Research Digest

Imitating to Write: Reflections on

Using a Model Summary Report in a
Literature Seminar for JSL Students
Nobuko Koyama
University of California at DavisThis paper presents my personal reflections as an instructor using an experimental approach
to writing instruction in a literature seminar in Japanese that took place at a Japanese satellite
campus of an American university and targeted JSL ( Japanese as a Second Language) college
students. It was the first time that a model summary report created by the instructor wasused in such a seminar, and it had therefore been incorporated on a trial basis. The primary
purpose of using a model was to explicitly show JSL students how a summary report should
appear and what elements it should include. A model was made available to students at thestart of the seminar, and students were encouraged to start imitating it. Through imitation,
they were expected to learn and acquire the summary report as a genre. In this paper, as the
instructor, I would like to reflect on the use of this model and the challenges posed by theseminar.
本論文では、米国大学の日本キャンパスで開講されたJSL学生を対象とした現代
日本文学セミナーでのモデル文を使用したライティング指導について振り返る。このセミナーでは、学生に模倣をさせることを目的としモデル要約文を講師が作成し、学生に提供するという初の試みを行った。モデル文使用の目的は、JSL学生た
ちに要約レポートとはどのような体裁のものであるか、またどのような要素を含むものであるかを具体的に示すことである。この模倣によって学生たちは要約レポートという一つのジャンルを理解・習得するものと仮定した。以下では、セミナーにおける制約と困難な点、およびモデル文使用について担当講師の立場から振り返る。

In this study, I reflect on the instruction of summary writing for JSL students
in college. Summary writing concerns writing teachers who are eager to findbetter methods of teaching writing because it is “one of the most typical andcritical academic writing skills for L2 learners” (Baba, 2009, p. 191). It is also
one of the most important skills addressed in academic writing textbooks for L2
39

Koyamacollege students (Nitsu & Sato, 2000; Matsumoto & Kono, 2007). I adopted anexperimental approach by using a model summary report for students to imitate.
This approach was developed in response to fellow teachers’ frustration andcomments on their JSL students’ writing, such as “They can’t write a summary,”“They don’t know how to write a summary,” “Their summary is not a summary
but a recounting of the whole story,” and so forth. In response, I had to ask myself
the following questions as a teacher: What are the challenges of summary writing?
Are there problems with our teaching or problems with our JSL students? If
our students struggle with summary writing, how can we help them improve
this writing skill? With these questions in mind, I would like to address otherpractical problems of teaching writing in a college seminar.

Problems of Teaching Writing in a Literature
Seminar at College

The literature seminar examined in this paper was not specifically designed as acollege writing course; it was an upper-level liberal arts course with many subjectrelated reading assignments and discussion sessions. The major learning objectiveof the seminar was for students to learn, discuss and gain insight into contemporary
literature in Japanese by applying critical thinking and reading skills. However,it was also designated as a writing-intensive course according to the university’s
protocol, which establishes standards for writing in quantity and quality. Froma pedagogical perspective, this protocol assumes that if students have worked
through lower-division courses successfully by learning both reading and writing
skills as well as critical thinking, they are expected to be well prepared and wellequipped for higher learning in the upper-division courses, such as seminars. Thus,in the seminar, students were expected to demonstrate their critical thinking andcomprehension of reading assignments through a variety of writing assignments.
In other words, their in-depth understanding and mastery of academic writing
was assumed in the seminar. However, in reality, this dual nature of the seminarcreated a dilemma, as it left little time for writing instruction given the amount oftime spent on facilitating students’ engagement with and comprehension of thecourse materials: contemporary Japanese literature.
40

Imitating to Write, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 39-53

There have been long-standing pros and cons argued about the place ofliterature in writing (Belcher & Hirvela, 2001; Vandrick, 2003). Some claim in
general that better readers are able to write better and that in particular they also
write better summaries (Grabe, 2001; Hare, 1992; Johns 1985; Winograd 1984).
On the other hand, reading literature could be simply difficult for some students.
Some literary expressions may be archaic and only suitable in a written language,
which means that they are of no practical use for students (Vandrick, 2003). This
concern over the difficulty of reading literature is more prominent with regard
to L2 students compared to L1 students. Thus, when literature was the primary
focus of the seminar for L2 students, it increased the burden for both students
and the instructor.
The major difference between a literature seminar and a regular writing
course was the importance of the learning objective of writing. In the literatureseminar, writing pedagogy was important, but it was positioned as a by-productof the study of literature. Thus, students’ abilities to write were assumed.
Furthermore, literature was taught at an L1 pedagogical level to L2 students.
As a result, more time was spent on critical reading than on writing, although
for the students, critical reading and academic writing were equally demanding.
This unique situation posed challenges to L2 students and the instructor, which
can be summarized by the following predicament: When little time could
be spared for writing instruction, how could the instructor help the students
develop their writing? Now, let us return to the questions addressed earlier froma teacher’s perspective and propose the following: What if we provided a modelthat showed students how to properly summarize? This led to the creation andimplementation of the model in the literature seminar examined in this paper.

