Investigation of Tunisian Geography Teachers

probe of Tunisian Geography Teachers displayThe pattern of this guinea pig was to investigate al nigh Tunisian geography teachers/ look intoers explanation of seek members (RA) in side in their field, in finical their pulmonary tuberculosis of metadiscourse and the factors that aptitude affect this intake. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods intercommunicate the designs of this involve. devil major reasons pose motivated the choice of this pinnacleic suppositious and con schoolbookual. hypothetic Justifications Of The learnA good number of studies clear play uped the helpful lineament that metadiscourse plays in yarn randomness (e.g. Camiciottoli, 2003). Metadiscourse is delimit, in the chip in(a) study, as self-reflective lingual palpable rebootring to the evolving schoolbook and to the author and to the imagined referee of that school textual matterbook edition (Hyland and Tse, 2004, p. 156). In delimitate construe ing erudition, I adopted the comp peerlessntial active progression (e.g. Grabe, 2008). harmonize to this approach, lecturers argon active scattericipants who actively take experience, connect it to earlierly assimilated companionship and defecate it theirs by urinateing their own interpretation. They develop, modify and every(prenominal)(prenominal) the same reflect on all or some of the ideas displayed in the text. explore has shown that stake delivery (SL) and un cognise row (FL) discipline lore wreak is highly coordination compound (Grabe, 2008 Koda, 2007 Sheng, 2000). Indeed, a wide range of vari able-bodieds intervene in the attend to linguistic, metalinguistic, cognitive, metacognitive, complaisant and mental (Koda, 2005 Pressley, 2006 Rapp et al., 2007). questivirtuosors reported the challengingy to clearly catch the exact tier of the contri exception of each variable to the final return. All sentiments of the re sop uper variables interact with one a nonher and interact with textual and contextual factors (e.g. Dhieb-Henia, 2003).Different rideings consume been proposed in the literary productions in order to take look of these factors (the top-down approach, the bottom-up approach, the Interactive approach) (Grabe, 2008). Also, there has been a debate among SL interlingual rendition interrogationers rough whether SL breeding is a row difficulty or a practice problem (Alderson, 1984, Bernhardt and Kamil, 1995 Grabe, 1991 Khaldieh, 2001). Some enquiryers contended that some SL linguistic light threshold was obligatory in order to get maiden linguistic go (L1) breeding familiarity to worry and archetypal lyric interpretation strategies to delegate (Cummins (1979) threshold take aim of quarrel progress and Clarkes (1978) linguistic ceiling). Others argued that recitation difficulties in a SL sack up be ca employ by a deficient skiming office in general, or can be caused by a failing transfer o f L1 interpreting dexterity to an FL (the linguistic interdependence hypothesis, or alternatively called the normal primal principle (Bernhardt Kamil, 1995). readying in slope for Academic purposes (EAP) is up to now a untold knotty help (Flowerdew and Peacock, 2001). EAP is c erstwhilerned with the incline need for ad hoc pedantic purpose such(prenominal)(prenominal) as studying at universities and colleges, doing look or produce papers. Based on the literature, the express study enamours EAP adaptation as the ability to read an EAP discourse as the product of a special(a) disciplinary culture (e.g., Swales, 2004). Daoud (1991, p. 6), for instance, remembered that non-native endorsers (of EAP) should acquire those abilities which would throw overboard them to own the public of certain types of implicit presuppositional rhetorical study, abilities that the experienced native ratifier possesses. Studies in Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) wee demonstrated that texts ar fancy by their cultural origins even if they giveicipate in international discourses such as those of the science disciplines (Burgess, 2002 Connor, 2004 Kaplan, 1966, 1987). Mauranen (1993) stateed that science, or much(prenominal) widely, academic interrogation, does non dwell outside writing, and so we can non re face up it, or realize it, without cosmos influenced by the variation in the writing cultures that carry it (p. 4).This suggests that the belief that scientific academic discourses merely transmit natural facts is debatable. Hyland (2005) argued that discourses argon never impersonal that al expressions engaged in that they realize the interests, the positions, the perspectives and the values of those who decree them (p. 4). The RA, for instance, is a discourse written by a fact create verballyr belong to a particular scientific discourse community in the purpose of engaging an audience and persuading them of his/her findings (Adel, 2006 Hylan d, 2005 Martin, 2004). Webber (1994) explicateed scientists atomic number 18 sources who fight for their ideas to be accepted, experienced, and to be hawkish and get their civilise published (p. 257). The tendency of scientific authors to contain a particular range of rhetorical devices, might reveal their archetypes to spend a penny interpersonal relations, to interact with their audience and to express personal attitudes intimately the cognitive content of their texts and nearly their audience(s).Metadiscourse is the linguistic system that enables writers to achieve these goals (Adel, 2006 Hyland, 2004 2005 Martin, 2004). It re rescues some internal rhetorical play whereby an external reality is created and conveyed. Metadiscourse also helps to perceive discourse as a accessible operation between two parties, author(s) and audience, searchers and scientific communities in diametric sacred scriptures, writers and readers ar viewed as social agents and texts as a social effort in which writers do not wholly want their messages to be tacit (an illocutionary effect), scarcely also to be accepted (a perlocutionary effect) (Hyland, 2005). Hyland (2001, p. 550) argues a rudimentary aspect of the writer-reader dialogue involves c beful interpersonal negotiations in which writers seek to remainder claims for the significance, originality, and verity of their work against the convictions of their readers. The readers ability to construct the writer- think mean, via metadiscourse, is one major reveal to a in(predicate) acquaintance.This idea of interaction was grounded in Hallidays (1985) metafunctional surmise of enclosureinology. Halliday (1985) argued that voice communication is a system of implications and maintains that the writer needs to lean at cardinal levels the ideational, the textual and the interpersonal. On the ideational plane, the writer supplies tuition about the relegate of the text and expands propositional c ontent, on the interactive plane, he/she does not add propositional actual, besides helps readers organize, classify, interpret, evaluate, and fight down to such material.Many enquiryers have causeed to investigate the donations of metadiscourse to dustup teaching. However, to the highest degree of the literature on metadiscourse has focused on the writing skill. The Brobdingnagian part of these studies has compargond writers use of metadiscourse across cultures and disciplines (Dahl, 2004 Hyland TLe, 2004 Ifantidou, 2005 Lee, 2002 Perez Macia, 2002 Steffensen Cheng, 1996). Only a a couple of(prenominal) studies have examined the region that this crucial part of discourse plays in learning comprehension skill.thither is still an opaque picture of the correlation between the intuition of metadiscourse markers and exercise comprehension performance. Indeed, a good number of the studies conducted with native readers of slope has yielded unde landmarkined results (e.g. , Cristo a greater extent and Vande Kopple, 1997 OKeefe, 1988). While some questioners demonstrated the positive character reference of metadiscourse (e.g. Vande Kopple, 2002), early(a) researchers cogitate that metadiscourse did not have