rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Rubric trait: Paraphrasing

This rubric trait describes the skills students should gain during the paraphrasing exercises.

Turnitin Teaching and Learning Innovations Team

Use this handout with the Paraphrasing Practice resource. Provide students with this handout in order to participate in the exercises presented in the practice presentation.

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

This presentation may be presented as a game or guided practice.

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Provide this resource to students as a self-checklist to review upon completing a paraphrased passage.

Singular rubric trait suitable for formative and summative assignments that involve the paraphrasing of evidence or ideas. Add this rubric trait to an existing rubric or use it as is when asking students to paraphrase in their writing .

Download this .rbc file and then import it to your Feedback Studio account. You can then use this rubric as is or customize its content to suit your needs.

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

  • help_outline help

iRubric: Summarizing and Paraphrasing Rubric

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Banner

  • Library Guides
  • IRWC Interactive Rubric for Written Communication
  • Interactive Rubric for Written Communication
  • 5.6.5. Paraphrasing & Plagiarism

Interactive Rubric for Written Communication: 5.6.5. Paraphrasing & Plagiarism

  • Introduction
  • 1.2. Thesis
  • 1.3. Context
  • 1.4. Audience
  • 2.1. Information & Data
  • 2.2. Conceptual Knowledge
  • 2.3. Examples & Illustrations
  • 2.4. Sources
  • 2.4.1. Relevance
  • 2.4.2. Authority
  • 3.2. Evidence
  • 3.3. Specificity
  • 3.4. Creativity
  • 3.5. Criticality
  • 3.6. Reflexivity
  • 3.7. Evaluation
  • 4.1. Section
  • 4.2. Paragraph
  • 4.3. Sequence
  • 4.4. Cohesive Ties
  • 5.1. Clarity
  • 5.2.1. Mood
  • 5.2.2. Mode
  • 5.2.3. Narrative Form
  • 5.2.4. Voice (Active/Passive)
  • 5.4. Vocabulary
  • 5.4.1. Academic Vocabulary
  • 5.4.2. Technical Vocabulary
  • 5.4.3. Inclusive Language
  • 5.5. Literary Devices
  • 5.6. Referencing
  • 5.6.1. Citations
  • 5.6.2. Reference List
  • 5.6.3. Quotations
  • 5.6.4. Application
  • 5.7. Formatting
  • 5.7.1. Font
  • 5.7.2. Spacing
  • 5.8. Length
  • 6.1. Sentences
  • 6.1.1. Fragments
  • 6.1.2. Run-on Sentences
  • 6.1.3. Agreement
  • 6.2. Word Classes
  • 6.2.1. Pronouns
  • 6.2.2. Prepositions
  • 6.2.3. Articles
  • 6.2.4. Conjunctions
  • 7.1. Spelling
  • 7.2. Punctuation
  • 7.2.1. Apostrophes
  • 7.2.2. Full Stops
  • 7.2.3. Capitalisation
  • 7.2.4. Quotation Marks
  • 7.2.5. Commas & Colons
  • 7.2.6. Abbreviations
  • 7.2.7. Other (e.g., Hyphens)
  • 7.3. Editing
  • Persuasive Essay
  • Reflective Essay
  • For Lecturers

Definition (formal)

Paraphrasing is the re-writing of someone else’s content, idea or concepts in your own words. Plagiarism is the direct copying of someone else’s content, ideas or concepts without changing the original words or acknowledging the source.

Paraphrasing : Did you get the gist of it?

Plagiarising : Did you copy it?

For example, the Persuasive Essay Example avoids plagiarising Weinberg’s idea by using quotation marks and a citation to acknowledge the source of the quote:

 " Genes do not fix behaviour . . . they establish a range of possible reactions to the range of possible experiences that the environment can provide" (Weinberg, 1989, p. 101).

The direct quote could have been paraphrased as follows:

Weinberg, (1989) suggests that the expression of genes is influenced by environmental factors.

Resources(textbook)

Refer to the  textbook pages and sections to improve your knowledge and understanding of the criterion.

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Resources (web)

Click on the links to access online resources to improve your knowledge and understanding of the criterion.

  • Paraphrasing and Summarising
  • << Previous: 5.6.4. Application
  • Next: 5.7. Formatting >>
  • Last Updated: Sep 7, 2023 2:21 PM
  • URL: https://libguides.jcu.edu.au/irwc

Acknowledgement of Country

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing

OWL logo

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

This handout is intended to help you become more comfortable with the uses of and distinctions among quotations, paraphrases, and summaries. This handout compares and contrasts the three terms, gives some pointers, and includes a short excerpt that you can use to practice these skills.