Summary Writing at College and Using a Model
Summary

A summary is one of the classroom genres ( Johns, 1997) in which students must
be proficient at college. It is a foundational writing skill that underlies otherclassroom genres, such as essays and term papers. Summary writing is an essential
academic skill in any discipline that requires reading comprehension, critical
41

Koyamathinking and writing skills (Abasi & Akbari, 2008; Baba, 2009; Casazza, 1993;
Chen & Su, 2012 Kim, 2001; McDonough, Crawford & De Vleeschauwer.
2014). It is also considered to be a useful skill “for integrating and synthesizing
sources” (McDonough, et al., 2014, p. 21).
To write a summary, students must comprehend and digest the text, have“the ability to identify and select the important ideas in the text” (Kim, 2001, p.
570), delete “minor and redundant details” based on their judgment (Casazza,
1993, p. 203) and finally present the ideas or arguments of the text in their own
words (Baba, 2009; Keck, 2006, 2014). Writing a summary clearly requires
handling multiple tasks and a series of decisions (Reinhart & Thomas, 1993).
While summary writing is the most basic academic writing skill, it could be adaunting task for L2 writers.
To teach summary writing, modeling is helpful and considered “an important
scaffolding activity” (Hyland, 2004, p. 132). Casazza (1993) proposed modelingas an instructional process and explained two ways to implement it. One is athink-aloud activity led by the instructor who demonstrates how s/he processes
the text after reading it by reflecting aloud. The other method is “to provide
written models of summaries” that can either be the students’ submitted work or
one “constructed by the instructor” (pp. 204-205). Chen and Su (2012) adopted
a similar approach in teaching how to write a summary of a narrative text byproviding “the students with three prize-winning summaries from a national
contest . . . . written for The Age of Innocence” (p. 187). With a model, students
can analyze and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the sample work. More
importantly, a sample work can clearly demonstrate to students what to include
in a summary and how to write it in a format appropriate for a given subject oracademic course.
It is clear that there is a certain benefit in using a model summary as partof writing instruction. A model summary embodies its genre and provides
guidance regarding format, style, language, a reader’s (and, in this case, a grader’s)
expectations and a writer’s communicative intent. Most importantly, a modelsummary can demonstrate the type of information that should be extracted froma given reading and how that information should be presented. Note that the42

Imitating to Write, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 39-53

definition of a genre differs depending upon the context. In this paper, genre
refers to Hyland’s definition of “a term for grouping texts together, representing
how writers typically use language to respond to recurring situations” (2004, p.
4). It is general enough to be applicable to the genre of the summary report, as
well as other classroom genres.
L2 students could be at a disadvantage if their understanding and applicationof a classroom genre in L1 is different from what is expected in L2 writing. To
facilitate the improvement of L2 students’ writing, it is imperative to provide
explicit instruction that explains the generic conventions to which their writing
must conform.

Research Rationale

An annotated model summary report was created and provided to students(Appendix). It included detailed, required features of a summary report, met theformat and style requirements specified in the seminar (APA, MS Mincho, 10001500 characters in Japanese) and adhered to the macrostructural and lexicosyntactic features that embodied this particular genre (Table 1). It could also
Table 1Model Summary ReportParagraphs

Macrostructures (MS)Throughout a summary

Lexico-Syntactic Features (LS)(1) Use of written Japanese(2) Use of Renyō forms (a verb conjugational
pattern) (e.g., ‘iki’ instead of ‘itte’ [to go(and)])

Paragraph 1: Introduction • Author information (3) Author’s name in a thesis statement• Book information
Paragraph 2-5: Body

• Story summary(4) Book title in a thesis statement

Paragraph 6: Conclusion• Conclusion(5) Protagonist’s/characters’ names in a thesis
statement(6) In-text citation for key words and phrases(7) Book title in a thesis statement• References

43

Koyamaserve as reference and writing guide for students.
When the seminar class began, I hypothesized the following: If the students
are aware, implicitly or explicitly, of the characteristics of a summary report,
their writing should include both the macrostructural features (MS) and lexicosyntactic features (LS) of the model. In other words, the better the students
understand this model and apply that understanding in their writing, the more
MS and LS should be incorporated into those summary reports. Furthermore, I
posed the following research question as a way to reflect on the use of a model inthe seminar:
Research Question: Regardless of their preparedness and linguistic skills,
could JSL students in the seminar learn and understand a summary reportas a genre through the imitation of the model with guidelines and a rubric?
With the hypothesis and research question in mind, students’ summary
reports were analyzed and examined in comparison with the model.

