Journals / Turkish Studies (Elektronik) / 2013 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 12

A GENRE-BASED APPROACH TO RESEARCH ARTICLES IN EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ARAŞTIRMA MAKALELERİNE TÜR- ODAKLI YAKLAŞIM: KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ÇÖZÜMLEME

Pages
693–710
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Even though the analysis yielded no rhetorical variations in English texts, it was observed that there is a significant difference in the way Turkish discussion and conclusion sections are constructed

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Writing and publishing papers is an important and integral part of academic life.Since dissemination of knowledge in English has almost become asine non quo for international publication, non-native English writers who want to succeed in publishing their research have to conform to conventional styles of academic discourse adapted by members of that English speaking discourse community (Swales, 1990; Duszak, 1994).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Sixty research article Discussion and Conclusion sections were selected from several journals that publish research studies in the field of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education and type and frequency of moves used in these sections were analyzed by using an adapted version of Dudley-Evans’ (1994) genre analysis model.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Even though the analysis yielded no rhetorical variations in English texts, it was observed that there is a significant difference in the way Turkish discussion and conclusion sections are constructed
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Writing and publishing papers is an important and integral part of academic life.Since dissemination of knowledge in English has almost become asine non quo for international publication, non-native English writers who want to succeed in publishing their research have to conform to conventional styles of academic discourse adapted by members of that English speaking discourse community (Swales, 1990; Duszak, 1994). For the purpose of enhancing the pedagogy of writing instruction in English especially for researchers, this study aimed at revealing the similarities and differences in research article Discussion and Conclusion sections written by Turkish scholars and those written by native English-speaking scholars with regards to rhetorical structure and evaluative language use. While doing so, insights from the fields of contrastive rhetoric and genre analysis were utilized. Sixty research article Discussion and Conclusion sections were selected from several journals that publish research studies in the field of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education and type and frequency of moves used in these sections were analyzed by using an adapted version of Dudley-Evans’ (1994) genre analysis model. Data for English native speakers and Turkish native speakers were separately analyzed in order to find out the common and different threads. Even though the analysis yielded no rhetorical variations in English texts, it was observed that there is a significant difference in the way Turkish discussion and conclusion sections are constructed

Özet

Türkiye'de uluslararası yayın yapma, akademik atama ve yükseltmelerde çok önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Akademik dünyaya katılabilmenin ve akademik söylem toplumunun bireyleri tarafından tanınabilmenin en temel koşullarından biri, bu söylem toplumunun yazım kurallarına uygun metinler üretmektir (Swales, 1990).İngilizcenin uluslararası iletişim dili olarak kullanımının yaygınlaşması sonucunda anadili İngilizce olmayan araştırmacıların çalışmalarını İngilizce olarak yayınlayabilmeleri için akademik yazma becerileri edinmeleri ve geliştirmeleri kaçınılmazdır.Bu çalışmada anadili İngilizce ve Türkçe olan araştırmacıların yazdıkları araştırma makalelerinin tartışma ve sonuç bölümleri Dudley-Evans'ın (1994) yüksek lisans tezlerinin tartışma ve sonuç bölümleri için oluşturduğu ve sonrasında araştırma makalelerinin Tartışma ve Sonuç bölümlerine uygulanan tür çözümleme modeline bağlı olarak incelenmiştir. Etkili yazma kuralları bağlamında yürütülen çalışma Eğitim Bilimleri ve Öğretmen Yetiştirme temel alanında üretilmiş araştırma makalelerinin Tartışma ve Sonuç kısımlarının araştırma yazım kurallarına uygunluğu açısından İngiliz ve Türk akademisyenlerin çalışmalarını karşılaştırmayı hedeflemiştir. Bu amaçla bu çalışma sonucunda ortaya çıkabilecek farklılıkların Türk araştırmacılara etkili yazma kurallarını ne kadar etkin kullandıkları ile ilgili dönüt vereceği düşünülmektedir. Betimsel metin dilsel çözümleme araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak Türkçe ve İngilizce anadilli araştırmacıların yazdıkları İngilizce ve Türkçe araştırma makalelerinin Tartışma ve Sonuç bölümlerinden elde edilen veriler sıklık ve tür açısından metinlerde belirgin sözbilimsel farklılıklara rastlanmamıştır. Ancak Türkçe araştırma makalelerinin tartışma ve sonuç bölümleri İngilizce metinlerden farklı bir yapılanma göstermiştir

🔖

Cite This Article

KAVANOZ, S., ŞİMŞEK, Ç. S. (2013). A GENRE-BASED APPROACH TO RESEARCH ARTICLES IN EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. Turkish Studies (Elektronik), Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 12, 693–710. https://ajindex.com/articles/107971

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. ALTUN, A. ve RAKICIOĞLU, A. ġ. (2004). A corpusapproachto abstracts in academic writing. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,(17):1-13. BAġTÜRKMEN, H. (2012). A genre-basedinvestigation of discussionsections of researcharticles in dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal Of English ForAcademic Purposes, 11, 134-144.
  2. BHATIA, V. (1993). Analysing genre. Language use in Professional settings. London&New York: Longman. BITCHENER, J.ve BASTURKMEN, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English forAcademic Purposes, 5, 4-18.
  3. BRETT, P. (1994) A genreanalysis of t he Results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes 11: 33-49.
  4. BURGESS, S. (1997). Discourse variation across cultures: a genre analytic study of writing in linguistics. YayınlanmamıĢ doktora tezi, University of Reading. CONNOR, U., DAVIS, K. ve DERYCKER, T. (1995). Correctness and clarity in applying for overseas jobs: a cross cultural analysis of U.S. and Flemish applications. Text, 15 (4), 457-476.
  5. CONNOR, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. New York: CAmbrdige UniversityPress.
  6. CONNOR, U. (1997). Comparingresearchand not-for-profitgrantproposals. Writtendiscourse in philanthropicfundraising. Issues of languageandrhetoric, 45-64. Indiana University Center on Philanthropy. WorkingPapers, 98-13.
  7. Indianapolis, IN CONNOR, U., K. PRECHT, ve T. UPTON (2002). Business English: Learner Data from Belgium, Finlandand the U.S. ComputerLearner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching. Ed. S. Granger, J. Hung, and S. Petch-Tyson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 175–94.
  8. CONNOR, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291-304
  9. CONNOR, U., VE MAURANEN, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of Grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 47-62.
  10. CROOKES, G. (1986).Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics 7 (1):57-70.
  11. DOYURAN, Z. (2009) Conciliation of Knowledge throughHedging in TurkishScientificArticles, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 26 Sayı 1, Haziran, ss.85-100.
  12. DUBOIS, B.L. (1997) The Biomedical Discussion Section in Context. Ablex Publishing Corporation DUDLEY-EVANS, T. (1986). Genre analysis: an investigation of the introduction and discussion sections of MScdissertations. LSU