محمد حسن زاده

Purpose: Relatively much research has been done into theorizing and its importance. However, the number of studies related to the understanding of contexts is very negligible and so far no framework has been provided including indicators and evaluation methods. This research has been done with the aim of achieving the indicators related to theorizing and subsequently presenting a formula to measure the potential and theorizing capacity of scientific institutes. Method: Library and field methods have been used to collect information. Data were first collected through a checklist and then through the AHP questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed among experts and the AHP method was used to analyze the data. Expert Choice software was used to analyze the data obtained from the AHP questionnaire. Findings: The results indicate that the individual index is 9 times more important than the non-individual index in the theorizing process. Pairwise comparison of individual sub-indices showed that "awareness of theorizing" and "research ability” have an equal portion in theorizing. The "coherence of personality traits" is sextuple as important as the "awareness of theorizing”. "Coherence of personality traits" up to sextuple "research ability" can be considered important in the theorizing process.  Pairwise comparison of non-individual index sub-indices showed that "communication level" is twice as important as "institutional index level". However, the “effect level" is twice as important as the "communication level". The "communication level" is 7 times more important than the "management index level". The "effect level" can be considered 7 times more important than the "institutional index level". "Institutional index level" is quadruple more important than "management index level". The "effect level" is extremely important compared to the "management index level". Conclusion: Although theorizing is done by a researcher or a group of researchers, ultimately, it is a collective matter, or at least, several components are involved in its formation. Theorizing is a coherent, dynamic, purposeful, and thoughtful practice whose results can lead researchers to recognize the credible generalizable relationship between causes and effects. Finally, the formula Tp= (0.9I + 0.1NI) was presented, which can be used to assess the capacity of theorizing in institutes.

In order to engage students in higher-level thinking, cognitive activation (CA) strategies have been advanced and utilized in mathematics. CA develops when learners are challenged, confronted with conflicts, asked to think and explain clearly on their learning, and realize connections between new and previous content. Extending the theme to English language teaching (ELT), this study investigated Iranian English language teachers’ knowledge and practice of cognitive activation writing strategies (CAWS). In so doing, a model was proposed based on a questionnaire that was developed and validated in the present study. Through this scale, knowledge and practice of CAWS by 213 English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers were explored. During a pilot phase, the reliability of the questionnaire was calculated to be .78 for the knowledge section and .81 for the practice section. Two items in each section were removed after conducting exploratory factor analysis. Ultimately, the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the proposed model was fit for the data. Five components were confirmed as constituents of CAWS for the knowledge section, and four components were identified for the practice section. The findings revealed that Iranian EFL teachers were already familiar with the CAWS and purportedly practiced them in their writing classes. Using the scale in the process of writing instruction can provide ELT practitioners with a helpful platform for relating to CA strategies and empowers learners to accomplish tasks such as problem-solving in their writing assignments, similar to what is practiced in mathematics.

From when the black box of authorial identity has been unpacked, the paucity of authorial identity model on the basis of a comprehensive theoretical framework addressed the need to establish a robust one (Cheung, Stupple, & Elander, 2015). The current study was comprised of three main phases including hypothesizing a model of authorial identity, developing and validating a questionnaire based on the model and finally testing the model based on the questionnaire data. The participants, including M.A. and PhD students, were 30 for initial piloting, 60 for reliability estimation, 140 for exploratory factor analysis, and 175 for confirmatory factor analysis. At first, drawing on Ivanič’s (1998) model of writer identity and Prior’s (2001) ways of classifying voice, reviewing the related literature, and consulting with a cadre of experts, a model of authorial identity was proposed. Secondly, a questionnaire was developed and validated based on the hypothesized model. The reliability of the questionnaire, estimated through Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.73. Following that, exploratory factor analysis identified four components, namely authorial voice and identity, authorial persona, authorial background, and authorial style. Ultimately, SEM was run using AMOS in the confirmatory factor analysis phase to test the model. The results of this multi-phase research are presented and discussed for underlining the key role of authorial identity in academic writing for both novice and professional academicians.