اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 360 |
| تعداد مقالات | 2,962 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 3,754,895 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,550,283 |
Content Analysis of the Method Section of Research Articles Published in the ‘Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages’ | ||
| پژوهش نامه آموزش زبان فارسی به غیر فارسی زبانان | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 10، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 21، فروردین 1400، صفحه 161-184 اصل مقاله (586.1 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jtpsol.2022.15555.1531 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Mansoor Ganji* | ||
| Corresponding Author,Assistant professor in TEFL, English Department, Faculty of Management and Humanities, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 27 اردیبهشت 1400، تاریخ بازنگری: 01 تیر 1400، تاریخ پذیرش: 22 تیر 1400 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Method section constitutes the key element of Research Articles (RAs) since it gives the readers sufficient information on the steps taken, instruments used, and the reliability and validity of the study, thus most editors and reviewers pay a great deal of attention to this section. This study investigates the method section of all the 141 RAs published between 2012 and 2020 in the Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (TPSOL). To be more exact, it is a content analysis of the research approaches and designs, data collection tools and data sources, number of participants, statistical tests and techniques used in data analysis, and the missing elements of the method section of the said RAs. Analyzing the data through inductive content analysis revealed that almost 57% of the papers followed quantitative approach, followed by 31% mixed-methods approach. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational studies were the most frequent research designs, while case study was the least frequent one. Researchers collected the needed data mostly through questionnaires, achievement tests, pre-test and post-tests, and documents. The number of participants varied according to the research designs and purposes, with few studies employing sample sizes smaller than the standard size. The data of RAs were analyzed through descriptive statistics, content analysis, and t-test. It was also revealed that data analysis section, participants, and instruments were the most problematic sub-sections in the method section. The study ends with several practical suggestions for future researchers, present reviewers, and editors of the journal Extended Abstract: In today’s world, publishing research articles (RAs) in English is essential for postgraduate students and university professors in almost all majors (Tikhonova, 2020). However, conducting quality research and publishing RAs in high-ranking and prestigious journals seems to be a very challenging task for most of postgraduate students and novice researchers. As a result, and they cannot graduate even several years after they have written up their theses and dissertations. Thus, novice researchers are under pressure to improve their composition skills through increasing their knowledge of the rhetorical structure, organizational patterns, and needed elements of an RA for their field of study in order to increase their chances of acceptance and publication (Hyland, 2004). Statement of the problem: Although novice researchers need to increase their knowledge of different sections of an RA, having sufficient information about the method section of RAs is of utmost importance (Kellet, 2004). Method section is the general plan of the research, forms the main section in RAs (Kellet, 2004; Lim, 2006) because it gives the readers sufficient information on the actions taken for performing the research (Musa, Khamis, & Zanariah, 2015), provides the readers with information regarding the validity of the data collection instruments, and is one of the sections to which most reviewers pay a great deal of attention (Kellet, 2004; Lim, 2006). Nonetheless, despite the importance of the method section in writing and evaluation processes of RAs, previous literature examining the methods section of RAs is so little that no universal model has been put forward for its move structure (Behnam & Zamanian, 2013; Kanoksilapatham, 2005; Lim, 2006; Peacock, 2011). While there are several studies conducted on the method section of the RAs in linguistics and applied linguistics since 2000, most of them have investigated the method section from angles different from this research. They have either addressed textual organization and linguistic features (Morales, 2016), rhetorical structure (Fazilatfar & Naseri, 2014; Soodmand Afshar & Ranjbar, 2017; Zhang & Wannaruk, 2016), grammatical complexity and clause types (Seifoori & Fattahi, 2014), RAs in several fields (Peacock, 2011), or genre analysis (Farnia & Baratizade, 2020). There exist far fewer studies which are similar to this study in their aims and procedures (Khany & Tazik, 2017; Lazaraton, 2000; Sahragard & Meihami, 2016; Tazik, Khany, Aliakbari, 2020; Yağız, Aydın, & Akdemir, 2016), among which only Sahragard and Meihami (2016) studied the RAs in the Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (TPSOL), which is the focus of the present study. Aims and data collection process: In order to fill this gap in literature, this study investigates the method section of all the 141 RAs published between 2012 and 2020 in the Journal of TPSOL. To be more exact, it is a detailed content analysis of the research approaches and designs, data collection tools and data sources, number of participants, statistical tests and software used in data