Investigating EFL Master Students’ Beliefs and Practices Regarding Reader Engagement in Writing Research Articles
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32332/joelt.v9i2.3566Keywords:
Academic writing, Beliefs, Engagement, Metadiscourse, research articleAbstract
This study reports Indonesian master students’ beliefs and practices on the use of reader engagement in writing research articles. This study was a case study conducted in one Indonesian university. The data were collected through questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. The participants were 23 Indonesian master students. Furthermore, there were 9 research articles written by the participants which were analyzed in this study. The data were analyzed under the metadiscourse framework, specifically in the reader engagement: reader pronouns, personal asides, appeals to shared knowledge, directives, and questions. The findings show that Indonesian master students believe in the importance of using reader engagement in research articles. However, they rarely used it since they did not know the concept and how to use it effectively. It implies that more exposure to using metadiscourse, especially reader engagement, in research articles is needed for Indonesian master students to achieve more reader-friendly research articles.
References
Amiryousefi, M. (2010). Metadiscourse : Definitions, Issues and Its Implications for English Teachers. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 159–167.
Can, T., & Cangır, H. (2019). A corpus-assisted comparative analysis of self-mention markers in doctoral dissertations of literary studies written in Turkey and the UK. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100796
Chang, P. (2017). An Exploration of Interactional Metadiscourse in Architecture Research An Exploration of Interactional Metadiscourse in Architecture Research Articles. August.
Gillaerts, P., & Velde, F. Van De. (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
Handayani, A., Drajati, N. A., & Ngadiso. (2020). Engagement in high-and low-rated argumentative essays: Interactions in Indonesian students’ writings. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.17509/IJAL.V10I1.24957
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions : metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. 13, 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education, 16(4), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2006.05.002
Hyland, K. (2005c). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
Hyland, K. (2016). Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.013
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2016). “ We must conclude that … ” : A diachronic study of academic engagement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.09.003
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal ? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (Joanna). (2020). In the frame: Signalling structure in academic articles and blogs. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.05.002
Jiang, F. K., & Ma, X. (2018). “As we can see”: reader engagement in PhD candidature confirmation reports.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.05.003
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004
Li, Z., & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.003
Loghmani, Z., Ghonsooly, B., & Ghazanfari, M. (2020). Engagement in doctoral dissertation discussion sections written by English native speakers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 45, 100851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100851
Miles, M. B., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook (3rd Edition). Sage Publications, Inc.
