The Impact of Metadiscoursal Features on Online Reading Ability of EFL Learners

Abstract

[1] Abbott, C., & Cribb, A. (2001). Special schools, inclusion, and the World Wide Web: The emerging research agenda [Electronic version]. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32, 331-342.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00202

[2] Leu. D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th Edition, 1570- 1613.

[3] McKenzie, J. (1995). Direct connect: Beforenet and afternet. Multimedia Schools, 2(3), 6-8.

[4] Pierce, A.F. (1998). Improving the strategies high school students use to conduct research on the Internet by teaching essential skills and providing practical experience. ERIC Document ED427756. Ed.D. Practicum Report. 86p

[5] Bulger, M. (2006). Beyond search: A preliminary skill set for online literacy. The Transliteracies Project. Retrieved December 15, 2006 from http://transliteracies.english.ucsb.edu/post/research-project/research-learinghouseindividual/research-papers/beyond-search-a-preliminary-skill-set- for-online-literacy.

[6] Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of Online Text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30-35.

[7] Kennedy, C. & Bolitho, R. (1984). English for specific purposes. London: Macmillan.

[8] Burgstahler, S. (1997). Peer support: What role can the Internet play? Information Technology and Disabilites, 4(4). [Online Serial]. Available at http://people.rit.edu/easi/itd.htm

[9] Hutinger, P., Clark, L., & Johanson, J. (2001). Technology in early childhood: Planning and learning about community environments. Final Report available from Center for Best Practices in Early Childhood, Western Illinois University. Sponsored by Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC. ED 454 680 p 2-75.

[10] Halliday, M. A. K. (1985b). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

[11] Schiffrin, D. (1980). Metatalk: Organisational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Social Inquiry: Language and Social Interaction, 50, 199-236.

[12] Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Harlow, UK: Longman.

[13] Crismore, A. & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash, (Ed.), The writing scholar (pp. 119-136). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

[14] Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

[15] Crismore, A. & Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Hedges and readers: effects on attitudes and learning. In S. Markkanen & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 83-114). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co.

[16] Williams, Joseph (1990). Toward Style and Grace. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

[17] Halliday, M. A. K. (1985a). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[18] Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733031

[19] Vande Kopple, W.J. (1997, March). Refining and applying views of metadiscourse. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Phoenix, AZ. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED411529).

[20] Hyland, Ken (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.

[21] Sperber, Dan, and Deidre Wilson (1995). Relevance, Communication and Cognition. 2nd. Oxford: Blackwell.

[22] Afflerbach, P. and Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and Describing Constructively Responsive Comprehension Strategies in New Traditional Forms of Reading. Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension, Routledge, New York and London, pp. 69-90.