analysis, and the main missing elements or problems of the method section of the mentioned RAs. In order to reach these aims, all the published articles between 2012 and 2020 were downloaded. In order to speed up the data collection process, four PhD students (paid research assistants) helped the researcher in the data collection process. They downloaded all the 141 RAs and coded them as 1 to 141. However, the numbering was not done according to the order they were published so that readers cannot guess the codes and find the articles. Then, the researcher read the title, abstract, and method sections of these articles in order to find the needed information for answering the research questions. Since the researcher could not find the needed information in these sections in some cases, he had to read the whole article carefully, looking for the needed information sometimes in the results and conclusion sections. Data analysis: In order to analyse the data, as mentioned above, the researcher read the articles two times and highlighted the information in the PDF files, leaving comments in sticky notes. Later, the researcher recorded the information for all the research question in a table. In fact, the researcher did not follow any specified and preplanned framework for the content analysis of the data and recorded exactly what was mentioned in the articles, even if they were wrongly mentioned. The researcher followed inductive content analysis to depict a comprehensive and exact picture of the method sections. Results and conclusion: Analyzing the data revealed that almost 57% of the papers followed quantitative approach, followed by mixed-methods approach (31%). Descriptive, comparative, and correlational studies were the most widely used research designs, while case study was employed the least. Researchers gathered the needed data mainly through questionnaires, achievement tests, pre-test and post-tests, and documents such as textbooks and transcriptions. The number of participants in these studies varied according to the research designs and purposes, with some few studies gathering data from sample sizes smaller than the standard size. The data of these 141 RAs were analyzed through descriptive statistics, content analysis, and t-test. It was also revealed that data analysis section, participants, and instruments were the most problematic sub-sections in the method section. Not specifying the validity and reliability of the data collection instruments, gathering data from low number of participants, not specifying the criteria for scoring or analysis of the data, presenting insufficient data about the raters and inter-rater reliability, and offering no details about the treatment were the most serious problems with the method sections of these RAs. The study ends with several practical suggestions for future researchers, present reviewers, and editors of the journal. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Method Section؛ Teaching Persian؛ Research Articles؛ Content Analysis | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Content Analysis of the Method Section of Research Articles Published in the ‘Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages’ | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mansoor Ganji | ||
| Corresponding Author,Assistant professor in TEFL, English Department, Faculty of Management and Humanities, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Method section constitutes the key element of Research Articles (RAs) since it gives the readers sufficient information on the steps taken, instruments used, and the reliability and validity of the study, thus most editors and reviewers pay a great deal of attention to this section. This study investigates the method section of all the 141 RAs published between 2012 and 2020 in the Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (TPSOL). To be more exact, it is a content analysis of the research approaches and designs, data collection tools and data sources, number of participants, statistical tests and techniques used in data analysis, and the missing elements of the method section of the said RAs. Analyzing the data through inductive content analysis revealed that almost 57% of the papers followed quantitative approach, followed by 31% mixed-methods approach. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational studies were the most frequent research designs, while case study was the least frequent one. Researchers collected the needed data mostly through questionnaires, achievement tests, pre-test and post-tests, and documents. The number of participants varied according to the research designs and purposes, with few studies employing sample sizes smaller than the standard size. The data of RAs were analyzed through descriptive statistics, content analysis, and t-test. It was also revealed that data analysis section, participants, and instruments were the most problematic sub-sections in the method section. The study ends with several practical suggestions for future researchers, present reviewers, and editors of the journal Extended Abstract: In today’s world, publishing research articles (RAs) in English is essential for postgraduate students and university professors in almost all majors (Tikhonova, 2020). However, conducting quality research and publishing RAs in high-ranking and prestigious journals seems to be a very challenging task for most of postgraduate students and novice researchers. As a result, and they cannot graduate even several years after they have written up their theses and dissertations. Thus, novice researchers are under pressure to improve their composition skills through increasing their knowledge of the rhetorical structure, organizational patterns, and needed