METADATA

Title: Making Sense of Research: University Students’ Difficulties in Writing Academic Summaries

 

Vol. 8(1), 2020, pp. 16-34.

DOI: 10.46687/SILC.2020.v08i01.002

 

Author: Irina Ivanova

About the author: Associate Professor Irina Ivanova, PhD, is a lecturer in ELT Methodology at the Department of English studies, Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen, Bulgaria. She has expertise and extensive experience in pre- and in-service teacher training and supervision, and is involved in teacher certification and professional development. Her research interests and publications are in the area of ELT, teacher training and continuous professional development, academic literacy, assessment and quality assurance.

e-mail: irina.ivanova@shu.bg

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0216-7061

 

Citation (APA style): Ivanova, I. (2020). Making sense of research: university students’ difficulties in writing academic summaries. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 8(1), 16-34. doi:10.46687/SILC.2020.v08i01.002

 

Link: https://silc.fhn-shu.com/images/issues/2020/SILC_2020_Vol_8_Issue_1_016-034_19.pdf

 

Abstract: Reading and understanding authentic research is a fundamental skill in preparing MA students for writing academic essays, exam papers and MA theses. However, if they have not mastered the simpler skills of summarising, less demanding in terms of content and structure texts, it would be more difficult for them to work with academic discourse characterised by higher information density and complex reasoning and argumentation. The paper deals with some problems MA students experience in understanding academic research articles in English and summarizing their main points. The analysis of students’ summaries reveals problems related to differentiating between essential and less significant information, making sense of empirical data, understanding author’s ideas and implications. Students experienced difficulties in referencing, paraphrasing, reformulating and reducing the text in the summary. The findings of the study could be used for improving instruction to target identified issues.

Key words: summary, research, academic, MA students, problems

 

References:

Alexander O., Argent S. and Spencer J. 2008. EAP essentials. Garnet Publishing Ltd., Reading, UK.

Bailey S. 2015. Academic writing. A handbook for international students. Routledge, London and New York. 4th Edn.

Doykova I. 2017. The format of the PhD summary. In foreign languages and the contemporary higher education. Conference Proceedings. VIII International Scientific Conference. Medical University “Professor Dr. P. Stoyanov”, Varna, pp. 384–390.

Fitzgerald J. and Shanahan T. 2000. Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist. 35(1): 39-50. 

Friend R. 2001. Effects of strategy instruction on summary writing of college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 26, 3/24.

Campbell C. 1990. Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. Croll B. (Ed.). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 211­­-230. 

Choy S. C. and 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.

Gerova G. 2019. Bulgarian university students’ metacognitive strategy awareness. Lambert Academic Publishing, Mauritius.

Graham S. and Harris K. R. 2017. Reading and writing connections: How writing can build better readers (and vice versa). Ng C. and Bartlett B. (Eds.). Improving reading and reading engagement in the 21st century. Springer, Singapore, pp. 333-350.

Habibi A., Wachyuni S. and Husni N. 2017. Students’ perception on writing problems: A survey at one Islamic university in Jambi. Ta’dib: Journal of Islamic education. 22 (1): 96-108.

Hood S. 2005. What is evaluated and how in academic research writing? The co-patterning of attitude and field. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series. 19: 23-40.

Hood S. 2008. Summary writing in academic contexts: Implicating meaning in processes of change. Linguistics and Education. 19(4): 351-365.

Hyland K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Hyland K. 2007. Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing. 16: 148-164.

Johns M. 1985. Summary protocols of “unprepared” and “adept” university students: replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning. 35: 495-517.

Keck C. 2006. The use of paraphrase in summary writing: a comparison of L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing. 15(4): 261-278.

Kim S. A. 2001. Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals. 34(6): 569-581.

Kirkland M. P. and Sauders M.A. 1991. Maximising student performance in summary writing: Managing cognitive load. TESOL Quarterly: 105-121.

Landauer T. K., Foltz P. W. and Laham D. 1998. Introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes. 25: 259-284.

Lin O. P. and Maarof N. 2013. Collaborative writing in summary writing: Student perceptions and problems. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 90: 599-606.

Martin J. R. 1992. English text. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Pecorari D. 2003. Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 12: 317-345.

Phillips Galloway E. and Uccelli P. 2019. Beyond reading comprehension: Exploring the additional
contribution of academic language skills to early adolescents’ source-based writing. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 32(3): 729-759.

Rivard L. P. 2001. Summary writing: A multi-grade study of French-immersion and Francophone secondary students. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 14: 171-186.

Shanahan T. 2016. Relationships between reading and writing development. MacArthur C. A., Graham S. and Fitzgerald J. (Eds.). Handbook of writing research. The Guilford Press, pp. 194-207.

Shi L. 2004. Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication. 21(2): 171-200.

Sung Y., Liao C., Chang T., Chen C. and Chang K. 2016. The effect of online summary assessment and feedback system on the summary writing on 6^th grades: the LSA-based technique. Computers and Education. 95: 1-18.

Swales J. M. 1998. Textography: Towards a contextualization of written academic discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 31(1): 109-121.

Swales J. M. and Feak C. B. 2012. Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Uccelli P., Barr C. D., Dobbs C. L., Phillips Galloway E., Meneses A. and Sanchez E. 2014. Core Academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics. 36(5): 1-30.

Vassileva I. 2001. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing. English for Specific Purposes. 20: 83-102.

Wade-Stein D. and Kintsch E. 2004. Summary street: interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction. 22(3): 333-362.

Yang H. C. 2014. Toward a model of strategies and summary writing performance. Language Assessment Quarterly. 11(4): 403-431.