Abstract Previous research has explored the reasons for the overreliance on patchwriting in L2 writing. Fewer studies have examined pedagogical interventions designed to help these writers improve source integration skills, and these studies have mainly focused on teaching citation and/or paraphrasing skills. There is no research examining whether improving students’ accurate understanding of the source text and the vocabulary needed to discuss the ideas lead to fewer instances of patchwriting. The current study examined this issue in a quasi-experimental study. Sixty students in three experimental and one control group and their instructors participated in the study. Following a language use test, instructors focused on developing students’ accurate understanding of source information and the language needed to discuss the ideas. Results from an ANCOVA with language use scores as the covariate revealed that essays in the Experimental Group 3 received significantly higher source use scores on the source-based final exam. Further analysis showed statistically significant correlations between source use scores on the final exam and a lower percentage of source use and a smaller number of source use instances. In interviews, students characterized the intervention as useful but also time-consuming. Implications of the results will be discussed.

中文翻译：

---

提高学生的源整合技能：专注于阅读理解和词汇发展有用吗？

摘要 以往的研究探讨了二语写作中过度依赖拼写的原因。很少有研究检查旨在帮助这些作者提高源整合技能的教学干预措施，这些研究主要侧重于教授引用和/或释义技能。没有研究检查提高学生对源文本的准确理解和讨论想法所需的词汇是否会减少拼凑的实例。目前的研究在一项准实验研究中研究了这个问题。三个实验组和一个控制组的 60 名学生及其指导教师参加了这项研究。在语言使用测试之后，教师专注于培养学生对源信息的准确理解以及讨论想法所需的语言。以语言使用分数为协变量的 ANCOVA 结果显示，实验组 3 中的论文在基于源的期末考试中获得了显着更高的源使用分数。进一步的分析表明，期末考试中源使用分数与源使用百分比较低和源使用实例数量较少之间存在统计学上的显着相关性。在采访中，学生们认为这种干预是有用的，但也很耗时。将讨论结果的含义。进一步的分析表明，期末考试中源使用分数与源使用百分比较低和源使用实例数量较少之间存在统计学上的显着相关性。在采访中，学生们认为这种干预是有用的，但也很耗时。将讨论结果的含义。进一步的分析表明，期末考试中源使用分数与源使用百分比较低和源使用实例数量较少之间存在统计学上的显着相关性。在采访中，学生们认为这种干预是有用的，但也很耗时。将讨论结果的含义。