The artifice of teaching academic writing in an AI world: An eportfolio approach for undergraduate students1
Rab Paterson
Rikkyo University’s Center for Foreign Language Education and Research
Kaori Hakone
Osaka Jogakuin University’s Department of English & Interdisciplinary Studies
AI's arrival into the educational sector will have a powerful, foundation-shaking impact on educationand teaching practices. Much like the Internet's emergence into the educational sphere in the 1990s
and the development of online apps in the early 2000s, this will initially pose problems for educators
until they adapt to AI. One of the major issues here is plagiarism. Therefore, this paper will help
teachers incorporate AI-friendly teaching practices and guide students in appropriately using AI inwriting classes to avoid plagiarism. Writing assignments usually have students start with researchreading. In the approach covered in this paper, we show how they can ethically use a given set of AI
research/reading apps to help complete their reading homework tasks. This paper will also give a
brief overview of the pros and cons of these apps and a review of our personal experiences of using
them in the classroom. Next, we will highlight ways teachers can create a classroom workflow ofhighly AI-proof experiential homework tasks (i.e., students cannot complete the task using AI as AI
apps will not know what was done in the classroom or the students' classroom experiences). Thesetasks provide teachers with benchmark writing samples that can be checked using text analysis apps
to check and compare against students' future work to determine if AI-driven plagiarism has
occurred. The paper will conclude with the presenters' philosophical thoughts on AI in general andacademic writing.
1. Introduction - the plagiarism issue
At Japanese universities (where the two authors have taught for numerous years and still teach),many freshmen undergraduate students are asked to write academic English language essays as partof their coursework. However, many of these students have never written these types of research
papers in Japanese at high school, never mind in English. So, suddenly being asked to write academic
papers in English shortly after entering university can be a daunting task for many of them. Thispressure can and often does lead to plagiarism in students' work, as has been widely reported in Japan(Dunn, 2015, p. 33; Schraudner, 2015). Sometimes this plagiarism simply stems from a lack ofstudents' linguistic skills, so they copy text instead (Pecorari & Petric ́, 2014; Wheeler, 2009), othersargue it is due to differing cultural views of plagiarism and whether it is acceptable or not(Chandrasoma et al., 2004; Chien, 2014). Irrespective of the different causes of plagiarism, it wasand still is a problem that needs to be addressed at Japanese universities.
1

This article is based upon a presentation delivered at The 5th International Symposium for Academic
Writing & Critical Thinking, ‘AI: Deliverance, diversion, or dystopia’, on February 16, 2024, at Nagoya
University.
© 2024 Rab Paterson and Kaori Hakone
1Therefore, Paterson developed an initial e-portfolio2 approach that later evolved into the version
currently used, which utilizes collaborative writing with Google Documents3 to help guidestudents through the academic writing process to avoid plagiarism. This approach has been very
successful. Paterson has widely presented it, most recently in an online workshop for Tokyo JALT
(2024) in February this year, and received very positive feedback from attendees. Now with thearrival of AI into the educational sector, this approach has been modified by the authors to help
account for the substantial change in the educational circumstances that students are now working
under, due to AI’s educational emergence and the effects it can have on plagiarism. Therefore,
this paper will illustrate the way this evolved e-portfolio approach and the apps and tools4 contained
within it are used by the authors in their writing classes to mitigate the chances of AI-driven
plagiarism in students’ academic writing. This edtech-driven approach is especially relevant given
how Japan lagged behind other OECD nations in its adoption of educational technology (Igari,2014, OECD, 2015), and this lagging behind did not result in any great improvements (PeñaLópez & OECD, 2016) at least until COVID forced some changes in Japan. In academic research
cycles (Smith et al., 2013), students start by deciding on a topic, checking its validity as a subject
worth investigating, finding some sources related to the field, and then researching (reading) thesesources to get information. Then, this information is considered and evaluated in terms of how
it relates to previously known knowledge by the student researchers and other newly gleaned
information from their sources list. Students then attempt to mold all this old and new information
together into a cohesive new opinion or idea to form an argument or thesis. Next, they start writing
about their views and later edit their text to refine and improve it. Finally, they present the resultsof their research in some form, although the actual dissemination of their results can also occur earlier
in the cycle (Spronken-Smith et al., 2013, p.106). Therefore, the initial e-portfolio approach usedby this paper's authors follows this procedure and process.
2. Starting the e-portfolio process
First, students are given guidance on the suitability of their research topics. The eportfolio previously mentioned has a pre-writing section where students fill in some sections with
their initial ideas to help ensure their topic is academically acceptable. To start with, they gothrough four steps to list their general or major field of study, then the more specific sub-topic
they are looking at within the major field, then the controversy or argument they are looking at, andfinally, their initial position on this controversy. Then they move on to the 5A’s. These A’s help
students decide if their topic is: Academic in nature, Arguable in that the premise can be proven or
disproven, Accessible in that English language sources can be found and examined, Achievable interms of the pre-set course word limit and number of weeks in the semester, and Attractive in that
others are currently researching it (or has been researched in the past). Then, they try to develop