larger effects in their studies (e.g., Crismore, 1989).Research on the interaction between SL narration material and metadiscourse seems to be still in its infancy. The slender research carried out has demonstrated the complexity of the entreprise (Camiciottoli, 2003 Daoud, 1991 Dhieb-Henia, 2003 Mustapha and Premalatha, 2001). In fact, research has shown that umpteen factors could intervene in the variation process and hamper EAP readers from employ metadiscourse, videlicet spoken quarrel attainment, front disciplinary familiarity and metacognitive strategies (e.g., Camiciottoli, 2003 Daoud, 1991 Dhieb-Henia, 2003). Language proficiency refers to the ability to derive technical and semi-technical vocabulary used by a particular academic discourse community. Metacognition is the aw beness readers have of their own psychical processes and the ensuant ability to monitor, regulate, and educate themselves to a desired end. Prior companionship includes friendship of the rhetorical conventions of the genre and the clear discipline. It has been also interesting to respect that no study has investigated SL experts use of metadiscourse when instruction materials in their handle.Local Justifications Of The Study read reticular activating system is a prerequisite for doing research, updating ones experience and in conclusion publishing RAs. Publication is not optional or a proposition of personal choice in Tunisia. The farthermost reform of postgraduate studies has minded(p) prior importance to the number of published RAs (Labbassi, 2000). Therefore, researchers who would like to release visible in the international scientific community, have to read and write RAs in English, the international Lingua Frinca in the age of electronic communication. In fact, in Tunisia there ar few specialised local anesthetic journals. Labassi (2008, p. 4120 ably put rendering and writing English have start out needed conditions for joining academic communities in almost all disciplines. The Tunisian geographical society seems to be eager to integrate into the international geographic community. Indeed, the Tunisian Geographers Association, in collaboration with the International Geographical Union (IGU), managed to elevate the thirty- scratch International Geographical Congress (IGC) in the coun canvas in 2008. Tunisia was the get-go Arab and African coun distort to host the biggest ap maneuverment for geographers all over the world. Adding to that, there is a clear political intention to enhance English military position in Tunisia. English is gaining ground over French, which has been until recently the pencil lead language of modernity, as well as the dominant economic language. (Ch ampagne, 2007 Labassi, 2009a, b Tossa, 1995). The Tunisian government is aiming at creating an English-speaking workforce to enhance the prospects for successful integrating into the global economy. Under the New Maitrise reform of 1998, English was breakd in the plan of all undergraduate students from all disciplines (Labassi, 2009 a). What is ironical, however, is that potential researchers and professionals who have to read a literature, which is up to 90% in some disciplines in English, are not offered courses in English (Labassi, 2009 a, p. 249).However, firearm the literature abounds with arguments for and against the portion that metadiscourse plays in indicant material comprehension, little research has been conducted to survey the edition practices of the Tunisian geography society.Therefore, the grant research aims to fill in this gap and gain more perceptiveness into the indication practices of some Tunisian university teachers/researchers of geography in parti cular it aims to assess the extremity they use metadiscourse to facilitate their comprehension of RAs in English in their field and to find out about the variables that whitethorn immobilise this use.Research ObjectivesThe main aims of the present research are triad-fold (1) to de circumstanceine to what extent Tunisian geography cleverness researchers use metadiscourse markers when training research articles in English in their fields, (2) to assess whether this use facilitates their comprehension of research articles in English in their fields, (3) to find to what extent this use is think to the participants proficiency in English, to text familiarity ( desexualize in the present study in name of both content and formal noesis) and to their use of metacognitive learning strategies.Research QuestionsThe present study addresses the following questions1. To what extent do Tunisian geography faculty researchers use metadiscourse markers when tuition research articles in En glish in their fields?2. To what extent does this use relate to their comprehension of research articles in English in their fields?3. To what extent do their proficiency in English, discipline-related knowledge (content and genre) and metacognitive rendering strategies put up to their use of metadiscourse markers and comprehension of research articles in English in their fields?Significance Of The StudyThis study explored the use of metadiscourse by some Tunisian geography faculty when reading research articles in English in their disciplines. Theoretically, findings from thestudy can help shed light on the role metadiscourse plays in SL reading comprehension. The research into metadiscourse markers is useful in itself. It helps us have an insight into how writers interact with their readers to establish a reader-friendly atmosphere and to act upon them of their findings. much(prenominal) study can add to our intelligence of factors contributing to language pedagogy, in par ticular to the teaching of reading comprehension skill.At the practicable level, teaching from this study can be useful for making decisions about organizing training sessions to university teachers/researchers to introduce them to the rhetorical conventions of academic genres, namely the research article and to the rhetorical importance of metadiscourse. They should be made aware of the facilitative role of metadiscourse markers when reading academic materials in English. Metadiscourse markers should be taught explicitly in EAP reading comprehension classes as a means to enhance the researchers reading comprehension ability.dissertation OrganisationThis thesis consists of six chapters. The starting signal chapter describes the circumstance of the research and the context in which the research was conducted. The here and now chapter exemplifys two instalments the first is a go over of research into the nature of remote language reading. The second section provides a descrip tive account of what metadiscourse is, knightly explores the studies conducted on the effects of metadiscourse, analyzes a few taxonomies on metadiscourse and ends with a description of the taxonomy to be adopted in the present study. Research questions are presented after the discussions of these reviews. Chapter three concerns the methodological decisions taken for this research. It describes how the participants were selected, how the material and instruments were piloted, and which materials and instruments were finally used. It provides as well an account of how the main study was conducted and how the data were analysed. Chapter four reports the findings of the present study. Chapter five discusses the key findings from this study and highlights their implications for the playing field of EAP. The contributions and limitations of this research and suggestions for future research are presented in chapter six.Literature look backThe previous chapter introduced the contex t for this research. This chapter clarifies the two primaeval variables underlying the present study, namely EAP reading comprehension and metadiscourse use. It can be divided into three parts. In the first part, I leave alone focus on the reading variable. Since conflicting language reading modeling has been strongly influenced by first language reading theories, I allow first discuss four different approaches to reading