Manifestations of Key-Word Terms in ELT Research Publications: Are We Not Tuned to Genuine, Art-based Qualitative Lines of Inquiry Yet?

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD; English Dept., Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22034/elt.2020.11475

Abstract

Stated key words after the abstract section in research articles are among those lines of inquiry which have received less attention in Applied Linguists (AL) studies. In this paper, the researcher explored the distribution of stated key terms and expressions as used by 73 researchers in AL domains in both local (NOORMAGZ) and global database publishers (SAGE, ELEVIRE, SINCENCE DIRECT) Those Scimago journal lists, which were abstracted in Thomson Reuters Web of Science [WoS] journals were precisely screened in terms of their compatibility with title vs. topic match index as well as their position in the research articles throughout the whole sampled research papers including Introduction, Review of Literature, Method, Results & Discussion (IRMRD) to explore authors’ tendencies towards art-based utilization of key word selection/assignment for research writing aims. The results over title-topic match indicated that at least one or two stated key words significantly appeared in the title of research paper within both local and global databases with the higher preference for keyword-title match among Iranian researchers. Regarding the most probable positions in the sampled research articles, gained data in this research could not significantly show any differences between local and global researchers. Possible implications were discussed in the light of critical, art-based approaches for key word elaboration/explanation in English Language Teaching (ELT) and AL research. 
 

Keywords


Article Title [فارسی]

فهرست بندی و تجلی واژگان کلیدی در مقالات زیانشناسی کاربردی: آیا ما زبان شناسان کاربردی همگام با فرایند های معنا سازی در تحقیقات کیفی حرکت می کنیم؟

Authors [فارسی]

  • مرجان وثوقی 1
  • زهره نفیسی 2
1 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد سبزوار.
2 دانشیار دپارتمان زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، دانشگاه الزهراء (س)، تهران ، ایران.
Abstract [فارسی]

واژگان کلیدی اظهاری پس از چکیده در مقاله های تحقیقاتی از جمله آن دسته از تحقیقاتی هستند که در مطالعات رشته های زبان شناسی کاربردی (AL) و آموزش زبان کمتر مورد توجه قرار گرفته اند. در این مقاله ، محقق به بررسی واژگان کلیدی اظهاری توسط 73 محقق در حوزه های AL در میان ناشران بومی (NOORMAGZ) و ناشران پایگاه داده های بین المللی (SAGE ، ELEVIRE ، SINCENCE DIRECT) که در فهرست های ژورنال Scimago ودر بازه ی زمانی سال های 2015 تا 2020، قرار داشتند پرداخته است. مقالات چاپ شده درمجلات وب (Thomson Reuters of Science [WoS]) دقیقاً از نظر سازگاری آنها با عنوان و موضوع و همچنین جایگاه آنها در مقاله های مزبور از جمله مقدمه ، مرور ادبیات ، روش ، نتایج و بحث مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. هدف بررسی گرایش نویسندگان به سمت استفاده بدیع و هنرگونه از کلمات کلیدی در تحقیق خود همگام با تحقیقات کیفی برای اهداف نوشتن مقاله ی پژوهشی بود. نتایج حاصل از مطابقت با عنوان و موضوع نشان داد که حداقل یک یا دو کلمه کلیدی اظهار شده در فهرست واژگان کلیدی با عنوان مقاله تحقیق در هر دو داده های بومی و بین المللی به طور معنی داری مطابقت داشتند (73) = 4.43 ، p = .03. با توجه به جایگاه این کلمات در مقالات تحقیقاتی نمونه گیری شده، داده ها ی موجود در این تحقیق نتوانستند تفاوت معنی داری بین محققان بومی و بین المللی نشان بدهند. مفاهیم ضمنی و احتمالی این نتایج در پرتو رویکردهای انتقادی-کیفی و هنرگرا مبتنی بر توصیف عمیق کلمه های ی کلیدی در مقالات رشته ی آموزش زبان انگلیسی و زبانشناسی کاربردی در نهایت مورد بحث قرار گرفت.

