عبدالرضا تحریری

Metadiscourse is an essential component of academic writing, as it helps authors better communicate their ideas and engage their readers. It is through the analysis of the text's metadiscourse that one can explore academic writing and compare the rhetorical traits and preferences of various discourse communities (Hyland, 2005). To this end, this study examined the differences in the use, type, and frequency of interactional metadiscourse markers in the discussion and conclusion sections of political science and religious studies articles written in English language. The corpus of this study consisted of 45032 words extracted from fifty research articles, twenty-five articles in the field of political science, and twenty-five articles in the field of religious studies published between 2019 and 2023 in the top one high-impact factor and peer-reviewed international journals. To analyze the data, one Eta and two Chi-square tests were run. Considering the interactional resources of Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse model, the researchers uncovered that despite some subtle differences in the use, frequency, and types of these metadiscourse markers, “hedges” were the most and attitude markers were the least frequently used metadiscourse markers employed in both political science and religious studies disciplines. The findings have some educational implications that shed light on the need to encourage English language teachers, university professors, and publishers in the fields of TEFL and ESP to provide EFL learners with appropriate sources and settings to increase their familiarity with various metadiscourse markers, especially the category of interactional MDMs that aids them write coherently and establish genuine interaction with audiences.

Applying both teacher- and computer-generated feedback to foster EFL learners’ writing remains a less explored issue. The purpose of this study was two-fold. Firstly, it examined whether blending both online automated feedback (OAF) and teacher feedback had a significant effect on EFL learners’ writing ability or not. Secondly, it explored their perceptions on the use of the blended OAF and teacher feedback. To this end, this study employed a mixed-method design using essay writing, questionnaire, and interview to investigate the impact of blended OAF and teacher feedback on EFL learners’ writing ability in an essay writing course. Thirty intermediate EFL learners participated in the study; they were given the first writing pre-test, and then were assigned into experimental and control groups randomly. The experimental group was given access to the integrated OAF and teacher feedback on their two-paragraph problem-solution essay writing during the treatment phase while the control group received teacher-only feedback. The results of the independent samples t-test and RM ANOVA showed that the experimental group outperformed the control group in terms of the overall score for the two final essay writings, and also demonstrated a significant improvement in writing scores across four essays during the treatment. The qualitative data also revealed the participants’ positive perception towards the effectiveness of the blended OAF and teacher feedback on their writing. Overall, the findings of this study can contribute to a better understanding of the impact of the blended feedback in enhancing EFL learners’ writing ability.