ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
THE GENERIC STRUCTURE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN PERSIAN DISSERTATIONS
Acknowledgments are vital since students/researchers can demonstrate their genuine appreciation through them and more importantly shape their (local/global) academic identity. In line with this significance, the present study examined the move patterns of 503 Persian dissertation acknowledgements from two major universities in Iran, from 1981 to 2014 and from sixteen various disciplines including soft and hard science disciplines. Overall, 65,323 words were analyzed. By and large, a careful examination and analysis of the corpus indicated that Iranian university students follow a three-tier moves pattern in writing a dissertation acknowledgments, namely a “Framing move” (including six micro steps), a main “Thanking move” (consisting of nine micro steps), and a “Closing move” (containing four micro steps). Moreover, the results indicated that the longest and shortest acknowledgments were 986 and 4 words respectively. The results also indicated that there was a significant difference in the complexity of acknowledgments in hard and soft science disciplines. The results of this study can hold valuable implications for both university students and professors who aspire an appropriate, coherent, and to the point display of scholarly competence and academic identity.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3580_fed589b2719181f73ae80a9c0934d833.pdf
2016-03-01
1
28
10.22099/jtls.2016.3580
Generic structure
Persian
dissertation acknowledgments
Minoo
Alemi
alemi@sharif.ir
1
Islamic Azad University, Tehran-west Branch, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
Atefeh
Rezanejad
rezanejad_a85@yahoo.com
2
Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Afful, J. B. A., & Mwinlaaru, I. N. (2012). Sub-disciplinary variation and rhetoric in dissertation acknowledgements written by education students: The case of the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. In Domwin, D., K., & Moses, K., K. (Eds.), National development through language education (pp.79-111). Cape Coast: Cape Coast University Press.
1
Al-Ali, M. N. (2010). Generic patterns and socio-cultural resources in acknowledgments accompanying Arabic PhD dissertations. Pragmatics, 20(1), 1-26.
2
Alemi, M., Eslami, R, Z., & Rezanejad, A. (2015). Iranian Non-native English Speaking Teachers’ Rating Criteria Regarding the Speech Act of Compliment: An Investigation of Teachers’ Variables. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 6(3), 21-49.
3
Bunton, D. (2002). Generic moves in Ph.D. thesis Introductions. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 57-75). Abingdon: Routledge.
4
Castleton, B. (2006). Frequency and function of religiously-based expressions. In J. A. Morrow (Ed.), Arabic, Islam, and the Allah Lexicon (pp.71-111). Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
5
Cheng, W. (2012). A contrastive study of master thesis acknowledgements by Taiwanese and North American students. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2(1): 8-17.
6
Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar’s courtesy: The role of acknowledgment in the primary communication process. London: Taylor Graham.
7
Cronin, B., McKenzie, G., & Stifler, L. (1992). Patterns of acknowledgments. Journal of Documentation, 48(2), 107–122.
8
Gesuato, S. (2004). Acknowledgments in PhD dissertations: The complexity of thanking. In Torsello, C. T., Grazia Busà, M., & Gesuato, S. (Eds.) Lingua inglese e mediazione linguistica. Ricerca e didattica con supporto telematico (pp. 273–318). Padova: Unipress.
9
Giannoni, D., S. (2002). World of gratitude: A contrastive study of acknowledgement texts in English and Italian research articles. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 1-31.
10
Halleck, G. B., & Connor, U. M. (2006). Rhetorical moves in TESOL conference proposals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 70-86.
11
Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2007). (Im) politeness, national and professional identities and context: Some evidence from e-mailed “Call for Papers”. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 760 -773.
12
Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 113-135.
13
Hyland, K. (2003). Dissertation acknowledgements: The anatomy of a Cinderella genre. Written Communication, 20, 242-268.
14
Hyland, K. (2004). Graduates’ gratitude: The generic structure of dissertation acknowledgements. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 303-324.
15
Hyland, K., & P. Tse (2004). ‘I would like to thank my supervisor': Acknowledgements in graduate dissertations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 259-275.
16
Jalilifar, A., & Mohammadi, M. J. (2014). Cross-Cultural Investigation into Generic Structure of Dissertation Acknowledgements in English and Persian: Reflections on Politeness Strategies. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 6(1), 23-47.
17
Karakas, Ö. (2010). A cross-cultural study on dissertation acknowledgments written in English by native speakers of Turkish and American English (Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University).
