Hard Disciplines

This study investigates how L1 Chinese scholars in hard science disciplines use metadiscourse in their English academic writing, by comparing the deployment of metadiscoursal resources written by L1 Chinese and L1 English scholars. Hyland’s (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse was adopted for the analysis. We found that L1 Chinese scholars used less metadiscoursal resources than L1 English scholars on the whole. In the two dimensions of interaction, L1 Chinese scholars made more use of interactive devices, while L1 English scholars used more interactional items. This reflects that L1 Chinese scholars made greater efforts to guide the readers through their papers, and L1 English scholars are more concerned with creating author identity and engaging their readers. The t-tests confirmed that L1 Chinese scholars used significantly more code glosses in interactive metadiscourse and less self-mentions in interactional metadiscourse. An in-depth analysis reveals two functions of code glosses and five functions of self-mentions in RA abstracts.

The current study attempted to investigate and compare the perceptions of Iranian in-service hard disciplines, soft disciplines, and English teachers of their prognostic, formative, and summative assessment literacy. To this end, a total number of 282 high school teachers (94 teachers from each disciplinary groups) were asked to complete the modified and validated version of Rahimi and Rastgoo’s (2017) questionnaire. To enrich the quantitative phase, 90 teachers (30 ones in each group of disciplines) were also interviewed. The results of one-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons revealed a significant difference between hard disciplines and English teachers in terms of their prognostic and summative assessment literacy. However, no significant difference was found among the three groups in terms of their formative assessment literacy. The content analysis of the interviews cast light on the commonalities and discrepancies of assessment perceptions and practices depending on the teachers’ disciplines. The findings can be transferred to teacher education programs to enhance the teachers’ subject-specific assessment competencies.