education to communicate ideas to intended audiences or peers (H. B. Nguyen, Ho, & Nguyen,
2019). Therefore, in order to succeed in academic writing in their learning process, students need to
know how to integrate source texts into their own writings or evaluate the original texts. Paraphrasing
is known as a strategy of presenting ideas given in a specific text passage in another way without
changing the meaning of the original source texts. If this is not appropriately interpreted, the
paraphrased statement is likely considered plagiarism, copying the others’ writings without
acknowledging their credits. Paraphrasing is also seen as a way to measure students’ understanding to
conceptualize while grasping, engaging, and restating the ideas generated in the text (Keck, 2014;
Wagner & Sanford, 2010). Another view of paraphrasing is that it is not merely substitute of words by
using synonyms; rather, source texts should be written in a different structure, as noted in the

1
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nbhuan@[Link]

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

977 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987

literature. By doing so, this learning strategy allows students to understand the reading texts easier,
thereby developing their academic writing through their own styles while retaining the meanings of the
source texts. Several studies therefore have raised concerns about what and how of paraphrasing used
to ensure good paraphrases are obtained to prevent plagiarism when documenting or citing the source
(e.g., Blanpain, 2006). It is therefore important for students to understand the nature of paraphrasing
and plagiarism and know how to avoid this type of ‘academic crime’ (Bailer, 2015). However, in
Vietnam, little research has examined the effects of paraphrasing on student learning of academic
writing in English as a foreign language. This paper therefore seeks the answer to the question: “What
are the effects of paraphrasing on EFL students’ academic writing?”

2. Literature Review

2.1. Academic writing

There is a growing interest in how academic writing influences student learning outcomes in their
English language learning (Morley-Warner, 2010). There are several views of academic writing in the
literature. Academic writing refers to a type of writing used in tertiary writing courses as this entails a
sophisticated blend of generating and selecting ideas to produce a give text (Bailer, 2015). Another
view is that academic writing is related to producing and thinking how to communicate knowledge of
a particular subject or discipline through a set of rules or features to intended audience (Fulwiler, 2002;
H. B. Nguyen et al., 2019; Oshima & Hogue, 2007). These conceptualizations suggest that academic
writing serves as a guide that contributes to students’ academic success or writing competencies in
their learning process at college or university. In the light of 21st-century demands, academic writing
is an essential part of tertiary contexts and becomes a potentially critical tool for the growth of the
intellect of individuals and society (Bruning & Horn, 2000; Johannessen, 2001).
Academic writing is known as producing a given text by a sophisticated blend of generating and
selecting ideas (Bailer, 2015). Thus, academic writing can be viewed as a process of thinking or
reasoning presented in a logical order or proper argument (Khazaal, 2019). Academic writing thus
involves outlining, summarizing, and paraphrasing a piece of writing assignment with a particular
regard to style and correctness (Khazaal, 2019).
Based on these conceptualizations, for the purposes of this study, academic writing is defined as a
type of college writing generated by students to communicate ideas to others in an effective and
meaningful way.
As academic writing plays an essential role in students’ writing process, paraphrasing, as noted
below, is one of the most effective ways to help them succeed in academic writing.

2.2. Paraphrasing

There are several definitions of paraphrasing in the literature. Paraphrasing is defined as a strategy
of transferring ideas given in a specific text passage in a different way while preserving the same
meaning as in the original (Blanpain, 2006). This implies that its meanings are equivalent, but their
words and syntax are different. Paraphrasing can be interpreted as the task of presenting the meaning
of the text in a different form by rewriting, restating, rewording, or even rephrasing sentences to
convey the meaning as synonymous with the original ideas (Keck, 2006). Nguyen and his colleagues
(2019) point out that paraphrasing means rather rewriting the source texts in a different structure than
replacing words with synonyms. Paraphrasing does not merely substitute words by using synonyms;
rather, it is characterized by the use of different sentence structures (Blanpain, 2006). This requires