18
Koley, S., & Sen, B. K. (2013). Acknowledgements in research papers in electronics and related fields: 2008-2012. SRELS J. Inf. Manag., 50(5), 265-270.
19
Lasaky, F., G. (2011). A contrastive study of generic organization of doctoral dissertation acknowledgements written by native and non-native (Iranian) students in applied linguistics. MJAL, 3(2), 175-199.
20
Mohammadi, M. J. (2013). Do Persian and English Dissertation Acknowledgments Accommodate Hyland’s Model: a Cross-Linguistic Study. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 3(5).
21
Nicolaisen, J. (2002). Structure-based interpretation of scholarly book reviews: A new research technique. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science, 123-135.
22
Posteguillo, S. (1999). The schematic structure of Computer Science research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 139-160.
23
Rattan, G., K. (2014). Acknowledgement patterns in DESIDOC journal of library & information technology. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 34(3), 265-270.
24
Rezanejad, A., & Rezaei, S. (2013). Academic dishonesty at universities: The case of plagiarism among Iranian language students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 11(4), 275-295.
25
Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2002). Visual discourse in scientific conference papers: A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 19-40.
26
Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz-Ariza, M. A., Briceno, M. L., & Jabbour, G. (2011). Scholarly gratitude in five geographical contexts: A diachronic and cross-generic approach of the acknowledgment paratext in medical discourse (1950–2010). Scientometric, 86, 763-784.
27
Sharifian, F. (2005). The Persian cultural schema of shekasteh-nafsi: A study of compliment responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers. Pragmatics & Cognition, 13(2), 337-361.
28
Swales, J., M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29
Swales, J., M. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45-58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30
Thompson, P. (2001). A pedagogically motivated corpus-based examination of PhD theses: Macrostructure, citation practices and uses of modal verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading.
31
Tiew, W., S., & Sen, B., K. (2002). Acknowledgement patterns in research articles: A biblimetric study based on journal of natural rubber research 1986-1997. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 7(1), 43-56.
32
Yang, W. H. (2012). A genre analysis of PhD dissertation acknowledgements across disciplinary variations. LSP Journal, 3(2), 51-7
33
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
TEXTUAL AND INTER-TEXTUAL ANALYSES OF IRANIAN EFL UNDERGRADUATES’ TYPES OF ENGLISH READING TOWARDS DEVELOPING A CAREFUL READING FRAMEWORK
This study investigated textual and inter-textual reading of a group of Iranian EFL undergraduates’ careful English reading types. In this research, Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) reading framework was used to propose a more inclusive aspect of a careful reading framework and the reading construct for instructional and assessment goals. The participants of this study were B.A. students of English Translation at Shiraz Payame Noor University. To obtain the required data, a questionnaire and a careful reading test along with reading journals, interviews, and retrospective verbal protocols were used. The findings revealed that careful reading at the sentential and textual levels were seen to be practiced frequently by the participants. However, reading purposes and cognitive processes requiring integrating information from different texts, reading critically to establish and evaluate the authors’ position on a particular topic, building links across texts, judging the relatedness of texts, evaluating the writer’s ideas and comparing viewpoints were not seen as prevalent emerged reading patterns. The participants performed differently on tasks measuring different types of careful reading at different levels in a descending order of difficulty. In doing the tasks, although no statistically significant difference was found between the performance of males and females, they performed differently regarding their age and educational level differences. Subsequently, based on the outcomes, in the proposed careful reading framework, some new variables such as educational level, age, documents knowledge, better understanding and careful reading at multiple text level structures were added to Khalifa and Weir’s (2009) reading framework.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3657_8ee153017f829baa301d5a0494cb7455.pdf
2016-03-01
29
55
10.22099/jtls.2016.3657
careful reading
sentence-level comprehension
text-level comprehension
inter-text level comprehension
Asma
Dabiri
dabiri_asma@yahoo.com
1
Shiraz University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Naser
Rashidi
naser.rashidi@shirazu.ac.ir
2
Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Mahbobeh
Saadat
msaadat@rose.shirazu.ac.ir
3
Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Rahman
Sahragard
rsahragard@rose.shirazu.ac.ir
4
Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Zahra
Alimorad
zahra.alimorad@shirazu.ac.ir
5
Shiraz University
AUTHOR
Abdi, R. (2013). The effect of using hypertext materials on reading comprehension ability of EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 557-562.
