Learners’ and Instructors’ Evaluation on Plagiarism, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing in EFL Writing

Öz

The present study aims to explore the EFL learners' and instructors’ evaluation on plagiarism, paraphrasing, and summarizing in the School of Foreign Languages in the EFL writing context. Participants are 3 (N=3) EFL instructors and 10 (N=10) students. As for the procedures, learners summarized and paraphrased the paragraphs. Comments of the participants for the paraphrased and summarized paragraphs were compared with the comments of the instructors. Data tools for the current study are Semi-Structured Interview, Annotated Rubric: Paraphrasing and Summarizing, Plagiarism Criteria, and Paraphrase Criteria. Data for the interview were analyzed by content analysis by creating codes/ themes from the interviews, and data for Annotated Rubric: Paraphrasing and Summarizing, Plagiarism Criteria, and Paraphrase Criteria were analyzed through descriptive statistics. The findings revealed a substantial discrepancy between students’ self-perceptions and instructors’ assessments: while students overwhelmingly believed their paraphrasing was accurate, original, and free from plagiarism, instructors identified frequent instances of near copying, minimal revision, and inaccurate representation of source ideas. Furthermore, the data showed that topic familiarity, prior educational experiences, and cultural perceptions significantly shaped students’ understanding of plagiarism. The study contributes to the underexamined EFL context in Türkiye by offering a multi-method analysis combining interviews, rubric evaluations, and paraphrase taxonomy classifications. Overall, the findings underscore the urgent need for explicit paraphrasing pedagogy, enhanced feedback practices, and institutional strategies that address both linguistic and ethical dimensions of academic integrity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Paraphrasing
• summarizing
• plagiarism
• EFL writing

İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenme Yazma Sürecinde Öğrencilerin ve Eğitmenlerin İntihal, Parafraz ve Özetleme Üzerine Değerlendirmeleri

Öz

Bu çalışma, Yabancı Diller Yüksekokulu bağlamında İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak öğrenen (EFL) öğrencilerin ve öğretim elemanlarının intihal, parafraz ve özetleme konularına ilişkin değerlendirmelerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın katılımcılarını 3 (N=3) EFL öğretim elemanı ve 10 (N=10) öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Uygulama sürecinde öğrencilerden belirli paragrafları özetlemeleri ve parafraz etmeleri istenmiştir. Öğrencilerin özetlenmiş ve parafraz edilmiş metinlere ilişkin yorumları, öğretim elemanlarının yorumlarıyla karşılaştırılmıştır. Araştırmanın veri toplama araçları Yarı Yapılandırılmış Görüşme, Açıklamalı Rubrik: Parafraz ve Özetleme, İntihal Kriterleri ve Parafraz Kriterleridir. Görüşme verileri, kod ve temalar oluşturularak içerik analizi ile çözümlenmiş; Açıklamalı Rubrik: Parafraz ve Özetleme, İntihal Kriterleri ve Parafraz Kriterlerine ilişkin veriler ise betimsel istatistikler aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, öğrencilerin öz değerlendirmeleri ile öğretim elemanlarının değerlendirmeleri arasında belirgin bir tutarsızlık ortaya koymuştur: Öğrenciler büyük ölçüde parafrazlarının doğru, özgün ve intihal içermediğine inanırken, öğretim elemanları metinlerde sıkça kopyalamaya yakın ifadeler, sınırlı revizyonlar ve kaynak fikirlerin hatalı yansıtıldığı örnekler tespit etmiştir. Ayrıca veriler, konu aşinalığı, önceki eğitim deneyimleri ve kültürel algıların öğrencilerin intihal kavrayışını önemli ölçüde şekillendirdiğini göstermiştir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de görece az incelenmiş olan EFL bağlamına görüşmeler, rubrik değerlendirmeleri ve parafraz taksonomisi sınıflandırmalarını birleştiren çok yöntemli bir analiz sunarak katkı sağlamaktadır. Genel olarak bulgular, açık ve sistematik parafraz öğretiminin, geliştirilmiş geri bildirim uygulamalarının ve akademik dürüstlüğün hem dilsel hem de etik boyutlarını ele alan kurumsal stratejilerin acilen gerekliliğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Parafraz
• Özet
• İntihal
• İngilizceyi Yabancı Dil Olarak Öğrenenlerde Yazma