Keywords [فارسی]

  • واژگان کلیدی
  • تعیین و انتخاب واژگان کلیدی
  • مقالات تحقیقاتی
  • تحقیقات بدیع و هنرگرا ی کیفی
ACME Editorial Collective. (2007). The politics of indexing and ranking academic journals. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies6(2), 131-34.
American Psychological Association. (2020). APA style guide to electronic references. American Psychological Association, Washington DC.
Anderson, H., Goolishian, HA. (1988). Human system as linguistic systems: preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371-93.
Babaii, E., & Taase, Y. (2013). Author-assigned keywords in research articles: Where do they come from. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics16(2), 1-19.
Barone, T., & Eisner, E. W. (2011). Arts based research. Sage.
Bartoli, E. (2018). Are there ways to improve the citations of a scientific paper?. European journal of internal medicine50, 3-5.
Berry, R. (2010). Terminology in English language teaching: Nature and use (Vol. 93). Peter Lang.
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and teaching21(6), 624-640.
Bigi, S., & Morasso, S. G. (2012). Keywords, frames and the reconstruction of material starting points in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics44(10), 1135-1149.
Bogoslovskaya, Z. M., Novikova, V. S., & Itcenko, A. V. (2015). The name of the concept STUDENT in Russian and English languages: on lexicographical material. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences215, 301-305.
Boscolo, L., Bertrando, P., Fiocco, P. M., Palvarini, R. M., & Pereira, J. (1995). Language and Change The Use of Keywords in Therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy16(2), 57-63.
Bruce, I. (2008). Academic writing and genre: A systematic analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Byram, M., Nichols, A., & Stevens, D. (Eds.). (2001). Developing intercultural competence in practice (Vol. 1). Multilingual Matters.
Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 335–351.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. Non-native educators in English language teaching7792.
Capone, A. (2019). Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Castree, N. (2013). Making sense of nature. Routledge.
Chastain, K. (1971). The development of modern-language skills: theory to practice (Vol. 14). Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes25(1), 76-89.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.
Cleveland, A. D., & Cleveland, D. B. (2013). Introduction to indexing and abstracting. ABC-CLIO.
Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of second language writing16(3), 129-147.
Craig, M., & Porter, C. (2014). " Speaking Back" from the English Periphery: Art-Work in a South Korean High School English Classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique13(2), 35-54.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and do they matter? Higher education62(3), 279-301.
Duncum, P. (2009). Toward a playful pedagogy: Popular culture and the pleasures of transgression. Studies in Art Education, 50(3), 232-244.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1– 46. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00013.x.
Engels, T. C., Ossenblok, T. L., & Spruyt, E. H. (2012). Changing publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics93(2), 373-390.
Esfandiari, R. (2019). Definitional Clarifications in the Introductions of PhD theses: A Genre-Based Analysis, Journal of English language Teaching and Learning, 11 (23).
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.
Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment. New York: Routledge.
Gadamer, H-G. (1996). The enigma of health: the art of healing in a scientific age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gavelek, J., & Bresnahan, P. (2014). Ways of meaning making: Sociocultural perspectives on reading comprehension. In Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 164-200). Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge Falmer.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 44(8), 714–725.
Gee, J. P. (2003). Opportunity to learn: A language-based perspective on assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 27–46.
Gumperz, J., & Cook-Gumperz, J. (2007). Discourse, cultural diversity and communication: A linguistic anthropological perspective. Handbook of intercultural communication7, 13-29.
Hager, P. J., Scheiber, H. J., & Corbin, N. C. (1997). Designing & delivering: Scientific, technical, and managerial presentations. John Wiley & Sons.
Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge.
Hartley, J., & Kostoff, R. N. (2003). How useful are key words' in scientific journals?. Journal of Information Science29(5), 433-438.
Heath, I. (2001). ‘A fragment of the explanation’: the use and abuse of words. Medical humanities27(2), 64-69.
Heath, S. B., & Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hinkel, E. (1999). Objectivity and credibility in L1 and L2 academic writing. Culture in second language teaching and learning90108.
Hoadley, C. (2012). 12 What is a Community of Practice and How Can We Support It?. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 286.
Howcroft, G. (2007). A Beginner's Guide to Metadata and Keywords. Editors' Bulletin, 3 (3), 75-77.
Hughes, W. P. (2005). Keywords: Their choice and their importance. Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Newsletter, 20(1), 2–3 and 21(1), 4–5.
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching41(4), 543-562.
Johansson, V. (2009). Developmental aspects of text production in writing and speech (Vol. 48). Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.
Kane, M., & Trochim, W. M. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation (Vol. 50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science331(6018), 772-775.
Knowles, J. G., & Cole, A. L. (2008). Handbook of the arts in qualitative research: Perspectives, methodologies, examples, and issues. Sage.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krauss, S. E. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The qualitative report10(4), 758-770.
Leavy, P. (2015). Method meets art: Arts-based research practice. Guilford Publications.
Lee, I. (2012). Genre-Based Teaching and Assessment in Secondary English Classrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique11(4), 120-136.
Levitt, R., Celia, C., Diepeveen, S., Chonaill, S. N., Rabinovich, L., & Tiessen, J. (2010). Assessing the Impact of Arts and Humanities Research at the University of Cambridge. Technical Report. RAND Corporation.
Lopez-Veyna, J. I., Sosa-Sosa, V. J., & Lopez-Arevalo, I. (2014). A low redundancy strategy for keyword search in structured and semi-structured data. Information Sciences288, 135-152.
Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014). Making meaning of meaning-making research: Using qualitative research for studies of social and personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships31(4), 433-441.
Martinez, D. (2019). Sample APA Research Paper. Purdue University: Academic Success Center.
Meyer, O., Coyle, D., Halbach, A., Schuck, K., & Ting, T. (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning–mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Culture and Curriculum28(1), 41-57.
Miri, J. (2020). Scholarly Insight into Academic Studies at the University [PDF]. Retrieved from Telegram channel of Iranian structures-@Iranianstructures.
Müller, H. M., Kenny, E. E., & Sternberg, P. W. (2004). Textpresso: an ontology-based information retrieval and extraction system for biological literature. PLoS biology2(11).
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of English for specific purposes (Vol. 592). West-Sussex: Wiley-blackwell.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Petrić, B. (2012). Legitimate textual borrowing: Direct quotation in L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing21(2), 102-117.
Prubhu, N. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raamkumar, A. S., Foo, S., & Pang, N. (2017). Using author-specified keywords in building an initial reading list of research papers in scientific paper retrieval and recommender systems. Information Processing & Management53(3), 577-594.
Raghunath, M. T. (2013). U.S. Patent No. 8,484,218. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Richards, J. C. & Theodore, S. (1991). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University. Press.
Ryan, M. (2014). Reflexivity and aesthetic inquiry: Building dialogues between the arts and literacy. English Teaching: Practice and Critique13(2), 5-18.
Sajed, T., Nourmohammadi, H. A., & Asadi, S. (2016). Measuring keyword density of websites of MSRT universities’ Libraries. Journal of Scientometrics, 2, 1(3), 1-26.
 