1
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269-298.
2
Anmarkrud, O., Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64-76.
3
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second-language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4
Braten, I., & Samuelstuen, M. S. (2004). Does influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 324-336.
5
Braten, I., & Stromso, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-31.
6
Braten, I., Stromso, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6-28.
7
Britt, M. A., & Sommer, J. (2004). Facilitating textual integration with macro-structure focusing tasks. Reading Psychology, 25, 313-339.
8
Capellini, S. A., Pinto, C. R., & Cunha, O. (2015). Reading comprehension intervention program for teachers from 3rd grade’ students.Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174,1339-1345.
9
Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-133.
10
Carson, J. G. (2001). A task analysis of reading and writing in academic contexts. In D. Belcher, & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 48-83). Ann Arbor: The Michigan University Press.
11
Carver, R. P. (1997). Reading for one second, one minute, or one year from the perspective of rauding theory. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1(1), 3-43.
12
Carver, R. P. (1998). Predicting reading level in grades 1 to 6 from listening level and decoding level: Testing theory relevant to the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 121-154.
13
Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 5-12). MA: Newbury House Publishers.
14
Enright, M. K., Grabe, W., Koda, K., Mosenthal, P., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Schedl, M. (2000). TOEFL 2000 Reading Framework. TOEFL Monograph Series, MS-17. ETS.
15
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16
Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. W. Shuart, & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp.317-351). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
17
Goldman, S. R., & Bloome, D. M. (2004). Learning to construct and integrate. In A. F. Healy (Eds.), Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications (pp.169-182). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
18
Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research Vol. III (pp.311-335). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
19
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. London: Longman.
20
Harackiewicz, J. M., Pintrich, P. R., Barron, K. E., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638-645.
21
Hessamy, G., & Dehghan, S. S. (2013). Construct validity of careful vs. expeditious reading. International Journal of English Language Education, 1(3), 223-243.
22
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122-149.
23
Karimi, N., M. (2015). L2 multiple-documents comprehension: Exploring the contributions of L1 reading ability and strategic processing. System, 52, 14-25.
24
Karimi, N., M., &, Alibakhshi, G. (2014). EFL learners’ text processing strategies across comprehension vs. integration reading task conditions. System, 46, 96-104.
25
Katalayi, G. B., & Sivasubramaniam, S. (2013). Careful reading versus expeditious reading: Investigating the construct validity of a multiple-choice reading test. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(6), 877-884.
26
Khalifa, H., & Weir, C. J. (2009). Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
28
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363­394.
29
Kobayashi, K. (2010). Strategic use of multiple texts for the evaluation of arguments. Reading Psychology, 31, 121-149.
30
Krishnan, K. S. D. (2011). Careful versus expeditious reading: The case of the IELTS reading test. Academic Research International, 1(3), 26-35.
31
Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778-784.
32
Mason, L., Scirica, F., & Salvi, L. (2006). Effects of beliefs about meaning construction and task instructions on interpretation of narrative text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 411-437.
33
Meyer, B. J. F. (1999). Importance of text structure in everyday reading. In A. Ram, & K. Moorman (Eds.), Understanding language understanding (pp. 227-252). Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
34
Moore, T., Morton, J., & Price, S. (2010). Construct validity in IELTS academic reading test: A comparison of reading requirements in IELTS test items and in university study. IELTS Research Reports, 11, 1-89.
35
Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488-496.
36
Perfetti, C. A. (1991). Representations and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence. In L. Rieben, & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp.33-44). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
37
Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Sentences, individual differences and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 23, 337­355.
38
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of document representation. In H van Oostendorp, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
39
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252-266.
40
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
41
Rosenfeld, M., Leung, S., & Oltman, P. K. (2001). The reading, writing, speaking, and listening tasks important for academic success at the undergraduate and graduate levels. TOEFL Monograph Series, MS -21. ETS.
42
Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. l. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44
Shim, S. S., Ryan, A. M., & Anderson, C. J. (2008). Achievement goals and achievement during early adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in growth-curve analysis. Journal of' Educationa1 Psychology, 100, 655-671.
45
Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. Harlow: Longman.
46
van Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., & van Gelderen, A. (2013). Assessing reading comprehension in adolescent low achievers: Subskills identification and task specificity. Language Testing, 30(1), 3-21.