What are the differences among quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing?

These three ways of incorporating other writers' work into your own writing differ according to the closeness of your writing to the source writing.

Quotations must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of the source. They must match the source document word for word and must be attributed to the original author.

Paraphrasing involves putting a passage from source material into your own words. A paraphrase must also be attributed to the original source. Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the original passage, taking a somewhat broader segment of the source and condensing it slightly.

Summarizing involves putting the main idea(s) into your own words, including only the main point(s). Once again, it is necessary to attribute summarized ideas to the original source. Summaries are significantly shorter than the original and take a broad overview of the source material.

Why use quotations, paraphrases, and summaries?

Quotations, paraphrases, and summaries serve many purposes. You might use them to:

  • Provide support for claims or add credibility to your writing
  • Refer to work that leads up to the work you are now doing
  • Give examples of several points of view on a subject
  • Call attention to a position that you wish to agree or disagree with
  • Highlight a particularly striking phrase, sentence, or passage by quoting the original
  • Distance yourself from the original by quoting it in order to cue readers that the words are not your own
  • Expand the breadth or depth of your writing

Writers frequently intertwine summaries, paraphrases, and quotations. As part of a summary of an article, a chapter, or a book, a writer might include paraphrases of various key points blended with quotations of striking or suggestive phrases as in the following example:

In his famous and influential work The Interpretation of Dreams , Sigmund Freud argues that dreams are the "royal road to the unconscious" (page #), expressing in coded imagery the dreamer's unfulfilled wishes through a process known as the "dream-work" (page #). According to Freud, actual but unacceptable desires are censored internally and subjected to coding through layers of condensation and displacement before emerging in a kind of rebus puzzle in the dream itself (page #).

How to use quotations, paraphrases, and summaries

Practice summarizing the essay found here , using paraphrases and quotations as you go. It might be helpful to follow these steps:

  • Read the entire text, noting the key points and main ideas.
  • Summarize in your own words what the single main idea of the essay is.
  • Paraphrase important supporting points that come up in the essay.
  • Consider any words, phrases, or brief passages that you believe should be quoted directly.

There are several ways to integrate quotations into your text. Often, a short quotation works well when integrated into a sentence. Longer quotations can stand alone. Remember that quoting should be done only sparingly; be sure that you have a good reason to include a direct quotation when you decide to do so. You'll find guidelines for citing sources and punctuating citations at our documentation guide pages.

Developing a comprehensive plagiarism assessment rubric

  • Published: 05 November 2022
  • Volume 28 , pages 5893–5919, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

  • Moohebat Shoyukhi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5224-7705 1 ,
  • Paul Hubert Vossen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0056-7106 2 ,
  • Abdol Hossein Ahmadi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2137-076X 3 ,
  • Reza Kafipour   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9906-7242 4 &
  • Kyle Albert Beattie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9404-4394 5  

557 Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Developing a Comprehensive Plagiarism Assessment Rubric: Defining “plagiarism” is not simple, and its complexity is too seldom appreciated. This article offers a comprehensive plagiarism assessment rubric from a four-year study of analyzing students’ plagiarism. From qualitative analyses of 120 students’ paraphrase samples, we identified seven plagiarism dimensions and employed a five-point Likert-scale to rank each dimension’s severity. Then, we enlisted editors, reviewers, and research supervisors to refine the severity of the plagiarism dimensions to articulate a plagiarism spectrum. We produced a Plagiarism Scoring Rubric to categorize 127 plagiarism combinations out of the seven plagiarism dimensions’ composites. Finally, we described how the Plagiarism Scoring Rubric, accompanied by the severity indices, supports instructors in scoring students’ plagiarism and enables students to understand proper crediting of prior work better when citing and paraphrasing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Data availability

1. Appendix A: https://figshare.com/s/67c74cb3425e81613083

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702742

2. Appendix B: https://figshare.com/s/a8a16a13e8c04f9da334

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702781

3. Appendix C: https://figshare.com/s/56e2cab50fa3d846c2e3

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702973

4. Appendix D: https://figshare.com/s/35ac0193a3b8b70de44a

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14702985

5. Plagiarism Composite Severity Calculation

https://figshare.com/s/e4c80d0884c0cb5b7186

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15052890

6. A Model of Plagiarism based on Corpus Severities and Probabilities

https://figshare.com/s/8455fab321a41e6a4de2

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15054159

While our research applies to both students’ and researchers’ textual plagiarism, this paper focuses on student plagiarism because that is the source at which the plagiarism that editors and reviewers encounter ultimately begins.