elements of an RA for their field of study in order to increase their chances of acceptance and publication (Hyland, 2004). Statement of the problem: Although novice researchers need to increase their knowledge of different sections of an RA, having sufficient information about the method section of RAs is of utmost importance (Kellet, 2004). Method section is the general plan of the research, forms the main section in RAs (Kellet, 2004; Lim, 2006) because it gives the readers sufficient information on the actions taken for performing the research (Musa, Khamis, & Zanariah, 2015), provides the readers with information regarding the validity of the data collection instruments, and is one of the sections to which most reviewers pay a great deal of attention (Kellet, 2004; Lim, 2006). Nonetheless, despite the importance of the method section in writing and evaluation processes of RAs, previous literature examining the methods section of RAs is so little that no universal model has been put forward for its move structure (Behnam & Zamanian, 2013; Kanoksilapatham, 2005; Lim, 2006; Peacock, 2011). While there are several studies conducted on the method section of the RAs in linguistics and applied linguistics since 2000, most of them have investigated the method section from angles different from this research. They have either addressed textual organization and linguistic features (Morales, 2016), rhetorical structure (Fazilatfar & Naseri, 2014; Soodmand Afshar & Ranjbar, 2017; Zhang & Wannaruk, 2016), grammatical complexity and clause types (Seifoori & Fattahi, 2014), RAs in several fields (Peacock, 2011), or genre analysis (Farnia & Baratizade, 2020). There exist far fewer studies which are similar to this study in their aims and procedures (Khany & Tazik, 2017; Lazaraton, 2000; Sahragard & Meihami, 2016; Tazik, Khany, Aliakbari, 2020; Yağız, Aydın, & Akdemir, 2016), among which only Sahragard and Meihami (2016) studied the RAs in the Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages (TPSOL), which is the focus of the present study. Aims and data collection process: In order to fill this gap in literature, this study investigates the method section of all the 141 RAs published between 2012 and 2020 in the Journal of TPSOL. To be more exact, it is a detailed content analysis of the research approaches and designs, data collection tools and data sources, number of participants, statistical tests and software used in data analysis, and the main missing elements or problems of the method section of the mentioned RAs. In order to reach these aims, all the published articles between 2012 and 2020 were downloaded. In order to speed up the data collection process, four PhD students (paid research assistants) helped the researcher in the data collection process. They downloaded all the 141 RAs and coded them as 1 to 141. However, the numbering was not done according to the order they were published so that readers cannot guess the codes and find the articles. Then, the researcher read the title, abstract, and method sections of these articles in order to find the needed information for answering the research questions. Since the researcher could not find the needed information in these sections in some cases, he had to read the whole article carefully, looking for the needed information sometimes in the results and conclusion sections. Data analysis: In order to analyse the data, as mentioned above, the researcher read the articles two times and highlighted the information in the PDF files, leaving comments in sticky notes. Later, the researcher recorded the information for all the research question in a table. In fact, the researcher did not follow any specified and preplanned framework for the content analysis of the data and recorded exactly what was mentioned in the articles, even if they were wrongly mentioned. The researcher followed inductive content analysis to depict a comprehensive and exact picture of the method sections. Results and conclusion: Analyzing the data revealed that almost 57% of the papers followed quantitative approach, followed by mixed-methods approach (31%). Descriptive, comparative, and correlational studies were the most widely used research designs, while case study was employed the least. Researchers gathered the needed data mainly through questionnaires, achievement tests, pre-test and post-tests, and documents such as textbooks and transcriptions. The number of participants in these studies varied according to the research designs and purposes, with some few studies gathering data from sample sizes smaller than the standard size. The data of these 141 RAs were analyzed through descriptive statistics, content analysis, and t-test. It was also revealed that data analysis section, participants, and instruments were the most problematic sub-sections in the method section. Not specifying the validity and reliability of the data collection instruments, gathering data from low number of participants, not specifying the criteria for scoring or analysis of the data, presenting insufficient data about the raters and inter-rater reliability, and offering no details about the treatment were the most serious problems with the method sections of these RAs. The study ends with several practical suggestions for future researchers, present reviewers, and editors of the journal. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Method Section, Teaching Persian, Research Articles, Content Analysis | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
References Behnam, B., & Zamanian, J. (2013). Genre analysis of oxford and Tabriz applied linguistics research article abstracts: From move structure to transitivity analysis, Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(12), 41-59.