Methods and Results

The seminar (14 weeks) was offered in 2012 at a satellite campus of an American
university in Tokyo, Japan. Six senior students majoring in Japanese participatedin the seminar, and each wrote six summary reports, one analytical paper, three
short essays (mid-term), and a term paper. They were all JSL speakers. At thetime of their participation in the seminar, their proficiency level ranged fromIntermediate-Mid to Advanced-Mid (ACTFL Guidelines, 2012), based on the
instructor’s observations and assessment. Of those six students, five completed
all six summary reports. Their reports (30 in total) were analyzed in comparison
with a model for MS and LS.
In the second week of the seminar, a model summary report was presented
to students with the guidelines and the grading rubric (Table 2) followed by athirty-minute lecture. In the lecture, I reviewed the model sentence by sentencewith explanations of word choice, the appropriate style and length, and then I
asked the students to pay special attention to features such as in-text citations andlong quotes, all of which were embodied in the model. To conclude the lecture, I
stressed the differences between “imitating” and plagiarizing. Eisner and Vicinus
44Imitating to Write, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 39-53
Table 2
Grading Rubric
Required Elements

Grade Points

Structures
Meet the deadline

1

Typed/double-spaced/11-point/MS Mincho

1

1000-1500 characters in Japanese2Content
Concise information about the author (Evidence of research)

1

Concise information about the work (Evidence of research)

1

Summary of the story

2

Appropriate use of key words and phrases as needed2Concluding remarks

2

Language (Style, Vocabulary etc.)
Use the plain forms correctly throughout the writing (Style)1

Use the written expressions and words (Vocabulary)

2.5

Grammar2.5

Logical flow (Linking expressions, etc.)2(2008) defined imitation as “emulation, not perfect reproduction” and statedthat imitation enables “students to master the distinctive and defining terms andstyle of their specialty” (p. 4). Therefore, by “imitating,” I expected students toabsorb the model and imitate the vocabulary, style, form, and structure mostappropriate for a summary report, all of which are embodied in MS and LS.
Figures 1 and 2 reveal the ways in which students incorporated MS and
LS from the model into their writing. The analysis of MS and LS indicatedthe degree of imitation (Table 3). As the class averages indicate, the overall
45

KoyamaFigure 1. Degree of imitation in terms of Macrostructural Features (MS) is indicated by %. Noticethat Dan and Bill made significant progress in increasing the use of MS, while Jean and Tom
remained the same.

Figure 2. Degree of imitation in terms of Lexico-syntactic Features (LS) is indicated by %. Noticethat Jean and Bill increased the use of LS from Summary 2, and Amy used LS fully in all thesummaries. Compared to Summary 1, Dan increased the use of LS in Summary 6 by nearly 30%.
Table 3
Class Averages (Degree of Imitation)
Summary 1

2

3

4

5

6

MS

68%

84%

80%

84%

80%

88%

LS

86%

89%

94%

91%

94%

94%

MS=Macrostructural features, LS=Lexico-syntactic features.

46

Imitating to Write, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 39-53

degree of imitation increased as the seminar progressed. When the first and lastsummary reports were compared, the last one showed a clear increase of MS
and LS integration throughout. Overall, regardless of individual differences,such as proficiency levels and readiness, all of the JSL students had a better
understanding of a summary report than they did at the start of the seminar.