In linguistic studies, L1 and L2 respectively refer to first and second language learners.

English as a Foreign Language

In this section, Student refers to “student participants” who voluntarily took part in three task cycles and produced writing or paraphrasing corpora. Reviewers, editors, and research supervisors refer to “reviewer participants” who took the survey. “Expert reviewers” refers to those outside the study who provided feedback on the survey without taking the survey to be counted as a data point.

Abbreviations

in linguistic studies, L1 and L2 respectively refer to the first and second language learners

Ahmed, R., & Abdu, A. K. (2021). Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 7 (1), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911245 .

Al-Sharah, N., Khoury, O., Abd Hamid, J., Ariffin, I. A., & Tham, J. (2021). Jordanian f EFL learners: What makes a foreign language teacher effective?. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 7 (2), 112–124. https://ejal.info/menuscript/index.php/ejal/article/view/110 .

Allen, HW, & Goodspeed, L. (2016). Facilitating foreign language writing development through textual borrowing. http://works.bepress.com/heatherwillisallen/61/ .

Amsberry, D. (2009). Deconstructing plagiarism: International students and textual borrowing practices. The Reference Librarian , 51 (1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763870903362183 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Brückner, M. (2017). Using rubrics to improve teaching performance: a review of recent literature. Journal of Education Naresuan University , 19 (4), 293–307.

Google Scholar  

Budianto, A., Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2022). Summaries writing to enhance reading comprehension: Systematic literature review from 2014 to 2021. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 8 (1), 149–161. https://ejal.info/menuscript/index.php/ejal/article/view/175 .

Campbell, C. (1990). Writing with others’ words: Using background reading text in academic compositions . Cambridge University Press, pp 211–230. Cambridge Applied Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.018 .

Creswell, J W, & Creswell, J D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage publications.

Crusan, D. (2010). Assessment in the second language writing classroom . University of Michigan Press https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.770334 .

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 .

Ďurišová, M, Kucharčíková, A, & Tokarčíková, E. (2015). Assessment of higher education teaching outcomes (quality of higher education). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences , 174 , 2497–2502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.922 .

Fazel, I, & Kowkabi, N. (2014). Students’ source misuse in language classrooms: Sharing experiences. TESL Canada Journal , 31 (1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v31i1.1168 .

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.

Fulcher, G. (1987). Tests of oral performance: the need for data-based criteria. ELT Journal , 41 (4), 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/41.4.287 .

Gebril, A, & Plakans, L. (2016). Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 24 , 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.001 .

Harwood, N. (2010). Research-based materials to demystify academic citation for postgraduates. In N Harwood (Ed.) English language teaching materials: Theory and practice (pp. 301–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harwood, N, & Petrić, B. (2012). Performance in the citing behavior of two student writers. Written Communication , 29 (1), 55–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311424133 .

Heitman, E, & Litewka, S. (2011). International perspectives on plagiarism and considerations for teaching international trainees. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations , 29 (1), 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.09.014 .

Henderson, S. (2015). Textual borrowing in an english for academic purposes class: Knowledge. PhD thesis, practices and beliefs. (A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy), University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/5463/HendersonSallyJ2015PhD.pdf?sequence=1isAllowed=y .

Hima, A, & Saputro, T. (2017). Developing scoring rubric: do the students need it?. ELT Echo : The Journal of English Language Teaching in Foreign Language Context , 2 (2), 101. https://doi.org/10.24235/eltecho.v2i2.2170 .

Hirvela, A, & Du, Q. (2013). “why am i paraphrasing?”: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12 (2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005 .

Horbach, S, & Halffman, W. (2017). The extent and causes of academic text recycling or ‘self-plagiarism’ , vol 48. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004 .

Howard, R M. (1995). Plagiarisms, authorships, and the academic death penalty. College English , 57 (7), 788–806. https://doi.org/10.2307/378403 .

Hyland, F. (2001). Dealing with plagiarism when giving feedback. ELT Journal , 55 (4), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.4.375 .

iThenticate.com. (2013). Survey summary: Research ethics: Decoding plagiarism and attribution in research. http://www.ithenticate.com/resources/papers/decoding-plagiarism .

Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and Identity . John Benjamins Publishing Company https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.5 .

Jahic, A. (2011). An insight into textual borrowing practices of university-level students in bosnia and herzegovina. Journal of Academic Writing , 1 (1), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v1i1.11 .

Janssen, G, Meier, V, & Trace, J. (2015). Building a better rubric: Mixed methods rubric revision. Assessing Writing , 26 , 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.002 .

