STUDENTS’ NEED TO INCREASE ETHICALLY ACCEPTABLE PARAPHRASING OF ACADEMIC TEXTS

The lack of Indonesian students performing their abilities in L1 para-phrasing becomes the primary reason they are labeled as persistent plagiarizers. Students, in Indonesian context and circumstances, need to broaden their perspectives regarding how to document the sources, using them in their original papers to support and defend the arguments. Literacy should be developed sustainably in order for students might critically think and state things with evidence. However, to say that students still developing English writing text as intentional plagiarism will appear to be overly harsh. Teachers, at the university level, should acknowledge that students’ commitment to plagiarism is the process of knowing its definition, characters, impacts, and habit of copying others’ work without any attempt to document it properly. Moreover, it also signs the teachers that students’ ability to use academic English needs improving. Observing these facts urges us to facilitate students to make them ready to conduct the paraphrase of the L2 texts while their EAP is still developing. This study seeks the fundamental preparation that should be made to generate acceptable paraphrasing texts.


INTRODUCTION
There are obligations for university students to develop academic habitual activities such as conducting research, summarizing and paraphrasing, and selecting words and sentence patterns that are more academic. Moreover, they are expected to have the ability to avoid plagiarism and master the techniques to generate refined paraphrasing texts, academic language teachers are obliged to understand what tools the students should own for the sake of paraphrasing tasks (Mafiza & Wiyanah, 2022;Scroggs, 2015). Teachers should not merely ask students not to do plagiarism, more than that, it needs to take into consideration how deep our students' understanding of paraphrasing and their motivation for it (Hirvela & Du, 2013;Schwabl et al., 2013;Subekti, 2022;Sukowati et al., 2020), the students' level of reading and writing during engaging in a communication (Seran & Irawan, 2021;Endahati & Widagsa, 2018;Wahyuni et al., 2020;Zhao & Hirvela, 2015), and how well students utilizing the critical thinking to solve problems (Islamiyah & Al Fajri, 2020;Wijaya, 2022). Are the students possess sufficient abilities in synthesizing and structuring ideas? Are students able to make a clear cut between paraphrasing and summarizing? Are they reluctant to deal with technical content with a large number of unfamiliar terms? Are they afraid to make many linguistic changes ended up in an unfaithful representation of the information? Although there are abundant tools and technologies that help humans work, in this case, paraphrasing, there are elements inside the students that need to be developed. Indeed, technology provides and increases open-distant learning, and real-time feedback (Prasetya & Syarif, 2022) focusing on collaborative learning among peers and teachers, yet students still obligate to develop the language instinct for not doing the plagiarism. Being able to rephrase, frame, and restate experts' idea with proper acknowledgments of the sources mirror academic integrity and personal development (Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017).
In the L1 context, in this case, the Indonesian language course, little attention has been given to the training of paraphrasing. Indeed, some efforts have been given such as trans-languaging (Hungwe, 2019). This research seeks what students do need for paraphrasing sources in the context of Indonesian learners at the English intermediate level. The level depicts to us that they have not familiar with the academic research reading texts. Meaning that paraphrasing is a new thing that requires competence in diction, wording, and sentence structuring as a way to capture a writer's original idea especially when there is no significant training in working with sources in students' L1.

METHODS
It is a case study that involved 17 students in their second year in the English teacher training department of Universitas PGRI Yogyakarta who was administrated to be interviewed regarding their perception during paraphrasing source texts for their final research paper. The less habit and capabilities of those students in our university in understanding and avoiding plagiarism becomes the researchers' main concern to conduct this case study. This is an observation to seek the primary students' problems to generate paraphrasing from sources of research academic English, is it due to the low level of vocabulary, English sentence building, creative thinking, and literacy, or else? The interviewer focuses the questions on difficulties from the reading until the paraphrasing to depict the most factors why the quality of knowledge-reading and knowledge-writing are low. The early hypothesis states that low vocabulary, sentence structure, and reading habits are the common factors of students' paraphrasing failure. It makes students be more 'patch-writing than paraphrasing. However, this study would seek more than those factors to reveal students' basic needs, things to be corrected and fixed to enable them successfully in grasping the sources' contents through the activities of reading and re-writing. The first process of gathering data is providing everyone with a research paper that has been published by certain indexed journals. They were asked to provide 1-2 paragraphs as the results of their reading as a way to demonstrate their ability in paraphrasing. A series of questions as a questionnaire was administrated to detect students' difficulty in producing ethically acceptable paraphrasing products. The students' answers are the indication or parameter in which part of the difficulties they are dealing with. Those difficulties would be used as recommendations for teachers to focus on, besides getting the students accustomed to dealing with paraphrasing.

FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Technology nowadays becomes a thing that can be counted on for students to help them refine the product of paraphrasing, in the case that they are doing merely patchwriting. At this level, our students change the diction and alter the sentence structures. Some experts agree this is not always wrong since it is the first stage of changing habits, from merely copying to changing words and structures. However, paraphrasing is more than that. The following table contains the respondents' answers to the question of what makes it difficult for them to paraphrase. Respondent VIII The main problem is when it comes to translating it into standard language or scientific language, it's clear that I will have difficulty because of the lack of learning in that area. Not accustomed to using Academic English 9 Respondent IX It is difficult to draw accurate conclusions from research results. It is difficult to summarize the main points of writing that are often found so that they can be brief and correlated.

Difficulty in summarizing 10
Respondent X There are so many paragraphs that will be paraphrased that it is difficult to find the core points of a text or journal. Takes a long time to think in constructing sentences.

Difficulty in constructing an idea 11
Respondent XI I'm not very good at choosing words to write in my paraphrase. I have to find synonyms for words so that the essence of the paraphrase does not change and still explains the contents of the journal as a whole Problems with dictions; failed to understand paraphrasing 12 Respondent XII Most of the research methods I read have a vocabulary that is foreign to me, and because of that, I become slow to understand a study, especially in the method section of research. Lack of understanding of research steps. Some respondents are still confused about how paraphrasing should be properly defined and valued, the idea of changing words and altering sentence structures. The 'sound' of paraphrasing by employing this false understanding would fall into plagiarism, which is an unintentional one. This is a dichotomy of what paraphrasing should be interpreted properly as students are expected to spark the interpretation of the sources through paraphrasing which is only relevant to the new texts, by not directing to misleading or additional ideas (Shi & Kowkabi, 2018). Other respondents have less ability in sentence structures and proper dictions which is contra to basic knowledge on paraphrasing, lexical competence, and syntactic competence (Ji, 2018). Actually, for novice students whose L1 is not English, it is highly demanded that teachers expose students to get familiar with source-based writing (Doolan, 2021;Mira & Fatimah, 2020). Students should have proper quality and quantity of using source texts to support their arguments in their writing, as one of the ways to train their lexical and syntactical abilities. They would have the opportunity to sharpen their diction, sentence structures, and logical thinking and also defend their own ideas through supporting statements from the sources.
The novice writers, in this case, are students and are expecting the teachers' awareness about students' level of paraphrasing. They start to read and understand the academic texts by translating word for word, sometimes it is ended confusion. Indonesian as the L1 and English as the L2 have close patterns of sentence structures, although the Aspect and Tense are not. The challenges are most on the dictions, students are expected to have abundant English academic ways to define things. One thing that should be clear-cut among teachers is that the earlier students are exposed to critical thinking through paraphrasing, the more well-prepared students would be at the university level in which the demand for critical thinking and writing through source-based writing is high. In the first stage, students should have abundant and proper exercise to have more perspective when they are considering things since paraphrasing employs deep critical thinking, i.e. the ability to think and write from various sources and arguments.

CONCLUSION
Most students find it difficult to deal with specific terminologies which seem new, students take more time and attention to acknowledge them and have less consideration to get the essential meaning or messages. Some students successfully deal with the reading activities but failed in writing knowledge, they have serious problems in retelling what they have read. This study suggests that, in the L1 context, pupils should have sufficient training in paraphrasing. So that in the L2 context, they know what they are dealing with. The result of this research implies that most students at the university level, no matter in what department they are, need to boost the habit of thinking critically and paraphrasing. The problems they are dealing with in paraphrasing, as it appears in this research data, awake teachers to recognize what supplementary subjects or activities during the classroom should be well threatened. Developing the habit of producing ethical paraphrasing can be started from the subject of L1, Indonesia, to ease the learning or the processes.
This is a case study that limits the result covering the local respondents, the result would be more valid whenever it employs the general students from various universities and departments in a province or a state. It is expected that, whenever the data are from the more various sources, the results would be more scientifically tested. Future research is expected also to observe, test, and remark on the L1 paraphrasing activities as the starting point to develop the quality of L2 so that the efforts from teachers to make students understand and be able to conduct ethical paraphrasing would be scientific in order.