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987 978

students to generate new sentences in their own words while retaining the major ideas of the original
source (Morley-Warner, 2010; H. B. Nguyen et al., 2019).
More importantly, students may develop a better understanding of the proper use of source
information with acknowledgment of the author's work to avoid plagiarism by comparing their
paraphrased text with the source one (H. B. Nguyen et al., 2019).
For the purposes of this study, paraphrasing is defined as a process of restating statements in a
different way without changing the meaning of the original source text. By doing so, students will
develop their new understanding of appropriate use of the source text to acknowledge of the credit of
the writer in order to avoid plagiarism while documenting the source.

2.3. Plagiarism

Plagiarism in higher education has received worldwide attention; thus, various conceptualizations
of plagiarism are examined in the literature. Plagiarism is seen as “a failure to document…verbatim
material, paraphrased material… and ideas specific to an author.” (Russikoff, Fucaloro, &
Salkauskiene, 2003, p. 130). Another view is that plagiarism refers to “literary theft, stealing the words
or ideas of someone else and passing them off as one’s own without crediting the source” (C. Park,
2003, p. 472). As the number of plagiarized cases has risen in academia, paraphrasing has been
concerned as an effective pedagogical method to avoid plagiarism (Hyland, 2005; Keck, 2014). By
paraphrasing the source text adequately and appropriately, students are likely to increase their
opportunities to create their own words by source-based information but still keep the source meaning
(Wagner & Sanford, 2010). However, an inadequate paraphrase is likely seen as plagiarism. Therefore,
changing only few words in the original statement is not sufficient and such simple rearrangement
(using synonyms) is unlikely to reflect understanding of the information given in the original text itself
(Smalley, Ruetten, & Kozyrev, 2012). Instruction of appropriate paraphrasing partially reduces the
number of copying source text directly. Similarly, Park and Lee (2010) argue that paraphrasing is a
plagiarism-prevention practice toward Korean university students in writing essay tests. Likewise, the
positivity of paraphrasing is related to declining plagiarism (Roig, 2001). In Roig’s research into
plagiarism identification and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors, three studies
were conducted. In Study 1, six rewritten versions of a paragraph taken from a journal article were
instances of plagiarism. In Study 2, another sample of professors was asked to paraphrase the same
paragraph, it was found that 30% appropriated some text from the original. In Study 3, 26% of the
psychologists appropriated text from the original version. Taken all together, the findings from these
studies indicate the existence of wide differences in paraphrasing practices of college professors.
Another research reported the decrease in direct copying from the source texts after instruction on
plagiarism for L2 university students (Moon, 2002). In Barry's (2006) study, students first were
introduced conceptualizations of plagiarism, then a six-week practice of paraphrasing and citing
original sources was conducted. In the paraphrasing posttest, their scores were significantly increased.
The students engraved two more specific plagiarism elements (‘taking someone else's ideas’ and ‘not
giving credit’) into their previous definitions. Barry (2006) further contends that students' practice of
paraphrasing should be focused instead of providing to them raw definitions of plagiarism.
The above-mentioned studies have acknowledged appropriate paraphrasing as a valuable tool for
helping students prevent from plagiarism or academic crime. However, little research has been
conducted to examine the effects of paraphrasing on students’ academic writing, particularly within
the teaching and learning context in Vietnam. This current study therefore fills the gap in this area.