2This initial e-portfolio was created by Paterson in late 2008 and continually improved, and from 2009 onwards thissystematic approach was demonstrated to many other writing teachers at International Christian University’s English
for Liberal Arts program where he worked at that tme, as well as giving workshops on it at many conferences andteacher training workshops both in Japan and worldwide on academic research writing.
3
Google Documents. https://www.google.com/docs
4

For clarity apps are defined as downloadable software and tools are defined as browser based extensions
or websites that do not need to be downloaded.
2research questions to focus precisely where and what they should look for in their research prewriting phase. Students then form research groups with others working on related topics.
Following this, students then collaboratively create a list of resources, i.e., places where they canfind books, articles, and other sources of information. These resources include online resources like
Google Books5 and Google Scholar6, third-party apps / databases like JSTOR7, other online
collections of materials as well as physical resources like libraries. Then, students create a list of thesources they found from these resources. Next, students are taught how to use Zotero8, a free, opensource platform neutral referencing and note-taking application created in 2006 by the Center for
History and New Media at George Mason University. Paterson (2020) has written on this app,describing in detail why it is a very useful tool for researchers and highlighting student feedback
from using it. In the e-portfolio process, after learning how to use it, students then import theirsources’ metadata to the app and start their note-taking (using the Cornell note-taking systemgenerally for lecture-based sources and more specific notes for books and papers) and will eventually
put the notes to be used in the final papers into the Zotero app for later use.
3. Research reading
After gathering all the sources, students then need to examine these sources via research reading.
Therefore, several reading strategies are covered in this e-portfolio process. Many researchers argue
that traditional style deep reading has been proven to offer more benefits in terms of understanding
and longer-term memory of the text being read in this way, but the problem is that many students
either do not do, or do not know how to do this type of deep reading (Applegate and Applegate, 2004;
Kuh 2004; McCarthy and Kuh 2006). Furthermore, although there have been many empirical studies
done on reading at the elementary and high school level in the US, there is relatively little done onreading at the university level in the US and Japan (Roberts & Roberts, 2008, p. 127). In response,
some academics have given guidance on how to better read in this way (Bordt & Pager, 2005;
Yamane, 2006), but most students at Japanese universities have little prior exposure to theseapproaches. So we start with teaching deep reading and have students do the reading discussion partson their readings in this way as after the pre-writing work is finished, students create their own
research groups with other students working on similar or related topics to share research results. So
they discuss the fruits of their research reading on their topics in a group of their peers to aid deep
reading, and as their information gleaned might also be helpful to the other members of their groups.
However, despite the cognitive advantages of this deep reading method, it is very time-consuming,
therefore, the e-portfolio approach also teaches faster reading techniques like skimming andscanning.
Skimming and scanning techniques definitely have their place in research reading as most
students are under time constraints for their assignments. Being able to rapidly find interesting partsof a text, or the parts they already know they need, can be very advantageous. Therefore, these skills
are taught to help students in identifying the relevant parts of the texts in the research stage. However,they have limitations in that the content read is not embedded in the readers' memory as much as
5

Google Books. https://books.google.co.jp/
Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.co.jp/
7
JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/
6

