All Journals

Language Teaching Research Quarterly

European Journal of Studies in Management and Business

International Journal of Behavior Studies in Organizations

Studies in Educational Management

New Challenges in Accounting and Finance

Language Testing in Focus: An International Journal

Marketing and Branding Research

Individual Differences in Language Education: An International Journal 

Feedback Research in Second Language 

Management Issues in Healthcare System

Language Teacher Education Research

Artificial Intelligence Knowledge Development

<p style="text-align:justify;">A published research article is not the final product in the knowledge dissemination circle. One genre entailing&nbsp;negotiation of academic outcomes is reply articles which seem to carry an evaluative burden (Khosravi &amp;&nbsp;Babaii, 2017) and provide the academics with an opportunity to communicate their comments and criticisms on&nbsp;the published research findings. Nevertheless, it seems to have been underestimated compared to other genres&nbsp;in academic discourse communities. Attempting to fill this void, the current study attempted to investigate the&nbsp;frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in 19 reply articles published in academic journals in applied&nbsp;linguistics from 2016 to 2021. Coding the interactional resources of Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of&nbsp;metadiscourse revealed that self-mentions were the commonest interactional metadiscourse markers followed&nbsp;by hedges, boosters, engagement markers and attitude markers in the reply articles. The study contributes to the&nbsp;existing literature by corroborating the genre-specific nature of interactional metadiscourse and has&nbsp;implications for the academic reading and writing course designers and material developers.</p>

Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in Applied Linguistics Reply Articles

Original Research 

ltrq.2021.22.05.xml

<p style="text-align:justify;">The present study&nbsp;aimed to evaluate the newly compiled English book for the third grade of senior high school, currently called the 12th grade, and the previous English textbook&nbsp;for pre-university students. To this end, 80 experienced teachers, with the&nbsp;experience of teaching both books, were asked to complete an eclectic checklist comprising 38 items and evaluating the book in terms of nine major criteria,&nbsp;namely General considerations, Vocabulary, Grammar, Speaking, Listening,&nbsp;Reading, Writing, Pronunciation, Supplementary materials, tasks and activities. Following that, 10 teachers were also interviewed in order to deepen the&nbsp;quantitative data. The findings indicated that the teachers were more satisfied&nbsp;with the newly introduced book to the educational system. Furthermore, the mean&nbsp;values revealed that the teachers rated the speaking and listening sections as&nbsp;good or satisfactory while they ranked the supplementary materials criterion as&nbsp;the least satisfactory one. As regards the other criteria of the checklist, the&nbsp;findings demonstrated that the teachers were satisfied to some extent. In&nbsp;general, the results confirmed that notwithstanding the dramatic positive&nbsp;changes in Vision 3, it still requires to undergo major revisions in order to&nbsp;meet the EFL students’ needs. Hence, the results would benefit the materials&nbsp;developers in order to locate the areas for improvement.</p>

Can Vision 3 Notch up a Win over Pre-university English Textbook?

ltrq.2020.15.02.xml

Guest-editors: 
Christine Coombe, PhD, Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, UAE
Hassan Mohebbi, PhD, Independent Researcher, Turkey


Special Issue: Material Development: In Honour of Brian Tomlinson