Johns, AM. (1985). Summary protocols of “underprepared” and “adept” university students: replications and distortions of the original. Language Learning , 35 (4), 495–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb00358.x .

Johns, A M, & Mayes, P. (1990). An analysis of summary protocols of university ESL students. Applied Linguistics , 11 (3), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.3.253 .

Kadam, P, & Bhalerao, S. (2010). Sample size calculation. International Journal of Ayurveda Research , 1 (1), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7788.59946 .

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.006 .

Keck, C. (2007). University student textual borrowing strategies. (3273746 ph. PhD thesis, D.), Northern Arizona University, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database, http://search.proquest.com/docview/304754256?accountid=41313 .

Keck, C. (2010). How do university students attempt to avoid plagiarism? a grammatical analysis of undergraduate paraphrasing strategies. Writing & Pedagogy , 2 (2), 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v2i2.193 .

Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of l1 and l2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing , 25 , 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005 .

Krosnick, JA, & Presser, S. (2010). Question and Questionnaire Design. In Handbook of Survey Research (2nd Edition) . In P. Marsden J. Wright (Eds.) Emerald Group Publishing, pp 263–313. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/2010/2010HandbookofSurveyResearch.pdf .

Leask, B. (2006). 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 .

Li, Y, & Casanave, CP. (2012). Two first-year students’ strategies for writing from sources: Patchwriting or plagiarism?. Journal of Second Language Writing , 21 (2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.002 .

Liao, M T, & Tseng, CY. (2010). Students’ behaviors and views of paraphrasing and inappropriate textual borrowing in an efl academic setting. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics , 14 (2), 187–211.

Lustyantie, N., Suriyati, Y., Isnan, F. N., & Yudha, R. P. (2022). The effect of cognitive style, critical thinking, and digital literature on argumentative writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice , 22 (1), 27–35.  https://www.jestp.com/index.php/estp/article/view/1549.

Marzec-Stawiarska, MR. (2019). A search for paraphrasing and plagiarism avoidance strategies in the context of writing from sources in a foreign language pp 115–135. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.31.894 .

McInnis, L. (2009). Analyzing english l1 and l2 paraphrasing strategies through concurrent verbal report and stimulated recall protocols (doctoral dissertation). PhD thesis, Canada. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/18105 .

Mirahmadizadeh, A, Delam, H, Seif, M, & Bahrami, R. (2018). Designing, constructing, and analyzing likert scale data. Journal of Education and Community Health , 5 (3), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.21859/jech.5.3.63 .

Moniz, R, Fine, J, & Bliss, L. (2008). The effectiveness of direct-instruction and student-centered teaching methods on students’ functional understanding of plagiarism. College & Undergraduate Libraries , 15 (3), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310802258174 .

Nguyen, K. D., & Nguyen, U. H. T. (2021). Common errors in writing of EFL sophomores in a context of the mekong delta. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 7 (2), 46–57.  https://ejal.info/menuscript/index.php/ejal/article/view/42.

Nuhfer, E, Cogan, C, Kloock, C, Wood, G, Goodman, A, Zayas Delgado, N, & Wheeler, C. (2016). Using a concept inventory to assess the reasoning component of citizen-level science literacy: Results from a 17,000-student study. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 17 (1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1036 ,.

Nuhfer, EB. (2001). Table of contents. The National Teaching & Learning Forum , 10 (5), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.10059 .

Oshima A, & Hogue A. (1999). Writing Academic English. v. 1, Longman. https://books.google.com/books?id=XNGWQgAACAAJ .

Park, C. (2003). In other (people’s) words: plagiarism by university students–literature and lessons. 28(5)471–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301677 .

Pecorari, D. (2003). Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing, (Vol. 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.004 .

Pecorari, D. (2006). Visible and occluded citation features in postgraduate second-language writing. English for Specific Purposes , 25 (1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2005.04.004 .

Pecorari, D, & Petrić, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing, (Vol. 47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000056 ,.

Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly , 30 (2), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588141 .

Petersen, S C, McMahon, J M, McFarlane, H G, Gillen, C M, & Itagaki, H. (2020). Mini-review - teaching writing in the undergraduate neuroscience curriculum: Its importance and best practices. Neuroscience Letters , 737 , 135302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2020.135302 .

Petrić, B, & Harwood, N. (2013). Task requirements, task representation, and self-reported citation functions: an exploratory study of a successful l2 student’s writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 12 (2), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2013.01.002 .

Popham, WJ. (1997). What’s wrong-and what’s right-with rubrics. Educational leadership , 55 (2), 72–75.

Rakedzon, T, & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2017). To make a long story short: A rubric for assessing graduate students’ academic and popular science writing skills. Assessing Writing , 32 , 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.12.004 .