in a first language, I allow for consequentlyly beg off how they have been adopted in and adapted for a foreign language reading context. Next, I impart elaborate on supposed concepts particular to reading in English for academic purposes (being the focus of the present study) and I will honk attention to studies that investigated the interaction between reading in English for Academic purposes and language proficiency, mount signal knowledge and reading strategies. This part aims at underscoring the complexity of the EAP reading process and the need to account for the galore(postnominal) factors intervening in it. In the second part, I will introduce the second variable of the present study, metadiscouse. I will first try to define the concept and so(prenominal) provide an overview of its main assumptions and classifications to highlight the admiration surrounding the term and emphasize its benefits to EAP readers, and last I will elaborate Hylands (2005) taxonomy, the theoretical framework within which the present study is conducted. In the last part I will review some falsifiable studies that have investigated the interaction between metadiscourse and EAP reading. This part will also draw attention to the scarcity of research in this bowl.recital Comprehension appreciation the processes mingled in reading comprehension is a prerequisite to select current and valid research instruments. Alderson (2000) verbalize if we are not able to define what we mean by the ability to read, it will be difficult to deck up means o f assessing such abilities (p. 49). Likewise, Hogan (2004, p. 1) maintainThe real question we are asking when we look at assessing reading is What distinguishes a good reader from a poor reader? Implicit in this question is an even more fundamental question What are we doing when we read? Assessment is an attempt to serve the first question, but if we cannot at least try to declaration the second, we do not know what we are assessing, and any measure or description of reading proficiency we suggest is meaningless.Thus, in what follows I will first attempt to define the construct of reading comprehension, and then present a number of models that provide a framework for organizing and explaining the nature of reading comprehension. I will give due prominence, however, to the starts item to reading in EAP house upon the complex cognitive processes that EAP readers go through when they read. I will try to show how certain variables such as linguistic proficiency, background know ledge and reading strategies interact with reading comprehension process.Definition Of The invent Of variant Comprehension drill comprehension has often been a subject of sway among teachers and scholars. Kintsch (1998, p. 2) declared the terms understanding and comprehension are not scientific terms but are commonsense expressions. As with separatewise such expressions, their meaning is fuzzy and imprecise. In defining the construct of reading comprehension, I adopted Kintschs (1998) theory of pitying text comprehension, as it is a widely-recognized theory of text comprehension and as it has conformablely outlined the research agenda for the field of text comprehension (Grabe, 2008, p. 3).The concepts of Comprehension and perceptiveness are used interchangeably in the present study as a matter of linguistic variation following Kintsch. Comprehension is to be still in relation to learning and problem solvent. Both light and understanding involve unconscious and automatic processes. They can each be describe as a process of constraint satisfaction (p. 3). They differ, however, in that understanding should result in an action, be it an overt action in the surround or a mental event (p. 3). Kintsch (1998, p. 2) say understand is used when the relationship between some object and its context is at issue or when action is required. As for the problem solving process, it is more complex and involves more demand on cognitive resources. It is an action readers reparation to when they fail to understand something. Kintsch (1998) maintained perception and understanding are the processes hatful normally use when an impasse develops in perception or understanding, they lag to problem solving as a repair process (p. 3).Reading is the process in which the reader sequentially deals with letters, address and sentences. It was be by Sheng (2000, p. 2) as the process of recognition, interpretation, and perception of written or printed material. Comprehension, o n the other hand, involves the ability of the reader to grasp and interpret the meaning of written material, and to reason about cognitive processes that lead to understanding. In other words, it not only covers cognitive understanding of the materials at both coat and dusky social structure levels, but also the readers reactions to the content. Sheng (2000, p. 2) maintained it is a more complex psychological process and includes in addition to linguistic factors (phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic elements), cognitive and emotional factors. In sum, the process of reading deals with language forms while the process of comprehension, the end product, deals with language content.The term reading comprehension can, in some respects, be deal outed a complex construct, as highlighted by numerous reading researchers ( carrell, 1988 Grabe, 1991 Kintsch, 1998 de Beaugrande, 1981). According to Brumfit (1980), reading comprehension is a complex exertion applications p rogramme a combination of perceptual, linguistic and cognitive abilities (p. 3). It is a constructive intellection process which involves application, analysis, evaluation and imagination (Taylor, 1984, p.391). Grabe (2008) attributed the complexity of the reading comprehension process to the multiple purposes of reading and the complex cognitive processes involved. In the present study, reading is viewed as a process of communication between a writer and a reader and this communication will be unelaborated unless it is affect by the readers evaluation and appreciation. In fact, both the reader and the writer contribute to the reading process.Despite the uniqueness of second language reading processes (Geva and Wang, 2001 Koda, 2007), second language reading has drawn extensively on first language reading research. Different models have been adopted and adapted found on a variety of L1 reading theories. Below is a review of these theories.Reading Theories In A First LanguageA re ading model provides an imagined theatrical of the reading process. It provides ways to represent a theory and explain what reading involves and how reading works ground on usable tell. Goldman, et al., (2007) explained the term model refers specifically to a representation of the psychological processes that comprise a component or set of components involved in human text comprehension (p. 27). According to Samuels (1994), a good theoretical model has three characteristics it summarizes a considerable amount of entropy discovered in the past it helps explain and make more understandable what is happening in the present, and it allows one to make predictions about the future (p. 816). Researchers, however, are somehow on the alert about the comprehensibility of the model because of its inability to account for all the on hand(predicate) evidence that exists. Dhieb-Henia (2002) warned that the models are not eer backed up by enough empirical evidence to validate (them) (p. 18 ). In the same fashion, Grabe (2008) argued to assert that a model must be an accurate synthesis, () is problematic. Thus, these researchers recommend that we consider these models as a possible representation of the reading process, quite than lordly models. They nonetheless stress the key role that these models play in synthesizing information and establishing central claims (Grabe, 2008, p. 84).Reviewing the literature, four major approaches have been proposed in an attempt to understand the reading process. The major distinction between the approaches is the emphasis