47
van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081-1087.
48
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). The notion of macrostructure. In T. A. van Dijk, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Strategies of discourse comprehension (pp.189-223). New York: Academic Press.
49
Weir, C. J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. Hamel Hewpstead: Prentice Hall.
50
Weir, C. J., Green, T., Hawkey, R., Devi, S., & Unaldi, A. (2009). The relationship between the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS and the reading experiences of students in their first year of study at a British university,. IELTS Research Report, 9, 97­156. British Council/IDP Australia.
51
Weir, C.J., & Khalifa, H. (2008). A cognitive processing approach towards defining reading comprehension, Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes, 31, 2-10.
52
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87.
53
Zoghi, M., Mustapha, R., NorRizan, Tg., & Maasum, M. ( 2010). Looking into EFL reading comprehension. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 439-445.
54
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
TEACHERS AS REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONERS: A SURVEY ON IRANIAN ENGLISH TEACHERS’ REFLECTIVE PRACTICE
Reflective teaching, which has gained the status of an integral element of teacher pedagogy, is still an elusive concept, probably because it is merely attainable when teachers are provided with opportunities for building professional knowledge and for showing reflective teaching practices. The present study aimed at examining the English language teachers’ perception of their level of reflection and the way their perceptions were realized in practice. Adopting a multi-method design, the study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, data were elicited form 60 EFL teachers using a questionnaire (Akbari, Behzadpoor & Dadvand, 2010). In the second phase, six teachers were randomly selected from among the surveyed teachers and their teaching practices were observed. The record of the observations was, then, analyzed using the seating chart technique to find patterns in the observed teachers’ questioning practice as a sign of their degree of reflectivity. The results revealed a relatively low level of reflection with the teachers under study tending to rely more on their own rationality in teaching. It is argued that for teachers to develop desirable levels of pedagogic integrity, they should involve themselves more in exploring their students’ learning styles and critical aspects of the teaching context.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3659_9f569361415a4a93081c1e50022375d7.pdf
2016-03-01
57
86
10.22099/jtls.2016.3659
reflective teaching
seating chart
reflective teaching questionnaire
Iranian English language teachers
Golsa
Faghihi
golsafaghihi@yahoo.com
1
London Westminster University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mohammad Reza
Anani Sarab
reza_ananisarab@yahoo.co.uk
2
Shahid Beheshti University
AUTHOR
Abednia, A., Hovassapian, A., Teimournezhad, S. and Ghanbari, N. (2013). Reflective journal writing: Exploring in-service EFL teachers’ perceptions. System 41, 503-514.
1
Akbari, R. (2007). Reflections on reflection: A critical appraisal of reflective practices in L2 teacher education. System, 35, 2, 192-207.
2
Akbari, R., Bhezadpoor, F. & Dadvand, B. (2010). Development of English language teaching reflection inventory. System, 38, 211-227.
3
Bigelow, M. and Ranney, M. (2005). Pre-service ESL teachers’ knowledge about language and its transfer to lesson planning. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education (pp. 179-200). New York: Springer.
4
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum.
5
Borg, S. (2009a). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 355-388.
6
Borg, S. (2009b). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 163-171). New York: Cambridge University Press.
7
Borg, S. (2011). Language Teacher Education. In Simpson, J. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 215-228). London: Routledge.
8
Brosh, H. (1996). Perceived characteristics of the effective language teacher. Foreign Language Annals, 29(2), 125-138.
9
Burton, J. (2009). Reflective practice. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (298-307). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10
Dewey, J. (1930). Individualism, Old and New.New York: Minton, Balch, & Co.
11
Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co Publishers.
12
Farrell, T. (1998). Reflective teaching: The principles and practices. Forum, 36(4), 1-10.
13
Farrell, T. (2004). Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflective Breaks for Busy Teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
14
Farrell, T. (2007). Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice. London: Continuum.
15
Farrell, T. (2011a). Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers through reflective practice. System, 39, 54-62.
16
Farrell, T. (2011b). Keeping score: reflective practice through classroom observations. RELC, 42, 265-272.
17
Gebhard, G. (2009). The Practicum. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 250-259). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18
Giaimo-Ballard, C. (2010). Key Reflective Teaching Strategies used by Education Faculty in NCATE- Accredited Universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, California.
19
Harford, J. & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24, 1884-1892.
