بررسی ویژگی های ژانری مقالات علمی منتشر شده در بولتن انجمن ریاضی ایران
Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسیداود کوهی 1 , نسترن حاجی حاتم لو 2
1 - English Language Department, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
2 - English Language Department, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
Keywords: ژانر, ریاضیات, ویژگیهای ژانری, مقاله علمی,
Abstract :
در سایه درک ضرورت بررسی ویژگیهای ژانری ژانرهای مختلف علمی / دانشگاهی جهت تسهیل توانایی اعضای غیر بومی جوامع گفتمانی مختلف در درک و تولید این ژانرها، پژوهش حاضر ویژگیهای عمده ژانری مقالات منتشر شده در بولتن انجمن ریاضی ایران را را مورد بررسی قرار داد. مطالعه حاضر منجر به شناسایی یک ساختار متشکل از 11 حرکت شد. این در حالی است که مقالات منتشر شده در این ژورنال از ساختار متعارف مقدمه-روش شناسی-نتایج-بحث اغلب رشته ها تبعیت نمی کرد. قسمت های روش شناسی و بحث که در مقالات پژوهشی اکثر رشته ها وجود دارند در مقالات مورد بررسی یافت نشدند. این یافته ها نشان می دهند که ساختار ژانری کلان مقالات پژوهشی در رشته های مختلف از کنوانسیون های خاص ارتباطی و فلسفه پژوهشی آن رشته ها تبعیت می کند.البته از آنجاییکه تمام مقالات توسط مولفان ایرانی تالیف شده اند نقش عوامل فرهنگی در شکل گیری این ساختار می تواند از اهمیت برخوردار باشد.
References
Akkaya, N. & Demirel, M. V. (2012). Teacher candidates’ use of questioning skills during-reading and post-reading strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 (2012) 4301 – 4305.
Anderson, N. (2003). Reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.) Practical English Language Teaching (pp. 67-86). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Antoniou, F., & Souvignier, E. (2007). -Strategy instruction in reading comprehension-: An intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5, 41-57.
Armstrong, E. M., & Ferguson, A. (2010). Language, meaning, context, and functional communication. Aphasiology, 24(4), 480-496.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal,72(2), 150-162.
Coiro, J. (2003). Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding Our Understanding of Reading Comprehension to Encompass New Literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56,458- 464.
Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Habibian, M. & Roslan, S. (2014). The relationship between self-efficacy in reading with language proficiency and reading comprehension among ESL learners. Journal of Education and Practice, (5)14, 119-126.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Markham: Pembroke.
Kassem, H.M. (2013). The effect of collaborative versus individual strategic reading on college EFL learners’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy. Asian EFL Journal. Professional Teaching Articles, 60, 21-23.
Khansir, A.A., & Gholami Dashti, J. (2014). The Effect of Question-Generation Strategy on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Development. English Language Teaching, 7(4), 41-44.
Kose, N. (2006). Effects of portfolio implementation and assessment critical reading on learner autonomy of EFL students. Retrieved from http://www.belgeler.com/blg/12ta/effects-of- portfolioimplementation-and-assessment-on-critical-reading-and-learner-autonomy-of-elt-students
Linse, T. C. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching, Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Look, S., M. (2000). Effective Instructional Strategies Series. USA: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning
Mc Namara, D. S. (2009). The Importance of Teaching Reading Strategies:Perspectives on Language and Literacy. The International Dyslexia Association, 3(2), 4-40.
Miciano, R. Z. (2002). Self-questioning and prose comprehension: A sample case of ESL reading. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(2), 210-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03024914.
Mirhassani, A. & Farhady, H. (2012). New Reading Through Interaction, book two. Tehran:Zabankadeh.
Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. McGraw Hill.
Pardo, L. S. (2004). What Every Teacher Needs to Know About Comprehension. The ReadingTeacher, Nov. 2004, 272-281.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman & J. W. Segal (eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills(pp.563-577).. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Serravallo, J. (2010). Teaching reading in small groups: Differentiated instruction for building strategic, independent readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sunggingwati, D., & Nguyen, H.T.M. (2013). Self-questioning strategy training: Insights from implementation. Asian EFL Journal ( Professional Teaching Articles), 68,39-72.
Van den Broek, P., & Espin, C. A. (2012).Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 315-325.
Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: Re-reading, answering questions, and generating questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 308-316.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Reading and communication. In C. Alderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 213-227). New York: Longman.
Ziyaeemehr, Z. (2012). The Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading on the reading comprehension of ESP learners. Higher Education of Social Science, 2(1), 38-42.