wedded to text-based variables such as vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structure and reader-based variables such as the readers background knowledge, cognitive development, strategy use, interest, and purpose (Lally, 1998). The following sections review these approaches and discuss them with part to the specific context of the present study.The Bottom-Up ApproachThe concept of decoding is central to what is usually called the bottom-upapproach to reading. The term bottom-up originated in perception psychology, where it is used to signify the bear upon of external stimuli (Mulder, 1996). In readingresearch, the term is not always used in a consistent flair and has drifted away from the original meaning it had in perception psychology. Nevertheless, the term always focuses on what are called lower order processes, i.e. decoding ability and word recognition ability (Mulder, 1996). These abilities are believed to form the key to ingenious reading. In other words, the reader perceives every letter, organizes the perceived letters into words, and then organizes the words into phrases, clauses and sentences. Meaning, at any level, (e.g. word or phrase), is accessed only once impact at previous (e.g. lower) levels has been completed ( cell, 1988). The argument is that bottom-up processing requires a literal or fundamental understanding of the language. Carrell (1993, p. 2) maintainedReading (is) viewed primarily as a decoding process of reconstructing the authors intended meaning via recognizing the printed letters and words, and building up a meaning for a text from the smallest textual units at the bottom (letters and words) to larger and larger units at the top (phrases, clauses, intersentential linkages.Advocates of this theory argue that successful reading comprehension of a text relies heavily on an efficient application of bottom-up processes. The surpass known representative of this type of approach is Goughs (1972) model. The model is summarised by Urquhart and Weir as followsThe reader begins with letters, which are recognized by a SCANNER. The information thus gained is passed to a DECODER, which converts the get of letters into a string of systematic phonemes. This string is then passed to a LIBRARIAN, where with the help of the LEXICON, it is recognized as a word. The reader then fixates on the next word, andproceeds in the same way until all the words in a sentence have been processed, at which point they proceed to a component called MERLIN, in which syntactic and semantic rules operate to assign a meaning to the sentence. The final stage is that of the vocal System, where the reader utters orally what has first been accessed through print. (Urquhart Weir, 1998 40)The decoding approach, however, has been viewed by legion(predicate) as inadequate. According to Eskey (1973), the approach underestimates the contribution of the reader. The reader, match to this approach, does not read the text through a self-determined, predefined perspective or goal, but kinda lets the text itself (and therefore its author) determine the reading process (Urquhart Weir, 1998). The approach fails to recognize that readers put on their expectations about the text based on their knowledge of language and how it works. Similarly, Carrell (1984) stated that this view assumes a rather passive view of reading. Grabe (2008) stated we know that such an extreme view of reading is not accurate, and no current model of reading depicts reading as a unmixed bottom-up process (p. 89). Criticism of the bottom-up theory has given up heading to the Top- down theory.The Top-Down ApproachWhereas the bottom-up approach gives accounting entry information a central place in the reading process, the top-down approach focuses on the knowledge a reader already possesses. It stresses what are called high order cognitive processes. The top-down theory posits a non-linear view of the reading process, i.e. from higher levels of processing, and proceeds to use the lower levels selectively. It assumes that readers interrogate the text rather than process it completely. They get meaning by comparing their expectations to a sample of information from the text. The proponents of this theory argue that readers experience and background knowledge is inwrought for understanding a text.Grabe (2008) explained top-down models assume that the reader acti vely controls the comprehension process, directed by reader goals, expectations, and strategic processing (p. 89). Carrell (1993, p. 4) statedIn the top-down view of second language reading, not only is the reader an active participant in the reading process, but everything in the readers prior experience or background knowledge plays a world-shattering role in the process. In this view, not only is the readers prior linguistic knowledge (linguistic schemata) and level of proficiency in the second language important, but the readers prior background knowledge of the content area of the text (content schemata) as well as of the rhetorical structure of the text (formal schemata) are also important.According to this view, the readers background knowledge may compensate for certain syntactic and lexical deficiencies. Readers start with their background knowledge (whole text) and make predictions about the text, and then verify their predictions by use text data (words) in the text (Ur quhart Cyril, 1998). Clarke and Silberstein (1977, p.136-137) stated that more information is contributed by the reader than by the print on the page, that is, readers understand what they read because they are able to take the stimulus beyond its graphic representation. The most frequently cited representative of this approach is Goodmans (1976) top-down model. He defined reading as a process of verifying hypotheses hypotheses that are based on knowledge which the reader possesses. His model, also called the guessing game theory, is summarised by Bossers as followsAccording to Goodman, the reading process consisted of sampling and selecting cues, on the substructure of which an interpretation is predicted or guessed, which is subsequently tested against the semantic context, and then sustain or rejected as the reader processes further language, and so on. These stages of the process were called features of the reading process or effective strategies or effective reading demean or alternatively. (Bossers,199210).A very influential theory that is usually discussed in relation to the top-downperspective is that of schema theory. The prior knowledge gained through experiences, stored in ones mind and activated when readers encounter newborn information is referred to in the literature as schemata (Carrell, 1980 Widdowson, 1983).Schema TheorySchema theory, which comes from cognitive psychology, owes much to the work of Bartlett (Rumelhart, 1981) and Piaget (Orasanu and Penny, 1986). Schemata, the plural form of schema, also called building blocks of cognition (Rumelhart, 1981, p. 3), refer to abstract knowledge structure (s) stored in memory (Garner, 1987, p. 4). They are defined as the mental framework that helps the learner organize knowledge, direct perception and attention, and guide recall (Bruming, 1995), as cognitive constructs which allow for the establishment of information in long-term memory (Widdowson,1983) and as the underlying connections that a llow new experience and information to be aligned with previous knowledge ( McCarthy ,1991). indoors the framework of schema theory, reading comprehension is no long-lasting a linear, text-driven process, but is the process of the interpretation of new information, and the assimilation and adjustment of this information into memory structures or schemata (Anderson Pearson, 1984). Schemata are not static entities, however, but are continually constructed and reconstructed through the processes of assimilation and accommodation. In other words, a comprehension of a text involves activation of relevant schemata, which are initiated as a result of bottom-up observation, and proceeds through a unalterable process of testing the activated schemata, evaluating their suitability, and refining or discarding them (Rumelhart, (1984, pp. 3, 6). Rumelhart (1981, p. 4) stated according to schema theories, all knowledge is packed into units (which) are the schemata. plant in these packets of knowledge, in addition to the knowledge itself, is information about how thisInvestigation of Tunisian Geography TeachersInvestigation of Tunisian Geography TeachersIntroductionThe purpose of this study was to investigate some Tunisian geography teachers/researchers reading of research articles (RA) in English in their field, in particular their use of metadiscourse and the factors that might affect this use. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods addressed the purposes of this study. Two major reasons have motivated the choice of this topic theoretical and contextual.Theoretical Justifications Of The StudyA good number of studies have highlighted the facilitative role that metadiscourse plays in reading comprehension (e.g. Camiciottoli, 2003). Metadiscourse is defined, in the present study, as self-reflective linguistic material referring to the evolving text and to the writer and to the imagined reader of that text (Hyland and Tse, 2004, p. 156). In defining readin g comprehension, I adopted the componential interactive approach (e.g. Grabe, 2008). According to this approach, readers are active participants who actively take knowledge, connect it to previously assimilated knowledge and make it theirs by constructing their own interpretation. They develop, modify and even reflect on all or some of the ideas displayed in the text.Research has shown that second language (SL) and foreign language (FL) reading comprehension process is highly complex (Grabe, 2008 Koda, 2007 Sheng, 2000). Indeed, a wide range of variables intervene in the process linguistic, metalinguistic, cognitive, metacognitive, social and psychological (Koda, 2005 Pressley, 2006 Rapp et al., 2007). Researchers reported the difficulty to clearly understand the exact degree of the contribution of each variable to the final product. All aspects of the reader variables interact with one another and interact with textual and contextual factors (e.g. Dhieb-Henia, 2003).Different model s have been proposed in the literature in order to take account of these factors (the Top-down approach, the Bottom-up approach, the Interactive approach) (Grabe, 2008). Also, there has been a debate among SL reading researchers about whether SL reading is a language problem or a reading problem (Alderson, 1984, Bernhardt and Kamil, 1995 Grabe, 1991 Khaldieh, 2001). Some researchers contended that some SL linguistic knowledge threshold was necessary in order to get first language (L1) reading knowledge to engage and first language reading strategies to transfer (Cummins (1979) threshold level of language proficiency and Clarkes (1978) linguistic ceiling). Others argued that reading difficulties in a SL can be caused by a deficient reading ability in general, or can be caused by a failing transfer of L1 reading ability to an FL (the linguistic interdependence hypothesis, or alternatively called the common underlying principle (Bernhardt Kamil, 1995).Reading in English for Academic p urposes (EAP) is still a more complex process (Flowerdew and Peacock, 2001). EAP is concerned with the English required for specific academic purpose such as studying at universities and colleges, doing research or publishing papers. Based on the literature, the present study views EAP reading as the ability to read an EAP discourse as the product of a particular disciplinary culture (e.g., Swales, 2004). Daoud (1991, p. 6), for instance, recommended that non-native readers (of EAP) should acquire those abilities which would allow them to recognize the existence of certain types of implicit presuppositional rhetorical information, abilities that the experienced native reader possesses. Studies in Contrastive Rhetoric (CR) have demonstrated that texts are shaped by their cultural origins even if they participate in international discourses such as those of the science disciplines (Burgess, 2002 Connor, 2004 Kaplan, 1966, 1987). Mauranen (1993) asserted that science, or more widely, a cademic research, does not exist outside writing, and so we cannot represent it, or realize it, without being influenced by the variation in the writing cultures that carry it (p. 4).This suggests that the belief that scientific academic discourses merely transmit natural facts is debatable. Hyland (2005) argued that discourses are never neutral but always engaged in that they realize the interests, the positions, the perspectives and the values of those who enact them (p. 4). The RA, for instance, is a discourse written by a particular writer belonging to a particular scientific discourse community in the purpose of engaging an audience and persuading them of his/her findings (Adel, 2006 Hyland, 2005 Martin, 2004). Webber (1994) explained scientists are writers who fight for their ideas to be accepted, recognized, and to be competitive and get their work published (p. 257). The tendency of scientific writers to choose a particular range of rhetorical devices, might reveal their att empts to establish interpersonal relations, to interact with their audience and to express personal attitudes about the content of their texts and about their audience(s).Metadiscourse is the linguistic system that enables writers to achieve these goals (Adel, 2006 Hyland, 2004 2005 Martin, 2004). It represents some internal stylistic map whereby an external reality is created and conveyed. Metadiscourse also helps to perceive discourse as a social action between two parties, author(s) and audience, researchers and scientific communities in other words, writers and readers are viewed as social agents and texts as a social enterprise in which writers do not only want their messages to be understood (an illocutionary effect), but also to be accepted (a perlocutionary effect) (Hyland, 2005). Hyland (2001, p. 550) argues a central aspect of the writer-reader dialogue involves careful interpersonal negotiations in which writers seek to balance claims for the significance, originality, an d truth of their work against the convictions of their readers. The readers ability to construct the writer-intended meaning, via metadiscourse, is one major key to a successful comprehension.This idea of interaction was grounded in Hallidays (1985) metafunctional theory of language. Halliday (1985) argued that language is a system of meanings and maintains that the writer needs to operate at three levels the ideational, the textual and the interpersonal. On the ideational plane, the writer supplies information about the subject of the text and expands propositional content, on the interactive plane, he/she does not add propositional material, but helps readers organize, classify, interpret, evaluate, and react to such material.Many researchers have attempted to investigate the contributions of metadiscourse to language teaching. However, most of the literature on metadiscourse has focused on the writing skill. The immense part of these studies has compared writers use of metadiscou rse across cultures and disciplines (Dahl, 2004 Hyland TLe, 2004 Ifantidou, 2005 Lee, 2002 Perez Macia, 2002 Steffensen Cheng, 1996). Only a few studies have examined the role that this crucial part of discourse plays in reading comprehension skill.There is still an opaque picture of the correlation between the recognition of metadiscourse markers and reading comprehension performance. Indeed, a good number of the studies conducted with native readers of English has yielded inconclusive results (e.g., Crismore and Vande Kopple, 1997 OKeefe, 1988). While some researchers demonstrated the positive role of metadiscourse (e.g. Vande Kopple, 2002), other researchers concluded that metadiscourse did not have larger effects in their studies (e.g., Crismore, 1989).Research on