Raposo Rivas, M, & Sarceda Gorgojo, C. (2011). El trabajo en las aulas con perspectiva europea: medios y recursos para el aprendizaje autónomo. [work in the classrooms with european perspective: materials and resources for autonomus learning] http://hdl.handle.net/10347/23144 .

Razi, S. (2015). Development of a rubric to assess academic writing incorporating plagiarism detectors. SAGE Open 5(2).

Reddy, Y M, & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment &, Evaluation in Higher Education , 35 (4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859 .

Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports , 84 (3), 973–982. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.84.3.973 .

Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society , 24 (1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018388 .

Shi, L. (2004). Textual borrowing in second-language writing. Written Communication , 21 (2), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088303262846 .

Shi, L, Fazel, I, & Kowkabi, N. (2018). Paraphrasing to transform knowledge in advanced graduate student writing. English for Specific Purposes , 51 , 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.03.001 .

Solikhah, I. , Tarman, B., Budiharso, T. (2022). Improving argumentative writing through IMRAD to Indonesian EFL learners. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 8 (1 ), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911533 .

Steneck, NH. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics , 12 (1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y .

Stockall, N, & Villar Cole, C. (2016). Hidden voices: L2 students’ compensatory writing strategies. Teaching in Higher Education , 21 (3), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1144586 .

Sun, Y C, & Yang, F Y. (2015). Uncovering published authors’ text-borrowing practices: Paraphrasing strategies, sources, and self-plagiarism. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 20 , 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.05.003 .

Taber, KS. (2018). The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education , 48 (6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 .

Tomaš, Z. (2011). Textual borrowing across academic assignments: Examining undergraduate second language writers’ implementation of writing instruction. (3466635 phd.),. PhD thesis, The University of Utah, Ann Arbor. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database. http://search.proquest.com/docview/885193809?accountid=41313 .

Turner, CE, & Upshur, JA. (2002). Rating scales derived from student samples: Effects of the scale maker and the student sample on scale content and student scores. TESOL Quarterly , 36 (1), 49. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588360 .

Turnitin.com. (2012). White paper: the plagiarism spectrum: instructor insights into the 10 types of plagiarism. https://go.turnitin.com/paper/plagiarism-spectrum .

Uludag, P, Lindberg, R, McDonough, K, & Payant, C. (2019). Exploring l2 writers’ source-text use in an integrated writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing , 46 (100670), 100670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100670 .

Upshur, JA, & Turner, CE. (1995). Constructing rating scales for second language tests , vol 49. Oxford University Press (OUP) https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/49.1.3 .

Vieyra, M, Strickland, D, & Timmerman, B. (2013). Patterns in plagiarism and patchwriting in science and engineering graduate students’ research proposals. International Journal for Educational Integrity , 9 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.21913/IJEI.v9i1.846 .

Vossen, P. H. (2021a). A model of plagiarism based on corpus severities and probabilities. https://figshare.com/s/8455fab321a41e6a4de2 .

Vossen, P. H. (2021b). Plagiarism composite severity calculation. https://figshare.com/s/e4c80d0884c0cb5b7186 .

Walker, J. (2010). Measuring plagiarism: researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education , 35 (1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070902912994 .

Weigle, S C, & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing , 21 (2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.004 .

van Weijen, D, Rijlaarsdam, G, & van den Bergh, H. (2018). Source use and argumentation behavior in l1 and l2 writing: a within-writer comparison. Reading and Writing , 32 (6), 1635–1655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9842-9 .

Winograd, PN. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly , 19 (4), 404–425. https://doi.org/10.2307/747913 .

Yamada, K. (2003). What prevents ESL/EFL writers from avoiding plagiarism?: Analyses of 10 north-american college websites. System , 31 (2), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00023-X .

Yang, A, Stockwell, S, & McDonnell, L. (2019). Writing in your own voice: an intervention that reduces plagiarism and common writing problems in students’ scientific writing. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education , 47 (5), 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21282 .

Yasuda, S. (2015). Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language Writing , 27 , 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.008 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Edward Nuhfer, who served as an experienced reviewer, provided perceptive comments, and strengthened efforts at paper quality assurance. We would also like to show our gratitude to Dr. Ian Geoffrey Kennedy for sharing his pearls of wisdom with us during the course of this research. We thank Dr. Abdorreza Tahriri and Hamed Delam for their timely insights. We would like to offer our deep appreciation to all the “Student Participants” and “Reviewer Participants,” who so generously took part in this project. We are also immensely grateful to ResearchGate members for answering researchers’ questions and shedding lights on the way of project progress.