Reflections on Using the Model and Improvement

In this literature seminar, critical thinking and reading of literature were the major
topics, and they required more instruction time and discussion than the writing
instruction. As an instructor, I hoped that having an annotated model would savetime on my part so that I could focus more on reading instruction and betterhelp students improve their writing because “imitating” was easier than writingfrom scratch. Thus, I purposely created a model by selecting Banana Yoshimoto’s
short story, which was the first reading/summary assignment. That way, students
could clearly see how the author’s information was written and incorporated intoa summary report. After all, they could copy the information from the modelsummary and paraphrase it in their summary. However, from what I examined,“imitating” was not as easy as I initially thought. As I noticed the difference inthe degree of “imitating” among students, I came to see how “imitating” could
require the students to analyze, examine and synthesize the model, allowing themto know not only what to include and how to write the summary, but also what
not to do.
Better readers/writers, such as Amy and Bill (all names are pseudonyms),
wrote better and followed the model carefully from the first summary
assignment. They required less advice and instructional intervention throughout
the seminar. Their minor errors were corrected immediately when I provided
written feedback and suggestions. On the other hand, Dan and Jean were theonly students who required more individual consultation, especially during
the first half of the seminar. Dan expressed the difficulty he had in following
the required format and style, and he was troubled by his lower scores. During
our meetings, I noted relevant parts in the model and the difference between
his writing and how it was written in the model. It was clear that Dan did not
47

Koyamaexamine the model carefully enough to be able to “imitate” important features.
Jean was grade-conscious and wanted to make sure that her summary report had
all the required elements listed in the grading rubric. At our meetings, we went
over each item in the grading rubric and examined her writing in comparison
with the model.
The use of a model benefitted both students and the instructor. For students,a writing example was readily available for their reference as they wrote. For the
instructor, the model made it easier to assist students outside the classroom, as
it clearly showed how much information a summary should contain and how
the summary should be presented. For this trial, though it could have been
implemented differently, I concluded that there was certain effectiveness in theuse of a model because students such as Dan, who had trouble incorporating MS
and LS, eventually began to incorporate more of these features in their summaryreport writing. In retrospect, it became clear to me that the process of “imitating”
without plagiarizing could be creative, analytical and even challenging to somestudents. This finding came as a surprise to me as an instructor and presented
another point of interest concerning writing instruction.
Overall, a few things could have been added to further facilitate students’
understanding of the genre of the summary report. For instance, theimplementation of a model and its usefulness could be better emphasized andexplained through the addition of a peer review session. Another remedialintervention could be assigning students to compare their summary reports
with a model, prompting them to examine and analyze their writing and notedifferences between their work and the model. As Dan’s struggle clearly suggests,
some students were not aware of or receptive to the model and what it embodied.
Thus, these exercises could heighten students’ awareness of and familiarity withthis genre.
Lastly, there are limitations to this study. Without any post-seminar tests or
surveys, it may not be clear whether the imitation of a model was functionallyequivalent to the comprehension of this particular genre. In the future, pre- andpost-seminar tests could be implemented to reveal students’ comprehension andacquisition of the genre.
48

Imitating to Write, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 39-53

Acknowledgments

Some of the findings in this study were presented at the Society for Teaching
Japanese as a Foreign Language, Spring Conference, Tokyo, May 26, 2013 and
ACTFL, Annual Convention and World Languages Expo, San Diego 2015,
November 20, 2015.

References

Abasi, A., & Akbari, N. (2008). Are we encouraging patchwriting?
Reconsidering the role of the pedagogical context in ESL student writers’transgressive intertextuality. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 267-284.
ACTFL (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved fromhttps://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/
ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012_FINAL.pdf
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing summaries in a foreign
language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 191-208.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (Eds.) (2001). Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2
reading-writing connections. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Casazza, M. E. (1993). Using a model of direct instruction to teach summary
writing in a college reading class. Journal of Reading, 37(3), 202-208.
Chen, Y., & Su, S. (2012). A genre-based approach to teaching EFL summary
writing. ELT Journal, 66(2), 184-192.
Eisner, C., & Vicinus, M. (Eds.) (2008). Originality, imitation, and plagiarism:
Teaching writing in the digital age. Ann Arbor, MI: The University ofMichigan Press.
Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives andinstructional practices. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies:
Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 15-47). Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan Press.
Hare, V. (1992). Summarizing text. In J. Irwin & M. Doyle (Eds.), Reading/writing
connections (pp. 96-118). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor, MI:49

Koyama

University of Michigan Press.
Johns, A. M. (1985). Summary protocols of “underprepared” and “adept”
university students: Replications and distortions of the original. Language
Learning, 35, 495-517.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Keck, C. (2006). The use of paraphrase in summary writing: A comparison of
L1 and L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 261-278.
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.
Kim, S. (2001). Characteristics of EFL readers’ summary writing: A study with
Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 569-581.
Matsumoto, S., & Kono, T. (2007). Daigakusei no tameno “Yomu, Kaku, Presen,
Debate” no hoohoo [Methods for reading, writing, presentation and debate
for college students]. Tokyo, Japan: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppanbu.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W. J., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2014). Summary
writing in a Thai EFL university context. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 24, 20-32.
Nitsu, N., & Sato, F. (2000). Ryuugakusei no tameno ronriteki na bunshou nokakikata [How to write logical sentences for international students]. Tokyo,
Japan: Three A Network.
Rinehart, S. D., & Thomas, K. F. (1993). Summarization ability and text recall
by novice students. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(4), 24-32.
Vandrick, S. (2003). Literature in the teaching of second language composition.
In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring dynamics of second language writing (pp. 263283). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Winograd, P. (1984). Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading
Research Quarterly, 19, 404-25.