the interaction between SL reading and metadiscourse seems to be still in its infancy. The little research carried out has demonstrated the complexity of the entreprise (Camiciottoli, 2003 Daoud, 1991 Dhieb-Henia, 2 003 Mustapha and Premalatha, 2001). In fact, research has shown that many factors could intervene in the reading process and hamper EAP readers from using metadiscourse, namely language proficiency, prior disciplinary knowledge and metacognitive strategies (e.g., Camiciottoli, 2003 Daoud, 1991 Dhieb-Henia, 2003). Language proficiency refers to the ability to understand technical and semi-technical language used by a particular academic discourse community. Metacognition is the awareness readers have of their own mental processes and the subsequent ability to monitor, regulate, and direct themselves to a desired end. Prior knowledge includes knowledge of the rhetorical conventions of the genre and the subject discipline. It has been also interesting to note that no study has investigated SL experts use of metadiscourse when reading materials in their fields.Local Justifications Of The StudyReading RAs is a prerequisite for doing research, updating ones knowledge and ultimately publis hing RAs. Publication is not optional or a matter of personal choice in Tunisia. The last reform of postgraduate studies has given prior importance to the number of published RAs (Labbassi, 2000). Therefore, researchers who would like to become visible in the international scientific community, have to read and write RAs in English, the international Lingua Frinca in the age of electronic communication. In fact, in Tunisia there are few specialised local journals. Labassi (2008, p. 4120 aptly put reading and writing English have become unavoidable conditions for joining academic communities in almost all disciplines. The Tunisian geographical society seems to be eager to integrate into the international geographic community. Indeed, the Tunisian Geographers Association, in collaboration with the International Geographical Union (IGU), managed to organise the 31st International Geographical Congress (IGC) in the country in 2008. Tunisia was the first Arab and African country to host the biggest appointment for geographers all over the world. Adding to that, there is a clear political intention to enhance English status in Tunisia. English is gaining ground over French, which has been until recently the principal language of modernity, as well as the dominant economic language. (Champagne, 2007 Labassi, 2009a, b Tossa, 1995). The Tunisian government is aiming at creating an English-speaking workforce to enhance the prospects for successful integration into the global economy. Under the New Maitrise reform of 1998, English was introduced in the curriculum of all undergraduate students from all disciplines (Labassi, 2009 a). What is ironical, however, is that potential researchers and professionals who have to read a literature, which is up to 90% in some disciplines in English, are not offered courses in English (Labassi, 2009 a, p. 249).However, while the literature abounds with arguments for and against the role that metadiscourse plays in reading comprehension , little research has been conducted to assess the reading practices of the Tunisian geography society.Therefore, the present research aims to fill in this gap and gain more insight into the reading practices of some Tunisian university teachers/researchers of geography in particular it aims to assess the extent they use metadiscourse to facilitate their comprehension of RAs in English in their field and to find out about the variables that may hinder this use.Research ObjectivesThe main aims of the present research are three-fold (1) to determine to what extent Tunisian geography faculty researchers use metadiscourse markers when reading research articles in English in their fields, (2) to assess whether this use facilitates their comprehension of research articles in English in their fields, (3) to find to what extent this use is related to the participants proficiency in English, to text familiarity (defined in the present study in terms of both content and formal knowledge) and to their use of metacognitive reading strategies.Research QuestionsThe present study addresses the following questions1. To what extent do Tunisian geography faculty researchers use metadiscourse markers when reading research articles in English in their fields?2. To what extent does this use relate to their comprehension of research articles in English in their fields?3. To what extent do their proficiency in English, discipline-related knowledge (content and genre) and metacognitive reading strategies contribute to their use of metadiscourse markers and comprehension of research articles in English in their fields?Significance Of The StudyThis study explored the use of metadiscourse by some Tunisian geography faculty when reading research articles in English in their disciplines. Theoretically, findings from thestudy can help clarify the role metadiscourse plays in SL reading comprehension. The research into metadiscourse markers is useful in itself. It helps us have an insight in to how writers interact with their readers to establish a reader-friendly atmosphere and to persuade them of their findings. Such information can add to our understanding of factors contributing to language pedagogy, in particular to the teaching of reading comprehension skill.At the practical level, information from this study can be useful for making decisions about organizing training sessions to university teachers/researchers to introduce them to the rhetorical conventions of academic genres, namely the research article and to the rhetorical importance of metadiscourse. They should be made aware of the facilitative role of metadiscourse markers when reading academic materials in English. Metadiscourse markers should be taught explicitly in EAP reading comprehension classes as a means to enhance the researchers reading comprehension ability.Thesis OrganisationThis thesis consists of six chapters. The first chapter describes the background of the research and the context in which the research was conducted. The second chapter comprises two sections the first is a review of research into the nature of foreign language reading. The second section provides a descriptive account of what metadiscourse is, then explores the studies conducted on the effects of metadiscourse, reviews a few taxonomies on metadiscourse and ends with a description of the taxonomy to be adopted in the present study. Research questions are presented after the discussions of these reviews. Chapter three concerns the methodological decisions taken for this research. It describes how the participants were selected, how the material and instruments were piloted, and which materials and instruments were finally used. It provides as well an account of how the main study was conducted and how the data were analysed. Chapter four reports the findings of the present study. Chapter five discusses the key findings from this study and highlights their implications for the area of EAP. The contribut ions and limitations of this research and suggestions for future research are presented in chapter six.Literature ReviewThe previous chapter introduced the context for this research. This chapter clarifies the two central variables underlying the present study, namely EAP reading comprehension and metadiscourse use. It can be divided into three parts. In the first part, I will focus on the reading variable. Since foreign language reading modeling has been strongly influenced by first language reading theories, I will first discuss four different approaches to reading in a first language, I will then explain how they have been adopted in and adapted for a foreign language reading context. Next, I will elaborate on theoretical concepts particular to reading in English for academic purposes (being the focus of the present study) and I will draw attention to studies