Benson, P., Chik, A., Gao, X., Huang, J., & Wang, W. (2009). Qualitative research in language teaching and learning journals, 1997–2006. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 79–90.
Çiltaş, A., Güler, G., & Sözbilir, M. (2012). Türkiye'de matematik eğitimi araştırmaları: İçerik analizi çalışması [Mathematics education research in Turkey: A content analysis study]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, [Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice], 12(1), 515-580.
Dobakhti, L. & Zohrabi, M. (2018). Citation behaviours of applied linguists in discussion sections of research articles. Applied Research on English Language, 7(2), 215-236.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erdoğan, M., Marcinkowsky, T., & Ok, A. (2009). Content analysis of selected features of K-8 environmental education research studies in Turkey, 1997–2007. Environmental Education Research, 15(5), 525-548.
Falkenberg, L. J., & Soranno, P. A. (2018). Reviewing reviews: An evaluation of peer reviews of journal article submissions. Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 27(1), 1-5.
Fanelli, D. (2010). Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States data, PLOS ONE, 5(4), 1-7.
Farnia, M., & Baratizade, S. (2020). Genre analysis of the method sections in applied linguistics research articles: A cross-linguistic study, The Asian ESP Journal, 16(6.1), 214-248.
Fazilatfar, A. M., & Naseri, Z. S. (2014). Rhetorical moves in applied linguistics articles and their corresponding Iranian writer identity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 489-498.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 123-145.
Ganji, M., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Developing a checklist for evaluating research articles in applied linguistics. Teaching English Language, 14(2), 239-268.
Gao, Y., Li, L., & Lü, J. (2001). Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the West. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 1-14.
Gledhill, C. (2000). The discourse function of collocation in research article introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 115-135.
Grimes, D. R., Bauch, C. T., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure. Royal Society Open Science, 5(1), 1-14.
Gul, S., & Sözbilir, M. (2015). Biology education research trends in Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 93-109.
Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Haven, T. L., Bouter, L. M., Smulders, Y. M., & Tijdink, J. K. (2019). Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks. PLOS ONE, 14(6), 1-12.
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.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbour: University of Michigan Press.
Jahangard, A., Rajabi-Kondlaji, A., & Khalaji, K. (2014). A comparison of moves in conclusion sections of research articles in mechanical engineering and applied linguistics. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(2), 346-359.
Jalilifar, A., & Kabezadeh, F. (2012). A comparative study of textual metadiscourse markers in introduction and method sections of applied linguistics research articles. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation, 1(1), 17-31.
Kanoksilapatham, B. (2005). Rhetorical structure of biochemistry research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 269-292.
Kellet, R. (2004). How to write the methods section of a research paper. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1229-1232.
Khamkhien, A. (2015). Textual organization and linguistic features in applied linguistics research articles: Moving from introduction to methods. International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 1(2), 111-122.
Khany, R., & Tazik. K. (2017). 40 years of applied linguistics: Investigating content areas, research methods, and statistical techniques. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 316-332.
Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in Applied Linguistics, TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 175-181.