20
Humphreys, K. & Susak, Z. (2000). Learning how to fish: Issues for teachers engaging in self-evaluation and reflective enquiry in school. Research in Education, 64, 32-50.
21
Jay, J. K. & Johnson, K.L. (2002). Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73-85.
22
Kabilan, M. K. (2007). English language teachers reflecting on reflections: a Malaysian experience. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 681-706.
23
Kuit, A. J., Reay, G. and Freeman, R. (2001). Experiences of reflective teaching. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2, 128-142.
24
Kullman, J. (1998). Mentoring and the development of reflective practice: Concepts and context. System 26, 471-484.
25
Liou, H.C., (2001). Reflective practice in a pre-service teacher education program for high school English teachers in Taiwan, ROC. System, 29, 197-208.
26
Osterman, K. F. & Kottkamp, R. B. (1993). Reflective Practice for Educators: Improving Schooling through professional development. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
27
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NewYork, NY: Basic Books.
29
Schön, D. A., (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. London: Jossey Bass.
30
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs for the study of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.
31
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
32
Smith, R., Gray, J., Raymond, J., Catling-Paull, C. & Homer, C. S. E. (2012). Simulated learning activities: improving midwifery students’ understanding of reflective practice. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(9), 451-457. Sowa, P. (2009). Understanding our learners and developing reflective practice: Conducting action research with English language learners. Teaching and teacher education, 25(8), 1026-1032.
33
Stout, C. (1989). Teachers' views of the emphasis on reflective teaching skills during their student teaching. Elementary School journal, 89(4), 511-27.
34
Thiessen, D. (2000). A skillful start to a teaching career: a matter of developing impactful behaviors, reflective practices, or professional knowledge? International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 515-537.
35
Ur, P. (1999). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., Johnson, K. (2005). Theorizing language teacher identity: three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language Identity and Education, 4 (1), 21e44.
37
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38
Wolfensberger, B., Piniel, J., Canella, C. & Kyburz-Graber, R. (2010). The challenge of involvement in reflective teaching: Three case studies from a teacher education project on conducting classroom discussions on socio-scientific issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 714-721.
39
Yuan, R. & Lee, I. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ changing beliefs in the teaching practicum: Three cases in an EFL context. System, 44, 1-12.
40
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
ACADEMIC WRITING REVISITED: A PHRASEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS HIGH-STAKE GENRES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LEXICAL BUNDLES
Lexical bundles are frequent word combinations that commonly appear in different registers. They have been the subject of much research in the area of corpus linguistics during the last decade. While most previous studies of bundles have mainly focused on variations in the use of these word combinations across different registers and a number of disciplines, not much research has been done to explore some high-stakes written academic genres of one single disciplinary area. This more qualitative study aimed at finding the way in which target bundles in the discipline of applied linguistics, as identified in research articles, were used by two groups of EFL postgraduate students (master-level and doctoral students) as novice discourse community members in the same discipline. Surprisingly enough, the study, contrary to some findings of the previous research, found that in many cases, postgraduate students were able to use target bundles as published writers did. The study, therefore, revealed little if any difference between the three groups of writers in their actual use of lexical bundles. Notwithstanding this, there were some remarkable discrepancies between the three groups with regard to some structural and functional classes of bundles.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3615_94625e0e7e4cc3ef041f0ea20f4af1f7.pdf
2016-03-01
87
114
10.22099/jtls.2016.3615
lexical bundles
research articles
doctoral dissertations
master theses
applied linguistics
Hassan
Jalali
h.jalali@cc.iut.ac.ir
1
Isfahan UNiversity of Technology
LEAD_AUTHOR
Gholam Reza
Zarei
grzarei@cc.iut.ac.ir
2
Isfahan University of Technology
AUTHOR
Anthony, L. (2007). AntConc 3.2.1w: Freeware corpus analysis toolkit. [On-line]. Available: http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
1
Biber, D. (2006a). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamin.
2
Biber, D. (2006b). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5, 97-106.
3
Biber, D, & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26, 263-286.
4
Biber, D, & Conrad, S., (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In H. Hasselgard, & S. Oksefjell, (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson, (pp.181–189). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
5
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V., (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In: A. Wilson, P. Rayson, and T. McEnery, (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
6
Biber, D, Conrad, S, & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at …: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.
