A corpus-based analysis of critical thinking through interactional metadiscourse in pre-service EFL teachers’ writing

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 239 – 265, 31.07.2024

Selahattin Yılmaz , Ferda İlerten

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.1383179

Öz

Critical writing seeks to enhance university students’ ability to think causally and reason effectively, and this improvement should be evident in their language use in the assignments. An example of such language is interactional metadiscourse, the expression of attitudes and opinions in line with the intended audience. In pursuit of these objectives, this study investigated the textual characteristics of critical thinking by examining interactional metadiscourse markers (MDMs) in the critical response papers authored by English Language Teaching (ELT) undergraduate students throughout a semester at a Turkish state university. The findings revealed shifts in the use of interactional MDMs by the end of the semester. While markers for engagement, hedging, and boosting remained prevalent across various tasks, the utilization of self-mentions and attitude markers declined, indicating a transition from the students’ sharing personal opinions and experiences to relying on evidence from research in academic texts to support their arguments. Additionally, the study highlighted the impact of topic selection on how students incorporated metadiscourse markers into their response papers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Critical thinking, English for academic purposes, Metadiscourse, Pre-service teacher education, Second language writing

Kaynakça

• Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.
• Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (2015). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge University Press.
• Akbaş, E. (2014). Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts. In Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 119-133). Springer.
• Algı, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing. (Publication No. 321188) [MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University], Ankara, Turkey. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
• Anthony, L. (2017). EncodeAnt (Version 1.2.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
• Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
• Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier, & V. Viana (Eds.), Avaliaçoes e perspectivas: mapeando os estudos empiricos na area de Humanas (Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the humanities) (pp. 163-184). Publit.
• Beyazyildirim, D., & Ercan, G. S. (2023). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Argumentative Texts of English Preparatory Class Students. Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 16(98).
• Breeze, R. (2012). Rethinking academic writing pedagogy for the European university. Rodopi.
• Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
• Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25.
• Bruce, I. (2018). The textual expression of critical thinking in PhD discussions in Applied Linguistics. ESP Today, 6(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2018.6.1.1
• Carroll, D. W. (2007). Patterns of student writing in a critical thinking course: A quantitative analysis. Assessing Writing, 12(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.001
• Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, 9, 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003
• Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (Vol. 350). John Wiley & Sons.
• Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010
• Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
• Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline?. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
• Ennis, R. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In J. Baron and R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. (pp. 9-26). W.H. Freeman.
• Ennis, R. (1992). The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: Clarification and needed research. In S. Norris (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal (pp. 21-37). Teachers College Press.
• Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. California Academic Press.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2023). How to design and evaluate research in education (11th ed.). McGraw Hill.
• Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32, 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522
• Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
• Gürsoy, Z. (2023). The investigation of metadiscourse markers in native and non-native academic corpora: Authorial stance and the use of hedging. (Publication No. 839408) [MA Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University], Trabzon, Turkey. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
• Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68.
• Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
• Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. In L. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 5-23). Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. A&C Black.
• Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
• Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003
• Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
• Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
• Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialised corpora. In A. O'Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 66- 79). Routledge.
• Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30.
• Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34.
• Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2018). Connecting writing assessment with critical thinking: An exploratory study of alternative rhetorical functions and objects of enquiry in writing prompts. Assessing Writing, 38, 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.09.001
• Martín-Laguna, S. (2023). Metadiscourse learning trajectories in multilingual learners: A focus on attitude markers and hedges. In New trends on metadiscourse: An analysis of online and textual genres (pp. 105-128). Springer International Publishing.
• McKinley, J. (2013). Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal, 44(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688213488386
• Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 506-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586995
• Nosich, G. (2021). Critical writing: a guide to writing a paper using the concepts and processes of critical thinking. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Pohlert, T. (2018). PMCMR: Calculate Pairwise Multiple Comparisons of Mean Rank Sums. [R package]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=PMCMR.
• Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
• Ross, D. (2018). Small corpora and low-frequency phenomena: try and beyond contemporary, standard English. Corpus, 18, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.3574
• Ruan, Z. (2019). Metadiscourse use in L2 student essay writing: A longitudinal cross-contextual comparison. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 466-487. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2019-0028
• Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936
• Tasso, C. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse features in the written production made by Spanish EFL learners. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Corpus analysis in different genres: Academic discourse and learner corpora (pp. 206-218). Routledge.
• The Jamovi Project (2021). Jamovi. (Version 2.2) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.
• Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text & Talk, 15(1), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103
• Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00022-X
• Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(2), 121-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00013-9
• Yoon, H. J. (2021). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34(3), 705-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7
• Yüksel, H. G., & Kavanoz, S. (2018). Dimension of Experience: Metadiscourse in the Texts of Novice Non-Native, Novice Native and Expert Native Speaker. Advances in language and literary studies, 9(3), 104-112.

İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının yazımlarında etkileşimsel üstsöylem yoluyla eleştirel düşünmenin derlem tabanlı analizi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 3, 239 – 265, 31.07.2024

Selahattin Yılmaz , Ferda İlerten

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.1383179

Öz

Eleştirel yazma, üniversite öğrencilerinin nedensel düşünme ve akıl yürütme becerilerinin geliştirilmesini hedeflemektedir ve bu gelişimin öğrencilerin ödevlerinde kullandıkları dile yansıması beklenmektedir. Bu dil kullanımının bir örneği, hedeflenen kitleye uyumlu tutum ve görüşlerin ifade edildiği etkileşimsel üstsöylemdir. Bu hedefler doğrultusunda, bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki bir devlet üniversitesinde bir akademik yarı yıl boyunca İngilizce öğretmen adayları tarafından yazılan eleştirel değerlendirme raporlarındaki etkileşimsel üstsöylem belirteçlerini (EÜB’ler) inceleyerek eleştirel düşünmenin metinsel özelliklerini araştırmıştır. Bulgular, dönem sonunda söylem işaretleyicilerinin kullanımında anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Katılım, kaçınma ve güçlendirme belirteçleri bazı raporlarda yaygın olarak kullanılırken, bazı raporlarda ise kendinden bahsetme ve tutum belirteçlerinin kullanımı azalmıştır. Elde edilen bu sonuç, öğrencilerin kişisel görüşlerini ve deneyimlerini paylaşmaktan, argümanlarını desteklemek için akademik metinlerdeki araştırma bulgularına güvenmeye geçiş yaptıklarını göstermektedir. Ek olarak çalışma, öğrencilerin eleştirel değerlendirme raporlarına EÜB’leri nasıl dahil ettikleri hususunda konu seçiminin etkisini vurgulamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akademik İngilizce, Eleştirel düşünme, Hizmet öncesi öğretmen eğitimi, İkinci dilde yazma, Üstsöylem