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

979 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987

3. Methodology

A quasi-experimental study using quantitative and qualitative methods was designed to examine
the effects of paraphrasing on EFL students’ academic writing. This type of design is the best-used
type of research to build up cause-and-effect relationships that can clarify connections between two
variables, and utilizing a quasi-experiment minimizes threats to internal validity (Fraenkel, Wallen, &
Hyun, 2012). 143 English-majored students at a Vietnamese university participated in both pretest and
posttest in this study. Participants were assigned into control and experimental groups. All of the
students in the experimental group were studying Advanced Writing II course using the textbook
Advanced Writing Skill II (second version) by Nguyen and his colleagues (2019). Paraphrasing
exercises are part of this textbook. Students are asked to restate or paraphrase the following extracts in
their own words:

Original statements 1. There is a need for more classroom-based empirical investigation

that specifically focuses on the actual impact of educational drama on
classroom interaction and students’ foreign language development (Belliveau
& Kim, 2013).
2. Teacher change is seen as an indispensable part of teachers’
professional lives (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

The students’ generated answers below reveal the difference between acceptable and unacceptable
paraphrases.

Unacceptable It is necessary for more classroom-based empirical investigation that

paraphrase mainly concentrate on the actual effects of drama on classroom interaction
and students’ foreign language improvements (Belliveau & Kim, 2013).

Acceptable It is necessary for more research into the effects of drama on students’
paraphrase interaction and their foreign language growth (Belliveau & Kim, 2013).

Unacceptable Teacher change is viewed as an important part of teachers’ professional

paraphrase lives (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
Acceptable Changes in instructional practices play an important part in teachers’ lives
paraphrase (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

The participants in the treatment group practiced paraphrasing exercises, whereas those in the
control group attended the writing course in class via other writing materials.
Pretest and posttest were administered to measure the effects of paraphrasing on students’ academic
writing. Since test-piloted step could benefit to save time in the data collecting process (Mackey &
Gass, 2005), 15 students were randomly selected to participate in piloting the test. The Cronbach’s
alpha for the piloted was 0.718, indicating the high reliability of the test for data collection. The
paraphrasing test was designed into two parts, including participants’ demographic data and
paraphrasing exercise. The second part consists of two levels of paraphrasing exercises: the sentence
level (four sentences) and paragraph level (one paragraph). On the sentence level, students were asked
to restate the sentence using their own words. An example is,

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987 980

The United States leads the world in its belief in romantic love-86 percent of American college
students say they would not marry without love (Levine, Robert, ‘Is love a luxury, 1993).
Similarly, an example for the paragraph level is
The findings from the research indicate that storytelling has a positive impact on high school
students’ oral performance. Many aspects of students’ speaking were improved such as fluency, lexical
resources, and interactive communication. Such impact is in line with the findings of several studies in
the literature (L. T. Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019).
The paraphrasing-sentence exercises were taken from the textbook ‘Advanced Writing Skill II’ (H.
B. Nguyen et al., 2019, p. 27), and the book named ‘Sourcework: Academic writing from sources
(Dollahite & Haun, 2011, p. 11). The paraphrasing-paragraph exercise was taken from the article ‘The
impact of storytelling on high school students’ oral performance’ (L. T. Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019).
The study was conducted in a fifteen-week-semester period in which the experiment lasted ten
weeks. Four criteria of VSTEP (Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency) were used as
scoring rubric to evaluate students’ academic writing pretests and posttests. For the purposes of this
study, six criteria, based on Nguyen and Nguyen (2019) as indicated in the study of source-based
academic writing, include (1) task fulfillment, (2) sentence structure, (3) citation, (4) spelling, (5)
punctuation and capitalization, and (6) vocabulary. A five-point Likert scale was used to weight each
criterion (1= poor; 2=average; 3= fair, 4=good, 5=excellent). The scoring rubric of paraphrasing is
detailed (Appendix 1). The participants' responses of both the pretest and post-test were first
statistically analyzed by using the scoring rubric of paraphrasing and then evaluated by two
independent teachers.
The quantitative data gathered from the pre- and posttests were statistically analyzed by the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25. Descriptive Statistics, Independent and
Paired Samples t-Test were used to measure students’ academic writing through the use of the
paraphrasing strategy. the Cronbach’s alpha was computed for the coefficient reliability of the test. In
particular, the Cronbach’s alpha for pretest and posttest was 0.727 and 0.768, respectively, indicating
the reliability of the tests for collecting data for the main study.

