Post-secondary students across the curriculum are commonly required to integrate source text material into their academic writing. While writing from multiple sources occurs frequently in higher education (Rosenfeld et al., 2001) and is a cognitively demanding task, few studies have investigated the types of source integration used by L1 and L2 writers entering post-secondary, first-year composition (Cumming et al., 2016). This study compares L1 and L2 in-class writing from multiple sources to quantitatively investigate similarities and differences in (1) use of various types of source integration (e.g., citations, paraphrases, direct quotes), and (2) use of ideational units. The writing was also analyzed qualitatively to follow up on select patterns from the quantitative findings. Results indicated that despite lower holistic writing quality scores, the L2 writing, in certain respects, demonstrated more responsible use of various types of source integration compared to L1 writing. The analysis also revealed very low frequencies of synthesis writing for both L1 and L2 writing. Finally, the findings are discussed as they relate to simplified versus elaborative integration of source material in student writing.

通常要求跨课程的大专学生将源文本材料整合到他们的学术作品中。高等教育中经常发生来自多种来源的写作（Rosenfeld et al。，2001），这是一项认知要求很高的任务，但很少有研究调查进入初中一年级学习的L1和L2作家所使用的来源整合类型（卡明等人，2016）。这项研究比较了来自多个来源的一级和二级课堂写作，定量研究了（1）使用各种类型的来源整合（例如引文，复述，直接引号）和（2）使用概念单元的异同。还对该书进行了定性分析，以跟踪定量研究结果中的特定模式。结果表明，尽管整体写作质量得分较低，但与L1写作相比，L2写作在某些方面表现出更负责任的使用各种类型的源代码集成。分析还显示，L1和L2写入的综合写入频率非常低。最后，将讨论发现，因为它们与学生写作中的原始资料的简化与精巧整合有关。