Full Picture

Extension usage examples:

Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Appears moderately imbalanced

Article summary:

1. The current EAP instruction approach in China follows a pragmatic approach, which has been criticized for fostering unquestioning acceptance of established conventions and lack of openness to negotiation.

2. Source attribution is a common problem among L2 writers, with tendencies to use source ideas/language without crediting the source or attributing authorship too vaguely.

3. Adopting a critical-pragmatic approach to EAP pedagogy can address the weaknesses of the pragmatic approach and promote critical engagement and problematization of discourse norms in EAP instruction.

Article analysis:

The article "Adopting critical-pragmatic pedagogy to address plagiarism in a Chinese context: An action research" discusses the limitations of the pragmatic approach to EAP instruction and proposes a critical-pragmatic approach as an alternative. The author argues that the pragmatic approach, which emphasizes a set of dominant discourse norms, can foster unquestioning acceptance of established conventions and intolerance toward alternative options. The author also notes that students may encounter difficulties understanding or applying source attribution norms despite dedicated classroom intervention.

The article provides a comprehensive review of existing research on source attribution in academic writing and identifies factors influencing L2 writers' attribution practices. However, the article's potential biases and sources are not explicitly stated. The author's perspective appears to be influenced by critical pedagogy, which emphasizes social justice and challenges power structures in education. This bias is evident in the author's critique of the pragmatic approach as promoting unreflective acceptance of established conventions.

The article presents a one-sided view of the limitations of the pragmatic approach without acknowledging its potential benefits for novice writers. The author cites studies showing that students generally make significant improvements in source-use skills with a pragmatic approach to EAP writing but does not explore these findings further.

The article makes unsupported claims about the effectiveness of adopting a critical-pragmatic approach to EAP instruction without providing evidence for its efficacy. The author suggests that more targeted, active in-class work on best practices of source-attribution is necessary but does not provide specific examples or strategies for implementing this approach.

The article misses points of consideration by focusing solely on source attribution and neglecting other aspects of academic writing such as organization, coherence, and argumentation. Additionally, the article does not explore counterarguments against adopting a critical-pragmatic approach or acknowledge possible risks associated with challenging established conventions.

Overall, while the article provides valuable insights into source attribution issues in academic writing and proposes an alternative pedagogical approach, it could benefit from a more balanced and nuanced perspective that acknowledges the potential benefits of the pragmatic approach and provides specific strategies for implementing a critical-pragmatic approach.