4. Findings

The Descriptive Statistics for tests were used to evaluate EFL students’ academic writing of the
control and experimental groups before and after the intervention. The results illustrate that the mean
score of the students’ academic writing in paraphrasing pretest in the experimental group (Mpre=
2.225, SD=0.843) is higher than that in the control group (Mpre=2.15, SD= 0.856). Also, the mean
score of the students’ academic writing in paraphrasing posttest in the experimental group
(Mpost=3.105, SD=.097) is higher than that in the control group (Mpost=2.018, SD=0.929). Hence,
these results indicate that academic writing performance differed after the study, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of students’ academic performance

N Min Max Mean SD

Pretest (con) 67 1 5 2.15 0.856
Posttest 67 1 5 2.018 0.929
Pretest (exp) 76 1 5 2.225 0.843
Posttest 76 1 5 3.105 0.97

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

981 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987

Valid N
143
(listwise)

An Independent Sample t-Test was used to check the difference in EFL students’ academic writing
performance between the two groups before and after the intervention. The results of the paraphrasing
pre-tests collected by each individual in the control group were compared to those in the experimental
group. Table 2 shows that the mean difference (MD=-.43539) is not statistically significant (t= -.766,
df= 141, p=.445). This result indicates that the initial levels of students’ academic writing performance
in the two groups were similar.
Table 1. Independent-Samples t-Test on pretest

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference
F t df Sig (2 tailed) MD SD Lower Upper
.194 -.766 141 .445 -.43539 .56864 -1.55955 .68877
-.768 140.336 .443 -.43539 .56655 -1.55546 .68468

An Independent Sample t-Test was used to check whether there was a difference between the mean
scores of students’ academic writing posttests in both groups after using paraphrasing. Table 3
indicates a statistically significant difference in students’ academic writing performance in the posttest
(t=-9.92, df= 141, p=.000). As a result, students’ academic writing performance between the two
groups changed after the intervention of paraphrasing.
Table 2. Independent-Samples t-Test on posttest

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference
F t df Sig (2-tailed) MD SD Lower Upper
.311 -9.992 141 .000 -6.57423 .65795 -7.87495 -5.27352
-9.983 138.212 .000 -6.57423 .65857 -7.87642 -5.27205

A Paired-Samples t-Test was run to evaluate the mean scores of academic writing by each aspect
in the control and experimental group after the paraphrasing intervention. Academic writing consists
of six aspects, namely task fulfillment (TF), structure (ST), vocabulary (Vocab), spelling (SP),
punctuation and capitalization (PC), and citation (C). Table 4 shows the effects of paraphrasing on
students' academic writing success of six aspects in the control group. The overall view shows that
there is no statistically significant difference between pretest and posttest in all six aspects, as shown
in Table 4.
Table 4. Paired Samples t- Test in the control group

Paired
differences
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Mean SD Lower Upper t df Sig (2- tailed)