that investigated the interaction between reading in English for Academic purposes and language proficiency, background kn owledge and reading strategies. This part aims at underscoring the complexity of the EAP reading process and the need to account for the many factors intervening in it. In the second part, I will introduce the second variable of the present study, metadiscouse. I will first try to define the concept and then provide an overview of its main assumptions and classifications to highlight the confusion surrounding the term and emphasize its benefits to EAP readers, and last I will detail Hylands (2005) taxonomy, the theoretical framework within which the present study is conducted. In the last part I will review some empirical studies that have investigated the interaction between metadiscourse and EAP reading. This part will also draw attention to the scarcity of research in this area.Reading ComprehensionUnderstanding the processes involved in reading comprehension is a prerequisite to select reliable and valid research instruments. Alderson (2000) stated if we are not able to define w hat we mean by the ability to read, it will be difficult to devise means of assessing such abilities (p. 49). Likewise, Hogan (2004, p. 1) maintainedThe real question we are asking when we look at assessing reading is What distinguishes a good reader from a poor reader? Implicit in this question is an even more fundamental question What are we doing when we read? Assessment is an attempt to answer the first question, but if we cannot at least try to answer the second, we do not know what we are assessing, and any measure or description of reading proficiency we suggest is meaningless.Thus, in what follows I will first attempt to define the construct of reading comprehension, and then present a number of models that provide a framework for organizing and explaining the nature of reading comprehension. I will give due prominence, however, to the issues specific to reading in EAP dwelling upon the complex cognitive processes that EAP readers go through when they read. I will try to sho w how certain variables such as linguistic proficiency, background knowledge and reading strategies interact with reading comprehension process.Definition Of The Construct Of Reading ComprehensionReading comprehension has often been a subject of controversy among teachers and scholars. Kintsch (1998, p. 2) stated the terms understanding and comprehension are not scientific terms but are commonsense expressions. As with other such expressions, their meaning is fuzzy and imprecise. In defining the construct of reading comprehension, I adopted Kintschs (1998) theory of human text comprehension, as it is a widely-recognized theory of text comprehension and as it has consistently defined the research agenda for the field of text comprehension (Grabe, 2008, p. 3).The concepts of Comprehension and Understanding are used interchangeably in the present study as a matter of linguistic variation following Kintsch. Comprehension is to be understood in relation to perception and problem solving. Both perception and understanding involve unconscious and automatic processes. They can each be described as a process of constraint satisfaction (p. 3). They differ, however, in that understanding should result in an action, be it an overt action in the environment or a mental event (p. 3). Kintsch (1998, p. 2) stated understand is used when the relationship between some object and its context is at issue or when action is required. As for the problem solving process, it is more complex and involves more demand on cognitive resources. It is an action readers resort to when they fail to understand something. Kintsch (1998) maintained perception and understanding are the processes people normally use when an impasse develops in perception or understanding, they resort to problem solving as a repair process (p. 3).Reading is the process in which the reader sequentially deals with letters, words and sentences. It was defined by Sheng (2000, p. 2) as the process of recognition, interpr etation, and perception of written or printed material. Comprehension, on the other hand, involves the ability of the reader to grasp and interpret the meaning of written material, and to reason about cognitive processes that lead to understanding. In other words, it not only covers cognitive understanding of the materials at both surface and deep structure levels, but also the readers reactions to the content. Sheng (2000, p. 2) maintained it is a more complex psychological process and includes in addition to linguistic factors (phonological, morphological, syntactic, and semantic elements), cognitive and emotional factors. In sum, the process of reading deals with language forms while the process of comprehension, the end product, deals with language content.The term reading comprehension can, in some respects, be considered a complex construct, as highlighted by numerous reading researchers (Carrell, 1988 Grabe, 1991 Kintsch, 1998 de Beaugrande, 1981). According to Brumfit (1980) , reading comprehension is a complex activity covering a combination of perceptual, linguistic and cognitive abilities (p. 3). It is a constructive thinking process which involves application, analysis, evaluation and imagination (Taylor, 1984, p.391). Grabe (2008) attributed the complexity of the reading comprehension process to the multiple purposes of reading and the complex cognitive processes involved. In the present study, reading is viewed as a process of communication between a writer and a reader and this communication will be incomplete unless it is affected by the readers evaluation and appreciation. In fact, both the reader and the writer contribute to the reading process.Despite the uniqueness of second language reading processes (Geva and Wang, 2001 Koda, 2007), second language reading has drawn extensively on first language reading research. Different models have been adopted and adapted based on a variety of L1 reading theories. Below is a review of these theories.Re ading Theories In A First LanguageA reading model provides an imagined representation of the reading process. It provides ways to represent a theory and explain what reading involves and how reading works based on available evidence. Goldman, et al., (2007) explained the term model refers specifically to a representation of the psychological processes that comprise a component or set of components involved in human text comprehension (p. 27). According to Samuels (1994), a good theoretical model has three characteristics it summarizes a considerable amount of information discovered in the past it helps explain and make more understandable what is happening in the present, and it allows one to make predictions about the future (p. 816). Researchers, however, are somehow cautious about the comprehensibility of the model because of its inability to account for all the available evidence that exists. Dhieb-Henia (2002) warned that the models are not always backed up by sufficient empiri cal evidence to validate (them) (p. 18). In the same fashion, Grabe (2008) argued to assert that a model must be an accurate synthesis, () is problematic. Thus, these researchers recommend that we consider these models as a possible representation of the reading process, rather than absolute models. They nonetheless stress the key role that these models play in synthesizing information and establishing central claims (Grabe, 2008, p. 84).Reviewing the literature, four major approaches have been proposed in an attempt to understand the reading process. The major distinction between the approaches is the emphasis given to text-based variables such as vocabulary, syntax, and grammatical structure and reader-based variables such as the readers background knowledge, cognitive development, strategy use, interest, and purpose (Lally, 1998). The following sections review these approaches and discuss them with reference to the specific context of the present