7
Biber, D, Johansson, S, Leech, G, Conrad S, & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson. Conklin, K, and Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic Sequences: Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? Applied linguistics, 29(1), 72-89. Conrad, S. (1996). Academic discourse in two disciplines: Professional writing and student development in biology and history. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University. Northern Arizona University, Arizona.
8
Cortes, V. (2001). Lexical bundles in context: A new taxonomy. Unpublished Manuscript, Northern Arizona University, Arizona.
9
Cortes, V. (2002). Lexical bundles in academic writing in history and biology. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Arizona.
10
Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 397–423.
11
Cortes, V. (2006). Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example form a writing intensive history class. Linguistics and Education, 17, 391-406.
12
Cortes, V. (2008). A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora, 3, 43-58.
13
Gibbs, R, Bogadanovich, J, Sykes. J, & Barr, D. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 37,141–54. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). Functions of language (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
14
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). It is interesting to note that… : A comparative study of anticipatory 'it' in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367-383.
15
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
16
Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory coursebooks. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 3-26.
17
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Longman.
18
Hyland, K. (2001a). Brining in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written communication, 18(4), 549-574.
19
Hyland (2001b). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mentions in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.
20
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151.
21
Hyland, K. (2005) Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–191.
22
Hyland, K. (2007). Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied linguistics, 28(2), 266-285.
23
Hyland, K. (2008a). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 4-21.
24
Hyland, K. (2008b). Academic clusters: text patterning in published and postgraduate writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 41-62.
25
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139.
26
Jones, M, & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences (pp. 269-292). John Benjamins: Philadelphia.
27
Levy, S.A. (2003). Lexical bundles in professional and student writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific, California.
28
Nattinger,J. & DeCarrico, J.(1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29
Ruiying, Y, & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.
30
Ruiying, Y, & Allison, D. (2004). Research articles in applied linguistics: structures from a functional perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 264-279.
31
Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith Tools 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 58-78.
33
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
34
Wray, A., and Perkins, R. M. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication, 20, 1-28.
35
Yorio, C. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K. Hyltenstam & K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan (pp. 55–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
IMPACT OF SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ON EFL LEARNERS’ COLLABORATION: A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
For the last two decades, computers have entered people’s lives in an unprecedented manner in a way that almost everybody considers life without them rather impossible. In recent years, researchers and educators have been trying to discover how computers and the Internet technology can maximize the quality of language instruction. As such, the present experimental study sought to investigate the impact of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) on Iranian EFL learners’ collaboration. To this end, 26 upper-intermediate female students were randomly chosen from a language institute and then they were randomly assigned to one control (Face-to-Face) and two experimental groups (Internet Relay Chat and 2 Dimensional modes). Then, they were taught how to write for ten sessions. The two experimental groups were instructed over the net with two different SCMC modes while the control group was given instruction in a conventional classroom context. Quantitative data regarding the students’ collaboration were collected via Haythornthwaite’s (2000) three-part Likert-scale questionnaire after being tested for its reliability and validity for the present context. The results of one-way ANOVA showed no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of collaborative learning, class interaction, and students’ impression. The results also suggested that mode of instruction might not be a determining factor as far as the amount of students’ collaboration, interaction and impressions are concerned.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3616_2dae35d47d04a7f831dfca034e22474a.pdf
2016-03-01
115
140
10.22099/jtls.2016.3616
Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC)
Internet Relay Chat (IRC)
2 Dimensional (2D)
Face to Face (F2F) context
collaboration
Azadeh
Mozafarian Pour
amozafarianpour@gmail.com
1
University of Guilan
LEAD_AUTHOR
Abdorreza
Tahriri
atahriri@gmail.com
2
University of Guilan
AUTHOR
Abe, Y. (2005). Japanese EFL learners’ patterns of interaction in two synchronous discussion modes. TCC 2011 Proceedings, Hiroshima, Japan, 169-185.
1
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Eisenmann, T. (2009). Online and face-to-face discussions in the classroom: A study on the experiences of 'active' and 'silent' students. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, CSCL'09, Rhodes, Greece. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from ltee.org/uploads/cscl2009/paper203.pdf
2
Becker-Beck, U., Wintermantel, M., & Borg, A. (2005). Principles of regulating interaction teams practicing face-to-face communication versus teams practicing Computer-Mediated Communication. Small Group Research, 36(4), 499-536.