8

Zotero. https://www.zotero.org/
3deep reading, and their understanding level is also less (Rayner et al., 2016). Then, when these criticalsections have been identified students revert to deep reading to get the maximum memory retention
and understanding of these relevant parts of the readings. From our experience, and from student
feedback, this combination of reading techniques works very well in practice.
Finally, the reading section of the e-portfolio process also covers lateral reading. Many studies(Breakstone et al., 2021; McGrew, 2024; Wineburg & McGrew, 2017) have shown that lateralreading (like the way fact-checkers read) can help students more accurately judge the credibility andreliability of the information they encounter online. Indeed a field study with high school students
exposed to this type of reading over six hours of lessons showed a significant improvement in theirability to evaluate the credibility of online sources (Wineburg et al., 2022). With students at Japanese
universities having libraries that possess fewer English language books than libraries in Englishspeaking countries, students have a higher reliance on online sources.
Here, there is the problem of fake or unreliable content, and many students still need to be taught
how to evaluate the credibility of online sources. Therefore, there is a need for them to learn lateralreading techniques. However, this does not only help in evaluating sources, but it can also help
broaden students' knowledge as once they are aware they do not need to just read vertically (as intraditional deep reading), they can also copy text from the readings and conduct searches on concepts,
names, phrases, and other things and run a simple search in another tab to learn more about thesepoints before continuing the vertical reading. The e-portfolio process then covers this vital skill in
addition to the other, more traditional reading skills.
All the above techniques presuppose that students have a good enough vocabulary to understandwhat they have read. However, this is not always the case with Japanese undergraduate students
reading in English. Research by Waring & Takaki (2003) indicated that while some vocabulary canbe learned incidentally through graded readers, most of this vocabulary is not retained in the longtermer time frame. This underscores the need for extensive graded readings in the research reading
phase to bolster vocabulary development. However, the types of academic papers students are
expected to read in the research phase of their writing is seldom available in graded reader formats.
Rewordify9, therefore, serves as a tool to create graded reader text at a micro or word level fromoriginal academic texts. It aims to simplify complex academic vocabulary for lower-level English
language users. This functionality is particularly valuable in educational settings with students fromdiverse linguistic backgrounds, assisting students to overcome language barriers and improving theiroverall comprehension and vocabulary skills. However, reliance on such tools should be balancedwith direct engagement with original texts to foster deeper learning and retention, and here,
Rewordify also keeps the original more linguistically complex text in addition to the simplified text.
Furthermore, it also allows for the creation of quizzes on the target language.
Supporting this scaffolding of challenging text, Namaziandost et al. (2019) also suggest thatchallenging materials, when adequately supported, can significantly benefit English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) learners’ reading skills and motivation. This highlights the need for a balanced useof AI tools, supplemented by traditional educational methods, to help students achieve deeper
understanding and retention of academic materials. According to Renandya and Iswandari (2021),
extensive reading immerses L2 learners in rich, comprehensible language, enhancing language
acquisition. They note that this can increase vocabulary acquisition, comprehension skills, and9Rewordify. https://rewordify.com/
4

overall language proficiency. Digital graded readers (of the type generated by Rewordify) can
facilitate extensive reading by providing a range of reading materials at a variety of suitable levels,
which increases students’ engagement and learning. Therefore, in practice, AI type reading tools like
Rewordify exemplify both the benefits and challenges of AI in education, but the benefits are obvious
when used in conjunction with a range of reading approaches as described above.
4. Data extraction tools
As technologies increasingly permeate all aspects of society, education systems face thechallenge of integrating these tools in a manner that is both ethical and effective. AI, with its
capabilities, stands at the front of this integration, as it offers the potential to significantly enhance
educational outcomes. However, it also raises concerns regarding ethical usage and the preparationof students for an unknown future. The deployment of AI in education requires careful considerationof the implications of ethical usage. One of the biggest concerns is ensuring that AI tools are used tosupport academic integrity rather than undermine it. Plagiarism is a significant issue in educational
contexts (as covered above). Therefore, plagiarism must be explicitly addressed by educators tofoster a culture of honesty and integrity in their students’ academic research writing. In addition to
the ethical considerations mentioned above, educational curricula must also evolve to improve
technical proficiency.
Another useful tool for students in the research/data extraction phase are tools such as ChatPDF10or PDF.ai11. They are AI-powered tools designed to facilitate the comprehension of academic texts
when they are in PDF formats. As such they exemplify the benefits and challenges of AI in education.
ChatPDF, an AI-driven platform, facilitates the comprehension of academic texts by instantly
generating questions and summarizing complex texts that have previously been imported into theonline tool. Therefore, ChatPDF enhances efficiency in academic research and learning if usedethically and appropriately. ChatPDF, for instance, can generate a list of questions from the PDF textthat can help users understand the detailed and specific content of academic papers imported. This
interactive feature allows users to engage with the text directly, highlighting answers within the
document, and also provides real-time responses to user-generated questions and any follow-up
questions. Users can also share chats with others, enhancing student collaboration in their researchgroups, and the app can also export, delete, and reset results. These functions can be particularly
helpful when dealing with a large volume of papers, or when conducting high-quality research within
limited time constraints. The app also allows users to create a folder with the results gleaned fromits analysis of many different PDFs. Therefore, this allows users to upload and organize academic
papers on similar topics within a single folder. In summary, this app facilitates the comprehension ofacademic texts by generating questions and summarizing complex texts, but at a macro paper level
rather than the micro ‘word’ level of Rewordify. This scaffolding can also significantly help EFL
students quickly determine the relevance of academic papers via engaging directly with the text
through an interactive interface that highlights answers and provides real-time responses.
However, it has limitations, such as the inability to interpret images and occasional inaccuracies
in content interpretation. Therefore, a check by students is highly recommended as it is not a panacea
for traditional research problems. Furthermore, like many AI tools, ChatPDF has some limitations in
10
11