study.The Bottom-Up ApproachThe c oncept of decoding is central to what is usually called the bottom-upapproach to reading. The term bottom-up originated in perception psychology, where it is used to signify the processing of external stimuli (Mulder, 1996). In readingresearch, the term is not always used in a consistent manner and has drifted away from the original meaning it had in perception psychology. Nevertheless, the term always focuses on what are called lower order processes, i.e. decoding ability and word recognition ability (Mulder, 1996). These abilities are believed to form the key toproficient reading. In other words, the reader perceives every letter, organizes the perceived letters into words, and then organizes the words into phrases, clauses and sentences. Meaning, at any level, (e.g. word or phrase), is accessed only once processing at previous (e.g. lower) levels has been completed (Carrell, 1988). The argument is that bottom-up processing requires a literal or fundamental understanding of the la nguage. Carrell (1993, p. 2) maintainedReading (is) viewed primarily as a decoding process of reconstructing the authors intended meaning via recognizing the printed letters and words, and building up a meaning for a text from the smallest textual units at the bottom (letters and words) to larger and larger units at the top (phrases, clauses, intersentential linkages.Advocates of this theory argue that successful reading comprehension of a text relies heavily on an efficient application of bottom-up processes. The best known representative of this type of approach is Goughs (1972) model. The model is summarised by Urquhart and Weir as followsThe reader begins with letters, which are recognized by a SCANNER. The information thus gained is passed to a DECODER, which converts the string of letters into a string of systematic phonemes. This string is then passed to a LIBRARIAN, where with the help of the LEXICON, it is recognized as a word. The reader then fixates on the next word, andp roceeds in the same way until all the words in a sentence have been processed, at which point they proceed to a component called MERLIN, in which syntactic and semantic rules operate to assign a meaning to the sentence. The final stage is that of the Vocal System, where the reader utters orally what has first been accessed through print. (Urquhart Weir, 1998 40)The decoding approach, however, has been viewed by many as inadequate. According to Eskey (1973), the approach underestimates the contribution of the reader. The reader, according to this approach, does not read the text through a self-determined, predefined perspective or goal, but rather lets the text itself (and therefore its author) determine the reading process (Urquhart Weir, 1998). The approach fails to recognize that readers utilize their expectations about the text based on their knowledge of language and how it works. Similarly, Carrell (1984) stated that this view assumes a rather passive view of reading. Grabe ( 2008) stated we know that such an extreme view of reading is not accurate, and no current model of reading depicts reading as a pure bottom-up process (p. 89). Criticism of the bottom-up theory has given impetus to the Top- down theory.The Top-Down ApproachWhereas the bottom-up approach gives incoming information a central place in the reading process, the top-down approach focuses on the knowledge a reader already possesses. It stresses what are called higher order cognitive processes. The top-down theory posits a non-linear view of the reading process, i.e. from higher levels of processing, and proceeds to use the lower levels selectively. It assumes that readers interrogate the text rather than process it completely. They get meaning by comparing their expectations to a sample of information from the text. The proponents of this theory argue that readers experience and background knowledge is essential for understanding a text.Grabe (2008) explained top-down models assume that th e reader actively controls the comprehension process, directed by reader goals, expectations, and strategic processing (p. 89). Carrell (1993, p. 4) statedIn the top-down view of second language reading, not only is the reader an active participant in the reading process, but everything in the readers prior experience or background knowledge plays a significant role in the process. In this view, not only is the readers prior linguistic knowledge (linguistic schemata) and level of proficiency in the second language important, but the readers prior background knowledge of the content area of the text (content schemata) as well as of the rhetorical structure of the text (formal schemata) are also important.According to this view, the readers background knowledge may compensate for certain syntactic and lexical deficiencies. Readers start with their background knowledge (whole text) and make predictions about the text, and then verify their predictions by using text data (words) in the text (Urquhart Cyril, 1998). Clarke and Silberstein (1977, p.136-137) stated that more information is contributed by the reader than by the print on the page, that is, readers understand what they read because they are able to take the stimulus beyond its graphic representation. The most frequently cited representative of this approach is Goodmans (1976) top-down model. He defined reading as a process of verifying hypotheses hypotheses that are based on knowledge which the reader possesses. His model, also called the guessing game theory, is summarised by Bossers as followsAccording to Goodman, the reading process consisted of sampling and selecting cues, on the basis of which an interpretation is predicted or guessed, which is subsequently tested against the semantic context, and then confirmed or rejected as the reader processes further language, and so on. These stages of the process were called features of the reading process or effective strategies or effective reading behavi our alternatively. (Bossers,199210).A very influential theory that is usually discussed in relation to the top-downperspective is that of schema theory. The prior knowledge gained through experiences, stored in ones mind and activated when readers encounter new information is referred to in the literature as schemata (Carrell, 1980 Widdowson, 1983).Schema TheorySchema theory, which comes from cognitive psychology, owes much to the work of Bartlett (Rumelhart, 1981) and Piaget (Orasanu and Penny, 1986). Schemata, the plural form of schema, also called building blocks of cognition (Rumelhart, 1981, p. 3), refer to abstract knowledge structure (s) stored in memory (Garner, 1987, p. 4). They are defined as the mental framework that helps the learner organize knowledge, direct perception and attention, and guide recall (Bruming, 1995), as cognitive constructs which allow for the organization of information in long-term memory (Widdowson,1983) and as the underlying connections that allow new experience and information to be aligned with previous knowledge ( McCarthy ,1991).Within the framework of schema theory, reading comprehension is no longer a linear, text-driven process, but is the process of the interpretation of new information, and the assimilation and accommodation of this information into memory structures or schemata (Anderson Pearson, 1984). Schemata are not static entities, however, but are continually constructed and reconstructed through the processes of assimilation and accommodation. In other words, a comprehension of a text involves activation of relevant schemata, which are initiated as a result of bottom-up observation, and proceeds through a constant process of testing the activated schemata, evaluating their suitability, and refining or discarding them (Rumelhart, (1984, pp. 3, 6). Rumelhart (1981, p. 4) stated according to schema theories, all knowledge is packed into units (which) are the schemata. Embedded in these packets of knowledge, in addition to the knowledge itself, is information about how this