3
Chapman Parr, P., & Krashen, S. D. (1986). Involuntary rehearsal of second language in beginning and advanced performers. System, 14(3), 275-278.
4
Cho, H. J. (2011). Negotiation of meaning in synchronous computer-mediated communication in relation to task types. Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University. Retrieved June 20, 2014, from http://gradworks.umi.com/34/88/3488411.html
5
Chou, C. C. (2002). A comparative content analysis of student interaction in Synchronous and Asynchronous learning networks. Paper presented at the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: IEEE Computer Society, Hawaii. Retrieved June 15, 2014, from http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2002/1435/05/14350134b.pdf
6
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
7
Colon, V. A. (2011). Using web 2.0 tools in a foreign language classroom: Motivating students through virtual social interaction to improve reading and writing skills (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia). Retrieved June 7, 2014, from http://purl.galileo.usg.edu/uga%5Fetd/colon%5Fvictor%5Fa%5F201105%5Fphd
8
Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249-277.
9
Fjermestad, J. (2004). An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decision Support Systems, 37, 239-263.
10
Goda, Y., & Yamada, M. (2013). Application of CoI to design CSCL for EFL online asynchronous discussion. In Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D., R. (Eds.) Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and Practice (pp. 295-311). Canada: IGI Global.
11
Harstinski, S. (2006). Introducing an informal synchronous medium in a distance learning course: How is participation affected? Internet and Higher Education, 9, 117-131.
12
Harstinski, S. (2007). Participating in synchronous online education. Lund, Sweden: Lund University. Retrieved June 18, 2014, from http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=599311&fileOId=600490
13
Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks: Size, composition and media use among distance learners. New Media & Society, 2(2), 195-266.
14
Hoven, D. L. (2006). Communicating and interacting: An exploration of the changing roles of media in CALL/CMC. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 23(2), 233-256.
15
Hubbard, P. (2009). Computer Assisted Language Learning: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. London: Rutledge.
16
Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the internet. Computers & Education, 35, 21-35.
17
Jeong, E. (2010). Comparison between the effects of SCMC and SCMC with peer feedback on EFL writing. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 81-103.
18
Jeong, N. (2011, October). The effects of task type and group structure on meaning negotiation in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Proceedings of the 2009 Second Language Research Forum: Diverse Contributions to SLA (pp. 51-69). MA, USA. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from http://www.lingref.com/cpp/slrf/2009/index.html
19
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
20
Krashen, S. D. (1991). How much comprehensible input did Heinrich Schliemann get? System, 19(3), 189-190.
21
Krashen, S. D. (1996). The case for narrow listening. System, 24(1), 97-100.
22
Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Knowledge of language in foreign language teacher education. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 270-274.
23
La Pointe, D. K. (2005). Effects of peer interaction facilitated by computer-mediated conferencing on learning outcomes: A story of developing, testing, and refining a model to understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes. Paper presented at 19th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Retrieved July 5, 2014, from http//www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/
24
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181.
25
Mahmoud, A. B., & Auter, P. J. (2009). The interactive nature of Computer-Mediated Communication. American Communication Journal, 11(4). Retrieved July 7, 2014, from https://www.academia.edu/847408/The_interactive_nature_of_computer-mediated_communication
26
Mangubhai, F. (2001). Book floods and comprehensible input floods: Providing ideal conditions for second language acquisition. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(2), 147-156.
27
Pellettieri, J. (2010). Online chat in the foreign language classroom: From research to pedagogy. MEXTESOL Journal, 34(1), 41-57.
28
Puri, G. (2012). Critical success factors in E-learning – An empirical study. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(1), 149-161.
29
Pui-Shan, C. S. (2003). Using computer-mediated communication (CMC) to enhance student participation in group discussion, Postgraduate Thesis, the University of Hong Kong. Retrieved June 10, 2014, from http://hub.hku.hk/handle/10722/31153
30
Rezai, A. A., & Zafari, N. (2010). The impact of Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC) on the oral proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. IJAL, 13(2), 101-119.
31
Rodrigo, V., Krashen, S. D., & Gribbons, B. (2004). The effectiveness of two approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level. System, 32(1), 53-60.
32
Smith, B., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Features of CMC technologies and their impact on language learners’ online interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 703-729.