ChatPDF. https://chatpdf.com
PDF.ai. https://pdf.ai

5

understanding numeric concepts. For instance, it struggles with basic arithmetic, and it cannot
summarize content within specific word counts. Additionally, many users report that content
processed through AI apps and tools does not easily stick in users' memory when compared to more
traditional reading methods, similar to how skimming, scanning and lateral reading results are notas memorable as deep reading, as mentioned above. While reading online and having AI find answers
may seem convenient and offer quick access to information, they may not support deep
comprehension and long-term retention of information. Lastly, any text generated by ChatPDF andsimilar apps will trigger AI-generated content warnings when tested by AI detection apps like
Copyleaks. So, students will have to paraphrase any text created by these apps and tools before
including it in their final papers to avoid plagiarism and accusations of unethical usage.
Therefore, integrating browser-based AI tools, such as ChatPDF12 and Rewordify, into
educational practices, while beneficial for the research task parts of academic writing, also raise
important questions about the balance between short-term technological convenience and longerterm deep learning. Educators must consider not only the more immediate functional benefits ofthese tools but also their role in promoting responsible and ethical use of technology by students intheir learning. This approach includes preparing students for a future that will require new kinds ofliteracy and an ethical awareness of this in a technologically saturated world.
5. e-Portfolio Writing Process
In all these classes from the start of the semester, the students are also tasked with writing (via
Google Classroom’s13 Tasks function where it is available, or on Blogger14 where it is not) after-classjournal reports consisting of two paragraphs. Moon (2003, pp.8-9) found 18 educational purposes
for such blog journaling, and in this e-portfolio process of writing, two of these are emphasized. The
first is note-taking to provide a record of the class experience, as the first paragraph is a detailed
report of what was done in class, and this teaches reporting skills. The second paragraph facilitateslearning from experience and reflects on what they felt about the class. This type of writing also
helps students develop their analytical writing skills. Additionally, and not mentioned by Moon, thisjournaling provides teachers with a set of two paragraphs from each class per student, and over a
period of weeks, this builds up a body of written work from each student. With the contents of thesetwo paragraphs writing tasks being reporting and reflecting on a class they experienced, this is not
something that AI apps and tools can easily generate. Therefore, this writing serves as a benchmark
sample of each student’s actual normal writing level and this can later be compared with their final
paper (if there are any suspicions of plagiarism or AI-generated content being submitted) to see ifthey are similar.
After a substantial part of the initial research has been completed, students then start to write firstdrafts of the various parts of their paper. Here, they also work with the same group members, withthe members providing a peer review of each other’s work. These students have recently entered
university after high school and peer review has been shown to benefit younger researchers(Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Liu & Sadler, 2003). As these papers and the peer review comments are
12

Here this specifically refers to the browser based tool, not the many iOS apps which share a very
similar name.
13