50

Imitating to Write, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 39-53

Author bio

Nobuko Koyama is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Japanese Language
Program in the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the Universityof California, Davis. Her research interests include literary discourse analysis,
interface of discourse analysis and language pedagogy, and L2 writing and reading.
nkoyama@ucdavis.edu
Received: April 19, 2016
Accepted: January 10, 201751

KoyamaAppendix
Model Summary(1) 吉本ばなな著『キッチン』の要約
Your name(2)

吉本ばなな（2000年によしもとばななに改名）は1964年に東京で生まれた。父は批評家の吉本隆明、母は詩人、そして姉は漫画家という芸術色豊かな一家に生まれ、早くから作家を志していたという。その吉本のデビュー作である(3)『キッチン』
は、1987年に海燕新人文学賞に輝いた作品で、翌年福武書店から出版されベスト
セラーとなり、海外でも翻訳されて読まれている。「私がこの世でいちばん好きな場
所は台所だと思う」という有名な出だしで始まる『キッチン』は、世界中で最もよく知られている吉本作品の一つであろう。
(4)『キッチン』の主人公である女子大学生、桜井みかげは、唯一の肉親である祖母を亡くし、傷つき行き場を失っていた。そこに現れた祖母の友人だという田辺雄
一は、みかげに救いの手を差し伸べ、彼と母えり子とともに暮らすことを提案する。
初めて田辺家を訪れたみかげに、(5)

雄一は「家と住人の好み」をどこで決めるのかとみかげに問いかけると、みかげは「台所。」（16ページ）と答えて田辺家の台所に足を踏み入れた。
(6) うんうんうなずきながら、見てまわった。いい台所だった。私は、この台所をひと目でとても愛した。（17ページ）
そして、みかげは戸惑いながらも「いい台所」がある田辺家に移り、すぐに彼らと暮らし始めた。肉親を失い傷ついたみかげ同様に、田辺家にも事情があった。
雄一の母えり子は、元は男性だったのだが、妻を失った悲しみから男性であることをやめ、性転換をして今は女性として生活していた。雄一とえり子の奇妙な母子の生活に思いがけず加わったみかげは、二人の優しさに見守られながら少しずつ心の傷をいやしていくのだった。そして、田辺家の「居候生活」（32ページ）の中で、「少しずつ、心に光や風が入ってくることがとても、うれしい」（33ページ）と感じ始める。そうした穏やかな日々を送る中で、祖母と暮らしていた住まいをすべて片づける日が来た。一人バスに乗り、荷物を手に田辺家へと向かうみかげは、バスの中で老婆と幼い孫を見かける。その二人のやりとりを聞き、二人のほほえましい姿を見るうちに自分が泣き始めていることに気付き驚く。祖母が亡くなって初めて一人号泣をするみかげは、街角の厨房から聞こえてくるにぎやかな気配に心を救われるのであった。
(6)

私はどうしようもなく暗く、そして明るい気持ちになってしまって、頭をかかえて少し笑った。そして立ちあがり、スカートをはらい、今日は戻る予定でいた田辺家へと歩き出した。（55ページ）

52

Imitating to Write, OnCUE Journal, 10(1), pages 39-53(7) キッチンに立ち、キッチンで食事を作り語らうことで救われていることに気付くみ
かげは、「夢のキッチン」（67ページ）を心に描きながら未来へと心をはせるのであった。
(8) 『キッチン』は、傷ついたみかげがキッチンという場所を通じて、心の傷に向き合い、癒し、再生へと歩みを進める物語であるといえるだろう。
(9) 参考文献
吉本ばなな（1991）『キッチン』 福武文庫 (10)(1) Clearly state whether it is a summary or an analytical paper in the title.
(2) Information about the author.
(3) Information about the publication.
(4) Information about the story/synopsis.
(5) Use key words from the story.
(6) Indentation for a long quote.
(7) Summarize a story in your own words.
(8) Conclude a summary in your own words.
(9) Reference section: Use the appropriate style and format.
(10) This summary has 1200 characters in total.

53