Uncovering the Complexities in Writing from Sources from an Activity Theory Perspective: A Cross-Case Analysis of Chinese International Graduate Students in Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With a skyrocketing international student population from Asia at Canadian universities in recent decades, second language (L2) students’ abilities to adapt to the (inter)textual practices of their prospective discourse communities have received increased attention in L2 writing research. This thesis study aimed to uncover the complexities and heterogeneity inherent in L2 student writers’ uses of textual sources. Through a multi-case study design (Stake, 2006), I examined the textual borrowing practices of 3 first-year international graduate students from China studying Education at an English-medium university in Canada. Drawing on Engeström’s (2001) activity theory and Ivanič’s (1998, 2005) analytic framework of writers’ construction of identity, I answered 2 research questions: (1) What activity systems do students from China experience while learning to read and write in China and writing assigned papers for master’s courses in Education in Canada? and (2) What challenges do these students encounter while writing papers from sources and how do the students address these challenges, with what consequences in their writing and identities? The instruments for this multi-case study were learning history and text-based interviews with each student along with data from their written assignments and certain source texts, a learner profile questionnaire, and a reading-writing questionnaire. My analysis revealed tensions and contradictions within and between the students’ former literacy learning activity systems in China and their current writing-from-sources activity systems in Canada. These tensions and contradictions posed challenges for the students to (a) effectively process source information and accurately and appropriately present that information to demonstrate comprehension and critical thinking, evident in their patchwriting, direct copying, inappropriately quoting, transposing from Chinese sources, and paraphrasing abstracts as purported summaries of their own; (b) cultivate a genuine interest in what they wrote and manifest deep or extended learning in their writing, evident in their tendencies to cite secondary sources without reading the originals of those sources; and (c) take ownership of the knowledge co-constructed through dialogic interactions between the source authors and the students or accept their roles in shaping the double-voiced discourse in the process of writing despite their (imprecise) uses of quotations, paraphrases, summaries, and syntheses to do so.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».