This work was partially supported by Larestan University of Medical Sciences (Grant Number: 1399-69).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Larestan University of Medical Sciences, Larestan, Iran

Moohebat Shoyukhi

Edumetrics R&D, Niederstetten, Germany

Paul Hubert Vossen

Department of English Language and Literature, Larestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Larestan, Iran

Abdol Hossein Ahmadi

Department of English Language, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

Reza Kafipour

Department of Political Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Kyle Albert Beattie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Moohebat administered the paraphrasing tasks, extracted the plagiarism dimensions, designed and distributed the plagiarism assessment survey, analyzed the data, calibrated the severity indices for the plagiarism dimensions, produced the plagiarism-scoring rubric, and wrote the research project and the manuscript drafts. Paul designed “Plagiarism Composite Severity Calculation" and "A Model of Plagiarism based on Corpus Severities and Probabilities,” and was a major contributor in designing the plagiarism assessment survey and study concepts and theories. Abdol Hossein designed the quasi-experimental study of assessing student paraphrase and was a major contributor in designing the course-teaching schedule and qualitative scheme of plagiarism. Reza was a major contributor in survey scaling and proofreading the manuscript. Kyle was a major contributor in forming research questions and study concepts, proofread and edited the primary and final drafts, and produced the final report in LaTeX to submit for final publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle Albert Beattie .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

For the ethics approval of the task study, “student participants” signed a consent form.

The research ethics committee of Larestan University of Medical Sciences certified the survey study.

Research Ethics Committees Certificate

https://figshare.com/s/cda5f78dcd4f975f4ec2

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16577735

Additional Files

Plagiarism Assessment Survey Data This file contains all of the Plagiarism Assessment Survey Data for this project.  https://www.figshare.com/s/b9d9fda7a9aa32b74575 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21302052

Table 6 This file contains the Plagiarism Scoring Rubric.  https://www.figshare.com/s/55d05abf1ea2e7d9e078 https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21302184

The Project Procedure This file contains the Procedure of Developing the Plagiarism Assessment Rubric.  https:///www.figshare.com/s/15482f5a4b4b22f046ea https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21302559

Competing interests

The authors declared no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

“Developing a Comprehensive Plagiarism Assessment Rubric” contributes to the advancement of a new approach to plagiarism assessment in higher education and is a candidate for publication in the Education and Information Technologies.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary file1 (xlsx 99.2 kb), supplementary file2 (xlsx 15.8 kb), supplementary file3 (xlsx 17.1 kb), rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Shoyukhi, M., Vossen, P.H., Ahmadi, A.H. et al. Developing a comprehensive plagiarism assessment rubric. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 5893–5919 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11365-1

Download citation

Received : 09 November 2021

Accepted : 20 September 2022

Published : 05 November 2022

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11365-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Plagiarism scoring rubric
  • Academic writing
  • Plagiarism severity calculation
  • Ethics of scholarships
  • English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Table 2 . Rubric for Assessing Summary Writing

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Download Table | Rubric for Assessing Summary Writing from publication: What’s the Gist? Summary Writing for Struggling Adolescent Writers | T he ability to write a tight, concise, accurate summary of information is an essential entry point to other writing genres, especially analytical and technical writing. The purpose of a sum-mary, after all, is to convey correct infor-mation in an efficient manner so that the… | Writing, Adolescents and Technical Writing | ResearchGate, the professional n

Source by aohm .

Share this:

Another correct “only”, how to get started on pinterest for free, you may also like, vacancy: #4528 contract technical writer wfh/london, github for managing tech docs, wrangling the meg of learning content, content writing courses by henry harvin [2021] |..., find us at these upcoming events in 2023, experiencing tech overload here are the tools employees..., what is a ccms, and is it worth..., another call-and-response riff, the true cost of quick fixes (podcast, part..., a hierarchy of localization needs.

Introduction To Technical Writing

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. Accept Read More

Emily's Enrichment Corner

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Summarizing rubrics, 2 comments:.

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Emily - I truly believe I could sit at my computer all day and still not soak up all that you share on here for reading! Your activities and lessons you've created are AMAZING! Thank you so much for sharing! Do you have a curriculum you are working off of? Do you have a map of where, when, and how long you stay on topics? I would love to pick your brain (maybe through email?) about what/how you do reading!

rubric summarizing and paraphrasing

Thank you so much for the compliments--you're too kind. :) I'm in a small district, one of 6 fourth grade teachers, and we've been working on curriculum mapping for the past four years. Write to me at elkissn at yahoo.com and I'll talk with you more!