Kaynakça

1. Abasi, A. R., & Graves, B. (2008). Academic literacy and plagiarism: Conversations with international graduate students and disciplinary professors. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.010
2. Adam, L., Anderson, V., & Spronken-Smith, R. (2017). ‘It’s not fair’: Policy discourses and students’ understanding of plagiarism in a New Zealand university. Higher Education, 74(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0025-9
3. Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., & Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 187–203.
4. Barrett, R., & Malcolm, J. (2006). Embedding plagiarism education in the assessment process. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 2(1). http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/23 Borg, E. (2009). Local plagiarisms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802075115
5. Bowen, N., & Nanni, A. (2021). Piracy, playing the system, or poor policies? Perspectives on plagiarism in Thailand. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 51, 100992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100992
6. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002-4
7. Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 211–230). Cambridge University Press.
8. Chandrasoma, R., Thompson, C., & Pennycook, A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive and nontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3, 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0303_1

9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342
10. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
11. Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002
12. Deckert, G. (1993). Perspectives on plagiarism from ESL students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(93)90014-T
13. Er, H. K. & Farhady, H. (2023). The effects of learning-oriented assessment on academic writing. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10 (2), 197-217b. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1222410
14. Er, H. K., & Küçükali, E. (2024). The Effects of Face-to-Face vs. Digital Feedback in an EFL Writing Context: Comparison of Two Turkish State Universities. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024..-1340007
15. Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2007). Plagiarism and second language writing in an electronic age. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070086
16. Fishman, T. (2009). “We know it when we see it” is not good enough: Toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright.
17. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
18. Glendinning, I. (2014). Responses to student plagiarism in higher education across Europe. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 10(1). http://ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/IJEI/article/view/930
19. Gu, Q., & Brooks, J. (2008). Beyond the accusation of plagiarism. System, 36(3), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.01.004
20. Hanh, N. V., & Duyen, N. T. (2025). AI-assisted academic cheating: A conceptual model based on postgraduate student voices. Frontiers in Computer Science, 7, 1682190. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2025.1682190
21. Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). “Why am I paraphrasing?” Undergraduate ESL writers' engagement with source-based academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005
22. Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation & second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.002
23. Howard, R. M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English, 57, 788–806. https://doi.org/10.58680/ce19959094
24. Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2012). Investigating Chinese university students' knowledge of and attitudes toward plagiarism. Language Learning, 62(3), 813–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00650.x
25. Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2015). Chinese university students’ perceptions of plagiarism. Ethics & Behavior, 25, 197–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.923313
26. Hu, G., & Lei, J. (2016). Plagiarism in English academic writing: A comparison of Chinese university teachers' and students' understandings. System, 56, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.003
27. Hu, G., & Sun, X. (2017). Institutional policies on plagiarism: The case of eight Chinese universities. System, 66, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.03.015
28. Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006
29. Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing and academic writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005
30. Kırmızı, Ö. & Er, H. K. (2023). L2 Undergraduate Writers’ Strengths and Weaknesses in Terms of Authorial Voice in Argumentative Writing: A Comprehensive Rubric-based Study. In E. Tokdemir Demirel, B. C.
31. Cengiz & I. G. Kaçar (Eds.). Disciplinary Academic Writing: Opportunities and Challenges, Chapter: 3, 69-97. ISBN: 978-625-367-289-8. Ankara: Iksad Publications. https://iksadyayinevi.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Disciplinary-Academic-Writing-Opportunities-and-Challenges.pdf
32. Kırmızı, Ö., & Er, H. K. (2024). An examination of the interaction patterns and argumentative quality in collaborative writing. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 18(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13924255
33. Kroll, B. (1988). How college freshmen view plagiarism. Written Communication, 5(2), 203–221. Leask, B. (2007). Plagiarism, cultural diversity and metaphor: Implications for academic staff development. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500262486
34. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
35. Lubis, F., et al. (2023). Analisis pentingnya parafrase pada penulisan artikel ilmiah. Jurnal Pendidikan Non Formal, 1(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.47134/jpn.v1i2.150
36. Mahmud, S., Bretag, T., & Foltýnek, T. (2019). Students’ perceptions of plagiarism policy. Journal of Academic Ethics, 17(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9319-0
37. McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2014). Summary writing in a Thai EFL university context. Journal of second language writing, 24, 20-32.
38. Merkel, W. (2021). Collage of confusion: An analysis of one university’s multiple plagiarism policies. System, 96, 102399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102399
39. Mohammad, T., Alzubi, A. A., Nazim, M., & Khan, S. I. (2023). EFL paraphrasing skills with QuillBot. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(5), 359–373.
40. Mudra, H. (2025). Pathways to near-zero plagiarism level in English research article writing. LET: Linguistics, Literature and English Teaching Journal, 15(1), 114–138. https://doi.org/10.18592/let.v15i1.16163 Panjaitan, N., et al. (2025). From plagiarism to paraphrasing. Teaching English Language, 19(2), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.[phone]
41. Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(4), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004
42. Pecorari, D. (2008). Academic writing and plagiarism: A linguistic analysis. Continuum.
43. Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. (2012). Types of student intertextuality and faculty attitudes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.006
44. Pecorari, D., & Petrić, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching, 47(3), 269–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000056
45. Pecorari, D. (2015). Plagiarism in second-language writing: Is it time to close the case? Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.003
46. Pecorari, D. (2016). Plagiarism, international students and the second-language writer. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 537–550). Springer.
47. Pecorari, D. (2019). Can plagiarism be defined? In D. Pecorari & P. Shaw (Eds.), Student plagiarism in higher education (pp. 12–27). Routledge.
48. Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2017). Exploring organization and connection in integrated writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 31, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.005
49. Polio, C., & Shi, L. (2012). Perceptions about textual appropriation and source use. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.001
50. Qurbonbayeva, D. (2025). Paraphrasing, summarising and synthesising in academic writing. https://smartlifeskills.co.uk/academic-skills-paraphrasing/
51. Rahmah, R. A. (2024). EFL students' paraphrasing strategies in writing research proposal (Doctoral dissertation, UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung).
52. Razı, S. (2015). Development of a rubric to assess academic writing. SAGE Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590162
53. Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication, 21(2), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303262846
54. Shi, L. (2010). Textual appropriation and citing behaviors. Applied Linguistics, 31, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn045
55. Shi, L. (2012). Rewriting and paraphrasing source texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.003
56. Song-Turner, H. (2008). Plagiarism: Academic dishonesty or blind spot of multicultural education? Australian Universities' Review, 50, 39–50.
57. Sowden, C. (2005). Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students. ELT Journal, 59(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci042
58. Sudirman, W. F. R., et al. (2025). Strategies to improve paraphrasing skills. Journal of Community Service and Empowerment, 1(2), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.69693/jcse.v1i2.36
59. Sun, X., & Hu, G. (2020). What do academics know and do about plagiarism? Ethics & Behavior, 30(6), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1633922
60. Sun, Y.-C. (2009). Using a two-tier test in examining paraphrasing strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10, 399–408.
61. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2011). Crime and punishment: An analysis of university plagiarism policies. Semiotica, 187, 127–139.
62. Wheeler, G. (2009). Plagiarism in Japanese universities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.004
63. Tardy, C. (2010). Writing for the world: Wikipedia as an introduction to academic writing. English Teaching Forum, 1, 12–27.
64. Tomas, Z. (2010). Addressing pedagogy on textual borrowing. Writing & Pedagogy, 2, 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.22
65. Thohir, L., et al. (2024). Effectiveness of integrating QuillBot for paraphrasing. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(4), 2112–2122. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i4.12780
66. Yavich, R., & Davidovitch, N. (2024). Plagiarism among higher education students. Education Sciences, 14(8), 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080908
67. Yusra, S. R., & Hanifa, R. (2025). English academic writing misconduct in the era of technology & AI. World Journal of English Language, 15(5), 220–220. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n5p220