33
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
34
Yilmaz, Y. (2008). Collaborative dialogue during tasks in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University). Retrieved June 10, 2014, from https://www.lib.fsu.edu/find/etds.html
35
Ziegler, M. (2013). Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication and interaction: A research synthesis and meta-analysis, Doctoral Dissertation, Georgetown University. Retrieved July 8, 2014, from https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/559497/Ziegler_georgetown_0076D_12341.pdf?sequence=1
36
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
THREE TYPES OF COMMENTS ON CONTENT: TEACHER VS. PEER FEEDBACK
This study was conducted to examine the effect of three types of comments, i.e. imperatives, questions, and statements, with different communicative purposes, i.e. giving information and making a request, given by an ELT teacher and peers on students’ revision of their writings. Sixty-four female students, between 16 and 26 years old studying at high-intermediate level of English language proficiency in Iran Language Institute (ILI) participated in this quasi-experimental study. They constituted four intact classes, two of which received feedback on their writing from their teacher, and the other two received peer feedback. One hundred and twenty eight pairs of students’ drafts including 672 instances of revisions of their writings based on teacher or peer comments were collected and analyzed based on the rubric designed by Ferris (1997). It was found that questions and statements provided by the teacher with the purpose of making a request, and statements given by the peers with either one of communicative functions all bring about the best results in students’ writings. On the other hand, the analysis of the revisions made by the students showed that statements provided by the teacher for the purpose of giving information has the least positive effect on the students’ modifications. Surprisingly, questions provided by the teacher and peers with the purpose of giving information were found to have negative effects on the students’ writing.
https://tesl.shirazu.ac.ir/article_3656_5dee4b1aa61cd259c910e99c0fb9980a.pdf
2016-03-01
141
166
10.22099/jtls.2016.3656
peer feedback
teacher feedback
content
comment type
communicative purpose
Leila
Tajik
tajik_l@alzahra.ac.ir
1
Alzahra University
LEAD_AUTHOR
Maryam
Fakhari
maryf_1363@yahoo.com
2
Alzahra University
AUTHOR
Maryam
Hashamdar
maryam_hashamdar@yahoo.com
3
Alzahra University
AUTHOR
Somayeh
Habib Zadeh
somaye.habibzade@rocketmail.com
4
Alzahra University
AUTHOR
Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics & Pedagogy (pp. 90-116). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
1
Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: attitudes and friendship bias. Language Testing in Asia, 3(11), 1-10.
2
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for Learning: Putting it into Practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
3
Brice, C. (1995, March). ESL writers’ reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of Other Languages, Long Beach, CA.
4
Chaudron, C. (1983, March). Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback on revision. Paper presented at the Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto, Ontario.
5
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.
6
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp.155–177). Cambridge, CB: Cambridge University Press.
7
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
8
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147-179.
9
Doman, E. (Ed.). (2014). Insight into EFL Teaching and Issues in Asia. London: Cambridge Scholars.
10
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
11
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-340.
12
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second-Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13
Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193.
14
Gascoigne, C. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 71-76.
15
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31.
16
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
17
Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53-70.
18
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: case studies into teachers' implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 101-111.
19
Hedgcock, J. S., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.
20
Hillocks, G. Jr. (2005). At Last: The Focus on Form vs. Content in Teaching Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(2), 238-248.
21
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23
Kasanga, L. A. (2004). Students' response to peer and teacher feedback in a first-year writing course. Journal for Language Teaching, 31(8), 64-128.
24
Kroll, B. (2001).Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp.219-232). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
25
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-770.
26
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200.
27
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
28
Peterson, S.S., & Portier, C. (2014). Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Education 3-13, 42(3), 1-21.
29
Raimes, A. (1983). Anguish as a second language? Remedies for composition teachers. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle, & J. Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second language (pp. 258-272). London, England: Longman.
30
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
31
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to students’ writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148-156.
32
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). An investigation of university EFL students’ attitudes toward teacher and peer feedback. Educational Research & Review, 7(26), 558-562.
33
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291-303.
34
Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers’ comment types on students’ revision. ELT Journal, 6(1), 34-41.
35
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
36
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
37
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
38
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
39
Zarei, A. A., & Sayar Mahdavi, A. (2014). The effect of peer and teacher assessment on EFL learners' grammatical and lexical writing accuracy. Journal of Social Issues and Humanities, 2(9), 92-97.
40
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
41
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2). 155-168.
42