TF .213 1.004 -.018 .444 1.840 74 .070

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987 982

ST -.173 1.005 -.405 .058 -1.494 74 .140

Vocab .147 .881 -.056 .349 1.442 74 .153

SP .453 1.398 .132 .775 2.809 74 .006

PC .160 1.139 -.102 .422 1.216 74 .228

C .080 .487 -.032 .192 1.424 74 .159

Table 4 shows that the test value of task fulfillment (t=1.840, df =74, p=.070) (TF), structures (t=-
1.494, df =74, p=.14) (ST), vocabulary (t=1.442, df =74, p=.1.53) (Vocab), punctuation and
capitalization (t=1.216, df =74, p=.228) (PC) and citation (t=1.424, df =74, p=.159) (C) illustrates the
low mean difference (about 0.1-0.2) and high value of statistical significance (p> .005). Thus, there is
no significant difference in students' task fulfillment, structure, vocabulary, punctuation and
capitalization, and citation. Although the different mean value of spelling (M=.453) (PC) is more
significant than the others, the statistical significance (2-tailed) of spelling is not significant (p=.006).
Similar to the others, this test shows no change in students' spelling after the intervention. It can be
inferred that after the study, students in the control group did not improve their academic writing
performance in all six aspects.
To determine the mean scores of six aspects in the experimental group after the study, a Paired-
Samples t-Test was administered. Table 5 illustrates how paraphrasing impacts students' academic
writing output in the experimental group. Generally, with value p=.000 in all of six aspects, a
significant difference was observed, as shown in Table 5.
Table 3. Paired Samples t- Test in the experimental group

Paired
differences
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Mean SD Lower Upper t df Sig (2- tailed)

TF -.910 1.083 -1.175 -.646 -6.879 66 .000

ST -.940 1.242 -1.243 -.637 -6.198 66 .000

Vocab -.731 1.162 -1.015 -.448 -5.150 66 .000

SP -.791 1.601 -1.181 -.401 -4.045 66 .000

PC -1.119 1.332 -1.444 -.795 -6.880 66 .000

C -.672 1.106 -.941 -.402 -4.969 66 .000

Table 5 shows that the test value of task fulfillment (TF), structure (ST), and punctuation and
capitalization (PC) was observed (t=-6.880, df =66, p=.000), (t=-6.198, df=66, p=.000) and (t=-6.506,
df=66, p=.000), respectively. Moreover, the different mean of all three aspects was considerable
(around -1). These findings reveal a significant change in students’ task fulfillment, structure, and
punctuation and capitalization between before and after the intervention. Likewise, the test values of
vocabulary (t=-5.150, df=66, p=.000) (Vocab), spelling (t=-4.045, df=66, p=.000) (SP) and citation

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

983 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987

(t=-4.969, df=66, p=.000) (C) demonstrate a significant difference of students in these aspects. At the
end of the study, students made changes in all six academic writing elements.
Paired Samples-t-Test then was computed to give a detailed view for changes by aspect of elements
in the experimental group. Table 6 depicts the mean value of both pretest and posttest by each aspect of
academic writing in the experimental group. Generally, the mean scores in the pretest were in the low-
score frame of language proficiency (M<2.5), whereas the mean scores in the posttest were about the
average (M= 2.5-3.4) and high (M>3.4) level of language proficiency. The mean score is classified
according to the categorization of the level of language proficiency by Oxford (1990).
Table 4. Paired Samples t-Test in the experimental group

n M SD
TF 67 Pretest 2.36 .829
67 Posttest 3.27 .770
ST 67 Pretest 1.90 .761
6676 67 Posttest 2.84 .931
Vocab 67 Pretest 2.27 .709
67 Posttest 3.00 .835
SP 67 Pretest 2.91 1.083
67 Posttest 3.70 1.231
PC 67 Pretest 2.39 1.014
67 Posttest 3.51 1.035
C 67 Pretest 1.52 .660
67 Posttest 2.19 .973

Table 6 shows that the mean scores of task fulfillment (Mpre=2.36), structure (Mpre=1.90),
vocabulary (Mpre=2.27), punctuation and capitalization (Mpre=2.39), and citation (Mpre=1.52) were
at a low level (Mpre<2.5). Only spelling was initially at the medium level (Mpre=2.91). However, in
the posttest mean value, students’ academic writing performance was at the medium level in task
fulfillment (Mpost=3.27) and structure (Mpost=2.84) and from medium to high in spelling
(Mpost=3.7). Even in punctuation and capitalization (Mpost=3.51), students’ language skillfulness
was upgraded dramatically. Only citation (Mpost= 2.19) remained the low level of the score; however,
the latter mean score is more than the former.
After the treatment, the difference in students’ level of academic writing performance between the
two groups was observed. While students’ level of academic writing in the experimental group
increased, students’ level of academic writing in the control group (without intervening paraphrasing)
remained the same.

