19188

EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ ARAŞTIRMA MAKALELERİNE TÜR- ODAKLI YAKLAŞIM: KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ÇÖZÜMLEME

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

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

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

PDF

___

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.
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.
BRETT, P. (1994) A genreanalysis of t he Results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes 11: 33-49.
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.
CONNOR, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. New York: CAmbrdige UniversityPress.
CONNOR, U. (1997). Comparingresearchand not-for-profitgrantproposals. Writtendiscourse in philanthropicfundraising. Issues of languageandrhetoric, 45-64. Indiana University Center on Philanthropy. WorkingPapers, 98-13. 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.
CONNOR, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291-304
CONNOR, U., VE MAURANEN, A. (1999). Linguistic analysis of Grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (1), 47-62.
CROOKES, G. (1986).Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics 7 (1):57-70.
DOYURAN, Z. (2009) Conciliation of Knowledge throughHedging in TurkishScientificArticles, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt 26 Sayı 1, Haziran, ss.85-100.
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: University of Aston. ESP Collection. No. 3.5H/16.
DUDLEY-EVANS, T. (1994) Genreanalysis: an approach to text analysis for ESP. M. Coulthard (Ed.) içinde, Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge. 219-228
DUSZAK, A. 1994. Academic discourse and intellectual styles, Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 291- 313
FLOWERDEW, J. (1999a). Attitudes of Journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (1), 121-149.
FLOWERDEW, J. (1999b). Writing for scholarly publication in English: Thecase of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123145.
GENÇ, B. ve BADA, E. (2010). English as a World Language in Academic Writing. The Reading Matrix, 10( 2), ss.142-151.
GOSDEN, H. (1992).Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2): 123-139.
GRABE, W. ve KAPLAN, R.B. (1989). Writing in a second language: contrastive rhetoric. Donald
M. Johnson, Duane H. Roe (Eds) içinde. Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students. White Plains, NY: Longman, 263-283.
GRAESSER A.C., SĠNGER M, ve TRABASSO T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychol. Rev. 101: 371–95
GNUTZMANN, C., ve OLDENBURG, H. ( 1991). Contrastivetextlinguistics in LSP research: Theoretical considerations and some preliminary findings. H. Schröder(Ed.) içinde, Subject-orientedtext, 103-136. Berlin, Germany and New York: de Gruyter.
HINDS, J. (1982). Linguistics and written discourse in particular languages: contrastive studies: English and Japanese. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 3, 78-84.
HOLMES, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337.
HOPKINS, A. VE A. DUDLEY-EVANS (1988) A genre-based investigation of the discussion sections in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes 7: 113-22.
HYLAND, K. VE HAMP-LYONS, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions, Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 1 (1): 1-12.
JENKINS, S. ve HINDS, J. (1987). Business letter writing: English, French, andJapanese. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 327-349.
KANOKSILAPATHAM, B. (2005) Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English forSpecificPurposes, 24: 269-292.
KAPLAN, R. B. (1966). Culturalthoughtpatterns in interculturaleducation. Language Learning, 16,1-20.
KAPLAN, R.B. (1987). English in thelanguagepolicy of thePacidicRim. World Englishes6, 137- 148.
KARAHAN, F. (2005) Tür Çözümlemesi Yönünden Düğün Davetiyelerine Yönelik Bir Ġnceleme, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi Cilt : 22 , Sayı 2 / ss. 105-133
LANDIS, J. R. ve KOCH, G. G. (1977). Themeasurement of observeragreementforcategorical data. Biometrics 33, 159-174.
MARTIN, J. R., (1993). A Contextual Theory of Language. In The Powers of Literacy -- A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press
MATALENE, C. (1985). Contrastiverhetoric: An American writing teacher in China. College English, 47, 789-806.
MAURANEN, M. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economictexts. English forSpecificPurposes, 12, 3-22.
MCCARTHY, P. M., VE MCNAMARA, D. S. (2007). Are seven words all we need? Recognizing genre at the subsentential level. D. S. Mc Namara and G. Trafton (Eds.) içinde, Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1295-1300.
MILLER, C. R. (1984). Genre as socialaction. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
MOHAN, B. A. ve LO, W. A. (1985). Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and development factors. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 515-534.
MONTGOMERY, S. L. (1996) The scientific voice. New York: Guil ford Press.
OKTAR, L. (1991). Contrastive analysis of specific rhetorical relations in English and Turkish expository paragraph writing. YayınlanmamıĢ doktora tezi. Izmir, Turkey: Ege University.
ORWIN R.G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. Cooper H, Hedges LV (Eds.) içinde. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York (NY): Russell Sage Foundation.
ÖZYILDIRIM, I. (2001). Tür Çözümlemesi: Yönelimler, Yöntem ve Sınırlamalar. Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 18, Sayı 2, 67-78.
ÖZYILDIRIM, I. (2003). Türkçe'de KöĢe Yazılarının BiliĢsel Yapıları, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 91-104
RAIMES, A. (1991). Out of thewoods: Emerging traditions in theteaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407–430.
SEIDLHOFER, B. (2005). Key Concepts in ELT: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, Volume 59 (4), s.339-341.
SWALES, J. M. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: TheUniversity of Aston, Language Studies Unit.
SWALES, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.
SWALES, J.M. ve FEAK, C.B. (1994). Academic Writing for graduate students: A course for nonnatives peakers of English. Ann Arbor, MI: University Michigan Press.
TAġ, E.E. (2008) A corpus-based analysis of genre specificdiscourse of research: The phd thesis and there search article in ELT. YayınlanmamıĢ doktora tezi. Ankara, TurkĠYE: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi
TAYLOR, G.ve CHEN, T. (1991). Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse analysis: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts Applied Linguistics, 12(3), 319–336.
TIRKKONEN-CONDIT, S. (1996). Explicitness vs. Implicitness of Argumentation: An Intercultural Comparison. Multilingua - Journal of Cross Cultural and Interlanguage Communication. Volume 15, Issue 3, 257–274.
YANG, R. ve ALLISON, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 365-385.
WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1979). The description in scientific language. H. G. Widdowson (Ed.) içinde, Explorations in Applied Linguistics, 57–61. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
WILLIAMS, I. (1999) Results sections of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes English for Specific Purposes, 18: 347-66.