Kaynakça

• Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English (Vol. 24). John Benjamins Publishing.
• Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C. (2015). Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge University Press.
• Akbaş, E. (2014). Are they discussing in the same way? Interactional metadiscourse in Turkish writers’ texts. In Occupying niches: Interculturality, cross-culturality and aculturality in academic research (pp. 119-133). Springer.
• Algı, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing. (Publication No. 321188) [MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University], Ankara, Turkey. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
• Anthony, L. (2017). EncodeAnt (Version 1.2.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
• Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
• Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier, & V. Viana (Eds.), Avaliaçoes e perspectivas: mapeando os estudos empiricos na area de Humanas (Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the humanities) (pp. 163-184). Publit.
• Beyazyildirim, D., & Ercan, G. S. (2023). Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Argumentative Texts of English Preparatory Class Students. Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 16(98).
• Breeze, R. (2012). Rethinking academic writing pedagogy for the European university. Rodopi.
• Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.
• Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13-25.
• Bruce, I. (2018). The textual expression of critical thinking in PhD discussions in Applied Linguistics. ESP Today, 6(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2018.6.1.1
• Carroll, D. W. (2007). Patterns of student writing in a critical thinking course: A quantitative analysis. Assessing Writing, 12(3), 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.001
• Condon, W., & Kelly-Riley, D. (2004). Assessing and teaching what we value: The relationship between college-level writing and critical thinking abilities. Assessing Writing, 9, 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.003
• Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (Vol. 350). John Wiley & Sons.
• Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System, 69, 92-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010
• Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 192-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.10.001
• Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline?. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(10), 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
• Ennis, R. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking abilities and dispositions. In J. Baron and R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice. (pp. 9-26). W.H. Freeman.
• Ennis, R. (1992). The degree to which critical thinking is subject specific: Clarification and needed research. In S. Norris (Ed.), The generalizability of critical thinking: Multiple perspectives on an educational ideal (pp. 21-37). Teachers College Press.
• Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. California Academic Press.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2023). How to design and evaluate research in education (11th ed.). McGraw Hill.
• Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32, 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522
• Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
• Gürsoy, Z. (2023). The investigation of metadiscourse markers in native and non-native academic corpora: Authorial stance and the use of hedging. (Publication No. 839408) [MA Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University], Trabzon, Turkey. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
• Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students' timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53-68.
• Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112.
• Hyland, K. (2004). Patterns of engagement: Dialogic features and L2 undergraduate writing. In L. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 5-23). Continuum.
• Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. A&C Black.
• Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
• Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003
• Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going?. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
• Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 51, 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.02.001
• Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
• Koester, A. (2010). Building small specialised corpora. In A. O'Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 66- 79). Routledge.
• Lancaster, Z. (2016). Expressing stance in undergraduate writing: Discipline-specific and general qualities. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 16-30.
• Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34.
• Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2018). Connecting writing assessment with critical thinking: An exploratory study of alternative rhetorical functions and objects of enquiry in writing prompts. Assessing Writing, 38, 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.09.001
• Martín-Laguna, S. (2023). Metadiscourse learning trajectories in multilingual learners: A focus on attitude markers and hedges. In New trends on metadiscourse: An analysis of online and textual genres (pp. 105-128). Springer International Publishing.
• McKinley, J. (2013). Displaying critical thinking in EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal, 44(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688213488386
• Moore, T. (2013). Critical thinking: Seven definitions in search of a concept. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 506-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586995
• Nosich, G. (2021). Critical writing: a guide to writing a paper using the concepts and processes of critical thinking. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Pohlert, T. (2018). PMCMR: Calculate Pairwise Multiple Comparisons of Mean Rank Sums. [R package]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=PMCMR.
• Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.10.004
• Ross, D. (2018). Small corpora and low-frequency phenomena: try and beyond contemporary, standard English. Corpus, 18, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.3574
• Ruan, Z. (2019). Metadiscourse use in L2 student essay writing: A longitudinal cross-contextual comparison. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 466-487. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2019-0028
• Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936
• Tasso, C. (2020). Interactional metadiscourse features in the written production made by Spanish EFL learners. In M. L. Carrió-Pastor (Ed.), Corpus analysis in different genres: Academic discourse and learner corpora (pp. 206-218). Routledge.
• The Jamovi Project (2021). Jamovi. (Version 2.2) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.
• Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text & Talk, 15(1), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103
• Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 769-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00022-X
• Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Critical analysis versus description? Examining the relationship in successful student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(2), 121-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00013-9
• Yoon, H. J. (2021). Interactions in EFL argumentative writing: effects of topic, L1 background, and L2 proficiency on interactional metadiscourse. Reading and Writing, 34(3), 705-725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10085-7
• Yüksel, H. G., & Kavanoz, S. (2018). Dimension of Experience: Metadiscourse in the Texts of Novice Non-Native, Novice Native and Expert Native Speaker. Advances in language and literary studies, 9(3), 104-112.

Toplam 54 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Kaynak Göster

Download or read online: Click here