Scarino, A. (2014). Learning as reciprocal, interpretive meaning‐making: A view from collaborative research into the professional learning of teachers of languages. The Modern Language Journal98(1), 386-401.
Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. The qualitative report10(2), 358-394.
Sene-Mongaba, B. (2015). The Making of Lingala Corpus: An Under-resourced Language and the Internet. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences198, 442-450.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2005). Attended and unattended “this” in academic writing: A long and unfinished story. ESP Malaysia11(1), 1-15.
Swales, J. M. (2005). Attended and unattended “this” in academic writing: A long and unfinished story. ESP Malaysia11(1), 1-15.
Swann, J., & Maybin, J. (2007). Language creativity in everyday contexts. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 491-496.
Thorgersen, K. (2014). Outcomes-Based Aesthetics? Reflections over Aesthetic Communication and Outcomes-Based Learning Based on a Study of Six Syllabi. English Teaching: Practice and Critique13(2), 19-34.
Tomlinson, P., & Quinton, M. (Eds.). (2019). Values across the curriculum. Routledge.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Whissell, C. (2012). The trend towards more attractive and informative titles. Psychological Reports, 110, 427–44.
Williams, P., Stevenson, I., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., & Rowlands, I. (2009). The role and future of the monograph in arts and humanities research. In Aslib Proceedings. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
مردانی نژاد, ع. و دانش، ف. ( 2013). ارزیابی تراکم کلمات کلیدی در وب سایت های برتر کتابخانه مرکزی دانشگاه های علوم پزشکی ایران. کتابداری و اطلاع رسانی15, 263-284.‎