Lazaraton, A. (2005). Quantitative research methods. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (pp. 209–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lim, J. M. H. (2006). Method sections of management research articles: A pedagogically motivated qualitative study. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 282-309.
Liu, Y. & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109.
Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23, 280-302.
Maniati, M., Jalilifar, A., & Hayati, A. (2015). Iranian scholars’ revision of their submitted manuscripts: Signaling impersonality in text. Journal of Research in Applied Language Studies, 6(1), 118-140.
Mårtensson, P., Fors, U., Wallin, S.-B., Zander, U., & Nilsson, G. H. (2016). Evaluating research: A multidisciplinary approach to assessing research practice and quality. Research Policy, 45(3), 593-603.
Morales, R.C. (2016). Discourse features of methodology sections of research articles in high-impact and non-high-impact applied linguistics journals. Asian Journal of English Language Studies,4, 71-90.
Mozaheb, M., Saeidi, M., & Ahangari, S. (2015). A comparative genre-based study of research articles’ method and results sections authored by Iranian and English native speakers. MAGNT Research Report, 2(4), 172-184.
Mozaheb, M.A. (2015) A comparative genre-based study of research articles’ method and results sections authored by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(6), 139–152.
Musa, N., Khamis, N., & Zanariah, J. (2015). The structure of method section in Engineering research articles. Asian Social Science, 11(17), 74-82.
Nizigama, E., & Mahdavirad, F. (2021). Hedging and boosting in the introduction and discussion sections of english research articles: A cross-cultural study of papers written by native and non-native academics. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 108-123.
Paltridge, B. (2017). The discourse of peer review: Reviewing submissions to academic journals. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan: London.
Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. The Asian ESP Journal, 7(2), 99-124.
Pho, P. Z. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse Studies, 10(2), 231-250.
Raitskaya, L. & Tikhonova, E. (2020). Pressure to publish internationally: Scholarly writing coming to the fore. Journal of Language and Education, 6(1), 4-7.
Ruiying, Y., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions, English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385.
Sahragard, R. & Meihami, H. (2016). An investigation into research methodology and research orientation of the studies published in journal of teaching Persian to speakers of other languages, Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 5(1), 121-140.
Samraj, B. (2005). An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 141-156.
Seçer, İ., Ay, İ., Ozan, C., & Yılmaz, B. Y., (2014). Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışma alanındaki araştırma eğilimleri: Bir içerik analizi. [Research Trends in the field of guidance and psychological counseling: A content analysis] Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi [Journal of Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance], 5(41).49-60.
Seifoori, Z. & Fattahi, J. (2014). The comparison of the method section of applied linguistics articles written by native and Iranian writers in terms of grammatical complexity and clause types. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1698-1705.
Solak, E. (2014). The content analysis of the research papers on foreign language education in Turkey. International Journal of English and Education, 3(3), 167-178.
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Ranjbar, A. (2017). A comparative study of rhetorical moves adopted in research questions and method sections of applied linguistics research articles. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 46-71.
Sözbilir, M., Kutu, H., & Yasar, M. D. (2012). Science education research in Turkey: A content analysis of selected features of papers published. In J. Dillon & D. Jorde (Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in Europe (pp. 1-35). Rotterdam: Sense publishers.
Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. Birmingham, UK: Prentice Hall.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students’ essential tasks and skills: A course for nonnative speakers of English. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Tazik, K., Khany, R. & Aliakbari, M. (2020). Trends of research methods in applied linguistics research articles between 1986 and 2015. Journal of Language Research, 12(36). 87-109.
Wood, A. (2001). International scientific English: The language of research scientists around the world. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 71-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yağız, O., Aydın, B., & Akdemir, A. S. (2016). ELT research in Turkey: A content analysis of selected features of published articles. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 117-134.
Zare, J., & Naseri, Z. S. (2020). Lexical bundles in English review articles. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 41-56.
Zhang, B., & Wannaruk, A. (2016). Rhetorical structure of education research article methods sections, PASAA, 51(1), 155-184.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 169 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 158 |
||