METADISCOURSE AWARENESS AND READING COMPREHENSION IN ESP CONTEXT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32461/2226-3209.3.2018.176892Abstract
Abstract. Current theories of reading state that reading is neither passive and bottom-up nor top-down
processes, but rather an active process including both lower and higher level processes working interactively. With metadiscourse awareness and strategies for using it, readers can understand the author’s intentions better (Crismore, 1990). Thus, the present study investigated the effect of explicit metadiscourse (MD) markers instruction on EFL learners’ immediate and delayed reading comprehension improvement by using metadiscoursal taxonomies proposed by Hyland (2005) in ESP classes (Accounting). For this end, 60 homogenous female participants out of the pool of 84 in two intact classes (30 in each class) were selected through Reading and Writing sections of Preliminary English Test (PET) and then the classes were randomly assigned into two groups, namely, experimental and control ones. The participants were of the same English proficiency level (i.e., at intermediate level). A meaningful guarantee for the homogeneity of the participants was obtained through a series of independent samples t-tests. Each group was instructed for 7 sessions, once a week. They received the same instruction in all the language skills and components except for the reading comprehension. The only difference between two groups was in teaching and learning MD markers. The experimental group received explicit instruction of MD markers for 7 sessions. However, the control group received no specific instructions in MD markers. The results of an independent-samples t-test revealed that the experimental groups receiving explicit MD markers instruction performed much better than the control group.
Key words: Metadiscourse markers, Reading comprehension, EFL learners.
References
Aidinlou, N. S., & Vafaee, A. (2012). The Effect of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers on Iranian
EFL high school learners' reading comprehension. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(6), 6210-6214.
Alderson, J. C. (2005). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern
Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, N. L. (2012). Reading instruction. In A. Burns and J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 218-225). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Behnam, B., & Babapour, M. (2015). EFL learners’ reading comprehension ability in the light of metadiscourse
awareness. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(9), 1850-1856.
Camiciottoli, B C. (2003). Metadiscourse and ESP comprehension: an exploratory study. Reading in a Foreign.
Language, 15(1), 15-33.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with Readers: Metadiscourse as Rhetorical Act. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A. (1990). Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues. Discourse Processes, 13,
-205.
Crismore, A. (2004). Pronouns and metadiscourse as interpersonal rhetorical devices in fundraising letters: a
corpus linguistic analysis. In U. Connor and T. A. Upton (Ed), Discourse in the professions. Perspectives from corpus
linguistics (pp. 307-330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Crismore, A., Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). A review of recent metadiscourse studies: The Iranian context. Nordic
Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 195-219.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: a study of texts
written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Hedges and readers: Effects on attitudes and learning. In S.
Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in
academic texts (pp. 83-114). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Dastgoshadeh, A. (2001). Reading comprehension of EFL students using metadiscourse (Unpublished master's
dissertation). University of Tehran, Tehran.
Gholami, M., Tajalli, G. H., & Shokrpour, N. (2014). An investigation of metadiscourse markers in English
medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and
Literature Studies, 2(2), 1-41.
Gilbert, J. (2010). Constructivism within the second language classroom. Boison State University. Retrieved
from http://edtech2.boisestate.edu/gilbertj/504/synthesis.pdf
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. In M.
Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.) (pp. 187–205). Boston: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Hashemian, M., Rahimi Domakani, M., & Rahmati, Z. (2012). Metadiscourse and L2 reading comprehension:
the effect of genre and L2 proficiency. International Journal of English and Literaturem 2(1), 62-73.
Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics,
, 437-455.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interaction in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English
Studies, Spesial Issue, Metadiscourse, 9(2), 125-143.
Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 4(3), 263–272.
Jalilifar, A., & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 127-148.
Jalififar, A. R., & Shooshtari, Z. G. (2011). Metadiscourse Awareness and ESAP Comprehension. Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 41(2),53-74.
Jenkinson, R. (1998). The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. John Benjamins.
Karimi, L., Tabrizi, A. R. N., & Sadeghoghli, H. (2013). The effect of explicit instruction of metadiscourse awareness on developing Iranian EFL learners' reading comprehension and its relationship to the learners' memory. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(2), 262-273.
Kumpf., E. P. (2000) Visual metadiscourse: Designing the considerate text. Technical Communication
Quarterly,9(4), 401_424.
Lynch, B., & Hudson, T. (1991). EST Reading. In M. Celce-Murcia ( Ed. ), Teaching English as a second or foreign Language (2nd ed.) (pp. 216–232). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Parvaresh, V., & Nemati, M. (2008). Metadiscourse and Reading Comprehension: The Effects of Language and
Proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(2), 220–239.
Rasti, I. (2011). Involving the reader in the text: Engagement markers in native and non-native student
argumentative essays. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Liverpool.
Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Stanovich, K. (1991). Changing models of reading and reading acquisition. In L. L. Reiben & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and implications (pp. 19-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tavakoli, M., Dabaghi, A., & Khorvash, Z. (2010). The Effect of metadiscourse awareness on L2 reading comprehension: A case of Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 92-102.
Vande Kopple, W.J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–93.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zarrati, Z., Nambiar, R. M. K., & Massum, T. N. R. (2012). Effect of Metadiscourse on Reading Comprehension of
Iranian EFL Learners. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(3), 27-38.
Downloads
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