Google Classroom. https://classroom.google.com/

14

Blogger. https://blogger.com
6

written asynchronously on Google Documents, there is no need for students to be physically in thesame place or time (Huang & Hsiao, 2012). All papers are shared with settings set to anyone withthe link can edit, the comment and revision histories are freely available to teachers to check on thequality and quantity of peer feedback and provide corrective comments where needed. Therefore,teachers can see the paper gradually improving by redrafting various versions of each paragraph in
response to the peer review comments. These comments can even take the form of questions or just‘nice paragraph’ encouraging type comments and students have more time to comment whencompared to paper-based commenting. However, face to face comments in class discussion time canalso take place, giving the benefits of both commenting styles (Giesbers et al., 2014).
Lastly, when explaining this e-portfolio peer review process, a high-quality e-portfolio fromprevious years is used, but only after that student has given consent for their paper to be used in thisway. Seeing the work of their senpai (seniors) being used in this way also serves as a motivational
tool for the new cohort, as it shows their work could be highlighted in the next year to their kohai(juniors) if their written work is good enough. Some in-class studies have found this approach to bepositively received by students (Joseph-Edwards, 2023) when used with peer feedback in the way
the e-portfolio approaches writing with multi-draft peer-reviewed work.
6. The final e-portfolio checks
After the e-portfolio is finished, the students then use a range of text analysis tools linked to in
the e-portfolio to run diagnostic checks on their final text. These range from tools such as Lextutor15(to check what percentage of their text is drawn from the Academic Word List16 - AWL), Analyse
My Writing (which checks a range of things including how repetitive the text can be, the readability
level of the text, any passive verb usage, and other useful things), and PaperRater17 (basically a freeversion of Grammarly18 which also checks spelling, grammar, style, transition usage, and some otherwriting issues) as well as running the normal spelling and grammar checks Google Documents
provides. Then, the text is improved, and all the final drafts of each section are copied into a new‘clean’ document that is free of comments and formatted according to APA style.
Students then work in their groups on a Peer Review Checklist document which is also linked toin the e-portfolio. This checklist performs a macro level of analysis on a range of topics, including
layout, fonts, flow, unity, style, and appropriate quality and quantity of references. After this groupcheck, further edits are made to the clean copy and the final copy is uploaded into a class folder in
Turnitin19 for a more detailed plagiarism check by students as the Turnitin folder is set to allow
students to run checks, fix any issues and then resubmit and recheck until they are happy with thefinal results. This resubmission/re-editing process continues until all plagiarism issues are fixed tothe student’s satisfaction, and their similarity index is at 10% or under, and all identified similarity
text has been fully referenced where necessary.
Lastly, students then run their final text through Lextutor to identify their AWL usage percentage
and Analyze My Writing20 to see the Readability level of their text. This then can be compared to the15

Lextutor. http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/eng/

16
17
18

Academic Word List. https://www.uefap.com/vocab/select/awl.htm
PaperRater. http://www.paperrater.com/

19

Grammarly. https://www.grammarly.com/
Turnitin. https://www.turnitin.com/

20

Analyze My Writing. http://www.analyzemywriting.com/
7

same scores in these writing metrics generated from their earlier class review paragraphs, and if there
is a glaringly obvious difference between the two it is possible AI text generation apps have beenused in the final paper. Therefore, the final step is the teacher’s checks of the papers in Turnitin. Until
last year, Turnitin also had an AI checker built in. However, this is now a paid add-on feature for
Turnitin, and the universities Paterson and Hakone currently teach at have not paid for this addon. So, for the moment, the free AI checker used in the e-portfolio is Copyleaks21. However,these AI checks are only used if there is a suspicion that AI generation text apps have been used. As
mentioned above this suspicion can arise if the writing metrics scores and paper scores are veryclearly different. If the final paper is within an acceptable range of their earlier writing, then thepapers can then be graded as normal by teachers, and the students can be justifiably proud of theirwork. This is the process authors are using in their writing classes, and it seems to be working wellso far.
7. Concluding thoughts
With the rapid expansion of AI into education, many students have begun using it in one way or
another for a multitude of tasks, and numerous tools and applications are available that educators
may or may not even be aware of. Despite attempts by some educational organizations to prohibit theuse of AI, this is likely to end up being a never-ending action-reaction vicious circle as students
attempt to subvert bans and this leads to more restrictions. Besides bans, effective countermeasures
could include allocating class time for students to write their work by hand within a time limit orproviding assignments that AI cannot complete, thereby reducing the risk of learners relying too
heavily on AI and thereby abandoning critical thinking. Rather than forbidding students from using
AI altogether, educators should guide them in using AI ethically, responsibly, and in a way that
respects academic integrity while also developing their English language skills. The role of educators
is to foster a classroom environment that models effective learning practices and motivates students
to use them.
The e-portfolio process described here attempts to do just that by providing a practical andmotivational approach to academic writing that students can easily learn and use. It has continually
evolved over the years since its inception in 2008, making use of newer apps, tools, and approaches
as they become available. Most recently, it has incorporated various types of AI systems into theapproach. It will continue to evolve as education and pedagogical theories do and as newer and more
effective apps, tools and AI systems become available. Although this ongoing approach may seem
ambitious, this e-portfolio approach will encourage students to engage with apps, tools, and AI
systems in an ethical and meaningful way to improve their academic writing skills through the guided
approach to practice, and the peer review process the e-portfolio approach advocates. Therefore,
based on our positive experiences with it, we encourage other teachers and students to try using it
and see the advantages it brings to academic research writing. Good luck!

