Investigating the Effect of Process-based Instruction of Writing on the IELTS Writing Task Two Performance of Iranian EFL Learners: Focusing on Hedging & Boosting

References

• Alavi, S. M., Nemati, M., & Dorri Kafrani, J. (2020). Error gravity analysis of IELTS students’ academic writing task 2. International Journal of Language Studies, 14, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Algi, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in L1 and L2 argumentative paragraphs: Implications for teaching L2 academic writing (Unpublished Master thesis). Middle East Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, L. K., Likens, A. D., & McNamara, D. S. (2019). Writing flexibility in argumentative essays: A multidimensional analysis. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1607–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9921-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alward, A., Mooi, C., & Bidin, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in the Yemeni EFL undergraduates’ persuasive essay: an empirical study. The Internet Journal of Language, Culture and Society, 34, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Aptoula, N. Y., & Bayyurt, Y. (2020). Features of electronic feedback on graduate level writing. In English for specific purposes instruction and research (pp. 145–158). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, G. W. (2018). Mindset for IELTS level 3 student’s book with test bank and online modules: an official Cambridge IELTS course. CUP.
   Google Scholar
• Archibald, A., & Jeffery, G. C. (2000). Second language acquisition and writing: A multi-disciplinary approach.
   Google Scholar
• Ariza Martínez, A. V. (2005). The process-writing approach: an alternative to guide the students’ compositions. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, (6), 37–46.
   Google Scholar
• Bacang, B. C., Rillo, R. M., & Alieto, E. O. (2019). The gender construct in the use of rhetorical appeals, hedges, and boosters in ESL writing: a discourse analysis. Online Submission, 25, 210–224.
   Google Scholar
• Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153
   Google Scholar
• Bayat, N. (2014). The effect of the process writing approach on writing success and anxiety. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(3), 1133–1141.
   Google Scholar
• Biook, B., & Mohseni, F. (2014). The use of hedging in research articles. Journal of Current Research in Science, 2(4), 474–477.
   Google Scholar
• Birjandi, P., Alavi, S. M., & Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2004). Advanced writing. ERIC Clearinghouse.
   Google Scholar
• Bondi, M. (2020). A corpus-based comparison of Albanian and Italian student writing in L1 and English as L2: hedges and boosters as modalization by degree. [Unpublished PhD Dissertation]. Technischen Universität.
   Google Scholar
• Crismore, A., Makkannen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A Study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crompton, P. (1997). Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 271–287. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00007-0
   Google Scholar
• Crosthwaite, P., Cheung, L., & Jiang, F. K. (2017). Writing with attitude: Stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 107–123. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen, P., French, A., & Jakeman, V. (2014). The official Cambridge guide to IELTS for academic & general training. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008): The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40: 95–113.
   Google Scholar
• Davoodifard, M. (2006). A contrastive analysis of hedging in English and Persian research Articles: Linguistic and cultural variations across languages and disciplines. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of IsfahanTELL, 2 (7).
   Google Scholar
• Demir, C. (2017). Competence in lexical boosters and nativeness in academic writing of English: The possible relation. Dil Ve Dilbilimi Çalismalari Dergisi, 13(2), 593–614.
   Google Scholar
• Ferretti, R. P., & Graham, S. (2019). Argumentative writing: Theory, assessment, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 32(6), 1345–1357. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09950-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Goctu, R. (2017). Metacognitive strategies in academic writing. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 2(2), 8–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31578/jebs.v2i2.44
   Google Scholar
• Heng, C. S., & Tan, H. (2000). Maybe, perhaps, I believe, you could-making claims and the use of hedges. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 127–157.
   Google Scholar
• Hinkel, E. (1997). Indirectness in L1 and L2 academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(3), 360–386. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00040-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: an analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, G., & Cao, F. (2011). Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English-and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), 2795–2809. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1996b). Talking to academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251–281. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1998a). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text, 18(3), 349–382. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1998b). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s setter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224–245. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1998c). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1998d). Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring writing in interaction. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: what is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., & Milton, J. (1997). Qualification and Certainty in L1 and L2 Students’ Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90033-3
   Google Scholar
• IELTS, C. (2019). Student’s book with answers: official examination papers from University of Cambridge ESOL examinations (IELTS Practice Tests) (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kazemi, A. (2016). Hedging in academic writing: The case of Iranian EFL journals. International Journal of Language Studies, 10, 4.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2015). Hedging in academic writing-a pedagogically-motivated qualitative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 600–607. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.200
   Google Scholar
• Kondowe, W. (2014). Hedging and boosting as interactional metadiscourse in literature doctoral dissertation abstracts. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 214–221.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262952
   Google Scholar
• Lewin, B. A. (2005). Hedging: An exploratory study of authors’ and readers’ identification of ‘toning down’in scientific texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2004.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Nekouizadeh, M., Bavali, M., Bagheri, M. S., & Rassaei, E. (2020). On the functions and forms of metadiscursive hedging in applied linguistics. International Journal of Language Studies, 14, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Nikula, T. (1996). Pragmatic force modifiers: A study in interlanguage pragmatics. University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Nivales, M. L. M. (2010). Hedging and boosting in college research articles. Far Eastern University English & Literature Journal, 2, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to teaching writing. Best practices in writing instruction, 28–49.
   Google Scholar
• Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2016). Working on the” write” path: improving EFL students’ argumentative-writing performance through L1-mediated structural cognitive modification. ERIC Clearinghouse.
   Google Scholar
• Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article Introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1678–1685. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593
   Google Scholar
• Sarani, A., & Talati-Baghsiahi, A. (2017). Explicit instruction of pragmatic features: its impact on EFL learners’ knowledge of hedging devices in academic writing. Issues in Language Teaching, 6(1), 53–129.
   Google Scholar
• Sarhady, T. (2015). The effect of product/process-oriented approach to teaching and learning writing skill on university student performances. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 7–12.
   Google Scholar
• Schro¨der, H., & Zimmer, D. (1997). Hedging research in pragmatics; A bibliographical research guide to hedging. In R. Markkanen & H. Schro¨der (Eds.), Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 249–271). Walter de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Serholt, S. (2012). Hedges and boosters in academic writing-a study of gender differences in essays written by Swedish advanced learners of english. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/29526
   Google Scholar
• Tong, H. (2007). The contrast experiment of product approach and process approach. Journal of Basic English Education, 9(4), 58–81.
   Google Scholar
• Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/357609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vande Kopple, W. J. (1997). Refining and applying views of metadiscourse.
   Google Scholar
• Varttala, T. (2001). Hedging in scientifically oriented discourse exploring variation according to discipline and intended audience. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Tampere.
   Google Scholar
• Vázquez Orta, I., & Giner, D. (2009). Writing with conviction: the use of boosters in modelling persuasion in academic discourses.
   Google Scholar
• Westervelt, L. (1998). Teaching writing using the process-oriented approach. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED420864
   Google Scholar
• White, R., & Ardnt, V. (1997). Process writing. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. Scott, Foresman and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Yagiz, O., & Demir, C. (2015). A comparative study of boosting in academic texts: A contrastive rhetoric. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v5n4p12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Y. (2013). Exploring linguistic and cultural variations in the use of hedges in English and Chinese scientific discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 697–715. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3586990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, D. (2015). An empirical study on the application of process approach in non-english majors’ writing. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 89–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n3p89
   Google Scholar