5. Discussion

The findings from this study reveal that paraphrasing had positive effects on students’ academic
writing. Before the study, the initial level of academic writing performance in both groups was similar.
After the study, that level of students between the two groups had a significant difference. In
particular, the experimental group showed improvements in paraphrasing in all of six aspects of

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987 984

academic writing (task fulfillment, structure, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation and capitalization, and
citation).
The findings from this study are in line with those in the previous studies (Hans, 2017; Keck,
2014). These authors found out that paraphrasing could improve learners' writing and their foreign
language proficiencies as well. More specifically, in terms of vocabulary, this finding is in line with
that of a study by Choy and Lee (2012) who indicated that paraphrasing was beneficial to learners as
this strategy could lead them to extending their existing vocabularies. More importantly, citation of the
sources was acted as a tool for students to credit the work of the authors and to avoid plagiarism, as
noted in the literature (Keck, 2006, 2014; Tra, 2010). As such, paraphrasing could be seen an essential
tool for improving students' academic writing success.

6. Conclusions

This research sheds light on the effects of paraphrasing on EFL students’ academic writing
performance. After the study, students with paraphrasing intervention had positive changes in their
academic writing. Such effects of students’ academic writing included enhancing task fulfillment,
structure, vocabulary, spelling, punctuation and capitalization, and citation. Therefore, paraphrasing
can be included in academic writing courses.
Some pedagogical implications for students, teachers, and school administrators are provided. For
students, it is necessary to get them involved in practicing paraphrasing in their writing classes as this
learning strategy can help students improve their academic writing and feel more confident in their
learning process. There is a need for teachers to raise their awareness of the importance of
paraphrasing and integrate this potential strategy in academic writing courses. It is recommended that
school administrators should consider ways to support teachers in applying paraphrasing as a potential
method to boost students’ academic writing.
Further research with an experimental design within a longer period of time is needed to provide
insightful views into other uses of paraphrasing in relation to English skills such as speaking, listening
and reading.

Appendix

THE SCORING RUBRIC FOR PARAPHRASING (Adapted from Nguyen and Nguyen, 2019)
1
2 3 4 5 (Highest)
(Lowest)

Task fulfillment No main idea Some main Some main Several main All main ideas
included ideas included ideas included ideas included included.
Message of the
Completely new Many new ideas Some new ideas No new ideas
original totally
ideas added added added added
presented
No new ideas
added
Structure 1. Sentence 1. Few parts of 1. Some parts of 1. Some parts of 1. Completely
structure sentence sentence sentence new sentence
remains structure structure structures structure
unchanged or changed. changed. mostly changed.
2. Clear
incorrect.
2. Only simple 2. Correct 2. Clear meaning
2. Text sentences used simple and meaning
[Link]
fragments compound
3. Incorrect 3. Only a few grammatical
sentences but

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

985 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987

3. Incorrect grammar success in errors in error

grammar complex ones grammar
still limited remained
3. Some errors
in grammar
remained
Vocabulary The original A few common Some words (or Several words All alternatives
words remained words (A1-A2 words at B1 (or words at B2 being effective
level) changed. level) changed level) changed
precisely
Spelling Incorrect Correct in most Correct in all Correct in all Correct
spelling in common words common words, common words
simple words not in more and most
difficult words difficult words.
(allow 4-5 (allow 1-3
errors) errors)
Punctuation 1. Using 1. Correct 1. Incorrect 1. Only one 1. Correct
punctuation punctuation punctuation in incorrect punctuation
& Capitalization
improperly except within few cases punctuation
2. Correct
sentence ones
2. Incorrect 2. Correct 2. Correct capitalization
capitalization 2. Wrong use in capitalization in capitalization
capitalization most cases