Free Text Summarizer

Try our other writing services

Paraphrasing Tool

Want to be 100% sure your summary is plagiarism-free?

Make your life easier with the free summarizer tool.

Academic research

Academic research

Speed up your academic research by extracting key points.

Everyday use

Every day use

Reduce your reading time by summarizing long blocks of text within seconds.

job

Easily condense transcripts of long meetings into concise bullet points.

school

Difficult text

Simplify hard-to-read paragraphs, sentences or complete articles with 1 click.

Text summarizer

Why use this summarizer?

  • 100% free: Generate unlimited summaries without paying a penny
  • Accurate: Get a reliable and trustworthy summary of your original text without any errors
  • No signup: Use it without giving up any personal data
  • Secure: No summary data is stored, guaranteeing your privacy
  • Speed: Get an accurate summary within seconds, thanks to AI
  • Flexible: Adjust summary length to get more (or less) detailed summaries

How to use this summarizer

1. insert, paste or download your text, 2. pick the way you want to summarize, 3. adjust your summary length, 4. get your summary in seconds.

2 ways of summarizing text

2 ways of summarizing your text

1. key sentences.

Extracts the key points of your text and turns them into digestible bullet points 

2. Concise paragraphs

Summarizes your text in a concise paragraph

Summarize your text today

Want to make sure your summary doesn’t contain any plagiarism, ask our team.

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

Support team - Nina

Frequently asked questions

Yes, it can. The AI has been trained on a big dataset, so technical or complex data won’t be a problem for the text summarizer .

The text summarizer is accessible on both desktop and mobile.

This text summarizer can condense long text within seconds.

At the moment, a maximum of 6,000 words can be summarized at once, within a few seconds. Want to summarize more? Just paste another block of text. There’s no limit on how much text you can summarize with our text summarizer .

The text summarizer can give you a longer or shorter summary, depending on your wishes. Want a more detailed summary? Just adjust the summary length at the top.

COMMENTS

  1. iRubric: Summarizing and Paraphrasing rubric

    iRubric: Summarizing and Paraphrasing rubric find rubric (draft) edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more... Summarizing and Paraphrasing Summarizing and Paraphrasing Rubric Code: B22BW7 By renaprice Draft Public Rubric Subject: English Type: Writing Grade Levels: (none) Subjects: English Types: Writing

  2. Rubric trait: Paraphrasing

    Singular rubric trait suitable for formative and summative assignments that involve the paraphrasing of evidence or ideas. Add this rubric trait to an existing rubric or use it as is when asking students to paraphrase in their writing. Download this .rbc file and then import it to your Feedback Studio account.

  3. PDF Principles of Paraphrasing

    Module 1 Defining Correct Paraphrasing What Exactly Does "Paraphrase" Mean? • The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the noun "paraphrase" as "a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form." Paraphrase. (2010). In Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

  4. PDF Scoring Open-Ended Items in Reading

    Literary Text Literary summaries can be scored following the steps outlined below: 1. Has the student clearly stated the overall plot of the story? (If the response to this question is yes, then the teacher can consider a score of 3 or 4 as outlined by the rubric.) 2. Has the student selected essential events from the text?

  5. iRubric: Paraphrasing and Summarizing rubric

    Paraphrasing and Summarizing Paraphrasing and Summarizing Students should be able to define concepts and demonstrate knowledge in paraphrasing. Summarizing is a form of pre'cis writing. Students will be able to analyze material and paraphrase ideas for inclusion in the pre'cis. Rubric Code: W99A32 By DianaSadowski Ready to use Public Rubric

  6. PDF Rubric for a Summary

    3 points: My summary includes main ideas and relevant details, briefly stated in my own words. 2 points: My summary includes main ideas and relevant details, but uses the exact language of the text. 1 point: My summary includes main ideas and relevant details, but also has elaborative details. It uses the exact language of the text.

  7. PDF Effective Paraphrasing

    Paraphrasing allows you to summarize and synthesize information from one or more sources, focus on significant information, and compare and contrast relevant details."1* "Paraphrase when the...

  8. iRubric: Summarizing and Paraphrasing Rubric

    iRubric B66747: Teacher will give students a short article. Students will be asked to write a paragraph about the article, using the paraphrasing skills they learned during the mini-lesson.. Free rubric builder and assessment tools.

  9. Rubric for Assessing Summary Writing

    The scoring system is based on the rubric for summary writing text by Frey at. al (2003). The rubric consists of 4 categories. The rubric consists of 4 categories. They are lengths, paraphrasing ...