21

Copyleaks. https://copyleaks.com/
8References
Bordt, R and Pager, D., (2006). "Using a Research Article to Facilitate a Deep Structure
Understanding of Discrimination." Teaching Sociology 34(4):403-10.
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Connors, P., Ortega, T., Kerr, D., & Wineburg, S. (2021). Lateral reading:College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. The Harvard
Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56
Chandrasoma, R.,Thompson, C., & Pennycook,A. (2004). Beyond plagiarism: Transgressive andnontransgressive intertextuality. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 3(3), 171–
193.
Chien, S.-C. (2014). Cultural constructions of plagiarism in student writing: Teachers’ perceptions
and responses. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(2), 120.
Dunn, J. (2015). Critical thinking in Japanese secondary education: Student and teacher
perspectives. Critical Thinking in Language Learning, 2(1), 29–39.
Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of theinterplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The
impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 30–50.
Huang, X., & Hsiao, E. (2012). Synchronous and asynchronous communication in an online
environment: Faculty experiences and perceptions. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 13(1), 15–30.
Igari, N. (2014). How to successfully promote ICT usage: A comparative analysis of Denmark
andJapan.
Telematics
andInformatics,
31(1),
115–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2012.10.001
Joseph-Edwards, A. (2023). The Perceptions and Use of Exemplars and Peer Feedback inStudent Revisions. Caribbean Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(1), Article 1.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditionalmodes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review
to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.
McGrew, S. (2024). Teaching lateral reading: Interventions to help people read like fact
checkers.
Current
Opinionin
Psychology,
55,
101737.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101737
Moon, J. (2003). Learning journals and logs, Reflective Diaries. Centre for Teaching and Learning
Good Practice in Teaching and Learning, 1–29.
Namaziandost, E., Esfahani, F. R., Ahmadi, S., & Yates, G. (2019). Varying levels of difficulty inL2 reading materials in the EFL classroom: Impact on comprehension andmotivation. Cogent Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1615740

9

OECD (Ed.). (2015). Students, computers and learning: making the connection. Paris, Fr: OECD
Paterson, R. (2020). Zotero: An online digital writing tool for digital age English language
learners' academic writing. In Pedagogies of Digital Learning in Higher Education (pp.
42-60). Routledge.
Paterson, R., & Hakone, K. (2024, March 19). EdTech: Workshopping with AI for an Academic
World. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrZOJxaTIW4
Pecorari, D., & Petric ́, B. (2014). Plagiarism in second-language writing. Language Teaching,47(3), 269–302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000056
Peña-López, I., & OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation: The powerof digital technologies and skills. Paris, Fr: OECD Publishing.
Rayner, K., Schotter, E. R., Masson, M. E. J., Potter, M. C., & Treiman, R. (2016). So Much toRead, So Little Time: How Do We Read, and Can Speed Reading Help? Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 17(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100615623267 Renandya,
W.A., Iswandari, Y. (2021). Extensive Reading. In: Mohebbi, H., Coombe, C. (eds) Research
Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics. Springer Texts in Education. Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8 81
Roberts, J. C., & Roberts, K. A. (2008). Deep reading, cost/benefit, and the construction of meaning:
Enhancing reading comprehension and deep learning in sociology courses. Teaching
Sociology, 36(2), 125-140.
Schraudner, M. (2015). Identification and evaluation of plagiarism amongst Japanese
university students. Bulletin of English Education (CELE Journal), (23), 154–166.
Spronken-Smith, R. A., Brodeur, J. J., Kajaks, T., Luck, M., Myatt, P., Verburgh, A., Walkington,
H., & Wuetherick, B. (2013). Completing the Research Cycle: A Framework for Promoting
Dissemination of Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. Teaching & Learning Inquiry:
The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.2979/teachlearninqu.1.2.105
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary fromreading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15 (2). ISSN 1539-0578.
Wheeler, G. (2009). Plagiarism in the Japanese universities: Truly a cultural matter? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 18(1), 17–29.
Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M. D., & Ortega, T. (2022). Lateral reading on
the open Internet: A district-wide field study in high school government classes. Journalof Educational Psychology, 114(5), 893–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000740
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When
Evaluating
DigitalInformation(SSRN
Scholarly
Paper
3048994). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3048994
Yamane, D. (2006). Course preparation assignments: A strategy for creating discussion-based
courses. Teaching Sociology, 34(3), 236-248.

10