Citation No citation Copy of original Changed Partially Correct

citation citation style, completed
but incorrect citation and
correct

References

Bailer, S. (2015). Academic writing: A handbook for international students (4th Ed.). New York: NY:
Routledge.
Barry, E. S. (2006). Can paraphrasing practice help students define plagiarism? College Student
Journal, 40(2), 377-384.
Belliveau, C., & Kim, W. (2013). Drama in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Scenario, 7(2), 6-26.
Blanpain, K. (2006). Academic writing in the humanities and social sciences: A resource for
researchers: Acco.
Bruning, R., & Horn, C. (2000). Developing motivation to write. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 25-
37.
Choy, S. E., & Lee, M. Y. (2012). Effects of teaching paraphrasing skills to students learning summary
writing in ESL. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 77-89.
Dollahite, N. E., & Haun, J. (2011). Sourcebook: Academic writing from sources: Cengage Learning.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in
education (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities.
Fulwiler, T. (2002). College writing: A personal approach to academic writing (3rd Ed.): Boynton/
Cook Publishers, Inc.

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987 986

Hans, D. (2017). The effectiveness of paraphrasing strategy in increasing university students' reading
comprehension and writing achievement. Pedagogy: Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1),
10-18.
Hyland, K. (2005). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johannessen, L. R. (2001). Teaching thinking and writing for a new century. English Journal, 90(6),
38-46.
Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrasing in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 261-278. doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.09.006
Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1
and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4-22.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2014.05.005
Khazaal, E. N. (2019). Improving postgraduates' academic writing skills with summarizing strategy.
Arab World English Journal, 10(3), 413-428. doi:10.24093/awej/vol10.no3.29
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Moon, Y. (2002). Korean university students' awareness of plagiarism in summary writings. Language
Research, 38(4), 1349-1365.
Morley-Warner, T. (2010). Academic writing is: A guide to writing in a university context. NSW,
Australia: AALL (Association for Academic Language and Learning).
Nguyen, H. B., Ho, T. P., & Nguyen, T. N. T. (2019). Advanced writing skills II (2nd Ed.). Can Tho:
Can Tho University Pulbishing House.
Nguyen, L. T., & Nguyen, H. B. (2019). The impact of storytelling on high school students' oral
performance. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(4), 68-83.
doi:10.5281/zenodo.1296378
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing. New York: Pearson.
Park, C. (2003). In other (people's) words: Plagiarism by university students-literature and lessons.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 471-488.
Park, M. H., & Lee, H. (2010). Exploring the effect of plagiarism-prevention training and the type of
plagiarism in an L2 essay writing test. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 10(4),
798-805.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd Ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roig, M. (2001). Plagiarism and paraphrasing criteria of college and university professors. Ethics and
Behavior, 11(3), 307-323. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_8
Russikoff, K., Fucaloro, L., & Salkauskiene, D. (2003). Plagiarism as a cross-cultural phenomenon.
The CATESOL Journal, 15(1), 127-142.
Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M. K., & Kozyrev, J. R. (2012). Refining composition skills: Academic
writing and grammar (6th Ed.). Heinle: Cengage Learning.
Tra, D. M. T. (2010). An investigation in paraphrasing experienced by Vietnamese students of English
in academic writing. (MA in English MA), Da Nang.

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.

987 Tran & Nguyen / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1) (2022) 976–987

Wagner, T., & Sanford, R. M. (2010). Environmental science: Active learning laboratories and
applied problem sets (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

AUTHOR BIODATA

Thao Trinh Thi Tran held a bachelor in English education, Can Tho University, Vietnam. Her research
interests include English teaching and learning and academic writing.
Huan Buu Nguyen is Associate Professor, School of Foreign Languages, Can Tho University. His research
focuses on teacher beliefs and changes in science education at a tertiary context. His research interests include
action research, teacher change, language learning, ESP, and curriculum planning. He is now involved in writing
teaching materials for ESP students at the university.

© 2022 Cognizance Research Associates - Published by JLLS.