  10. Summarizing

    Purdue OWL Multilingual ESL Students Paraphrasing and Summary Summarizing Summarizing In many situations, you will not have to provide the level of detail that the original writer did. At such times, you should summarize, or remove minor details. Here's an example:

  11. PDF Developing a scoring rubric for L2 summary writing: a ...

    rubric, (b) the overall quality dimension worked well even if it was used alone, (c) our rubric and the ETS holistic rubric overlapped moderately as L2 summary writing assessments, and (d) the two paraphrasing dimensions covered similar but different aspects of paraphrasing. However, the quantitative analysis using

  12. How to Paraphrase

    Paraphrasing vs. summarizing. A paraphrase puts a specific passage into your own words. It's typically a similar length to the original text, or slightly shorter. When you boil a longer piece of writing down to the key points, so that the result is a lot shorter than the original, this is called summarizing.

  13. 5.6.5. Paraphrasing & Plagiarism

    Interactive Rubric for Written Communication: 5.6.5. Paraphrasing & Plagiarism. This guide will help you understand common conventions of academic writing and the application of marking rubrics. ... Paraphrasing is the re-writing of someone else's content, idea or concepts in your own words.

  14. Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing

    What are the differences among quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing? These three ways of incorporating other writers' work into your own writing differ according to the closeness of your writing to the source writing. Quotations must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of the source. They must match the source document word ...

  15. DOC Summary or Paraphrase Rubric

    Summary or Paraphrase Rubric Summary or Paraphrase Rubric Points Description 4 Excellent Summary The main idea is clearly stated in the first sentence. All key details are included. Uses own wording - avoids copying phases and sentences from the text. Has detailed sentences that link to main idea in logical order. No spelling or grammar errors.

  16. PDF Paraphrasing, Summarising & Quoting

    Paraphrasing, Summarising & Quoting This guide will introduce you to some techniques that can be used to make your use of academic ... A summary is a technique used in academic writing that takes a large amount of information, and reduces it to a small number of phrases, to paint a picture of the original text for the reader. ...

  17. PDF Single Paragraph Rubric (Expository)

    Single Paragraph Rubric (Expository) Categories Score5 (Exceptional) 4 (Skilled) 3 (Proficient) 2 (Developing) 1 (Beginning) 0 Topic Sentence Topic Sentence (T.S.) expresses a clear main idea, accurately addresses prompt using a sentence type, an appositive, or a subordinating conjunction. Word choice is precise, sophisticated and powerful.

  18. Developing a comprehensive plagiarism assessment rubric

    This article offers a comprehensive plagiarism assessment rubric from a four-year study of analyzing students' plagiarism. From qualitative analyses of 120 students' paraphrase samples, we identified seven plagiarism dimensions and employed a five-point Likert-scale to rank each dimension's severity. Then, we enlisted editors, reviewers ...

  19. Table 2 . Rubric for Assessing Summary Writing

    Write instructions that are clear, concise & customer-centric $94.99 4.5 (200 ratings) Learn API Technical Writing: JSON and XML for Writers API Documentation 1: Teaches technical writers how to document structured data. No programming experience required. $109.99 4.6 (10952 ratings)

  20. Emily's Enrichment Corner: Summarizing Rubrics

    Important Ideas: A good summary should include the important ideas from the text. With this rubric, it's okay for a reader to include a few more details than strictly necessary. Paraphrasing: I like to be able to distinguish between summaries that attempt to paraphrase, but do so inaccurately, and summaries that just copy from the text. Structure of the Text: It's this component that led me to ...

  21. Paraphrase Rubric

    Paraphrase Rubric. Criteria. 4. Advanced. 3. Proficient. 2. Improving. 1. Warning/Failing . Rewording & Rephrasing. Each line of the poem is translated literally using the author's own words; the meanings of all words and ideas are maintained without the addition or omission of any ideas.

  22. Free Text Summarizer

    1. Insert, paste or download your text 2. Pick the way you want to summarize 3. Adjust your summary length 4. Get your summary in seconds!

  23. Text Summarizer

    Summary Length: Short Long Paste Text Summarize 0 sentences 0 words Summarize your content in the following interesting ways Paragraph Bullet Points Paragraph Condense articles, papers, documents, and more down to the key points. You can easily control how long your results are using the length slider. Summary length: Short Long Input

  24. House Bill 1605 and IMRA

    The Relationship Between HQIM and OER. High-quality instructional materials (HQIM) will be defined by the Instructional Materials Review and Approval (IMRA) process set up by House Bill (HB) 1605.All materials will require official review in the IMRA process by the State Board of Education (SBOE) to be approved as HQIM.