European Proceedings Logo

Metadiscourse Markers In Science Schoolbooks As Facilitators For Metacognitive Regulation Of Learning

Table 2:

Metadiscourse markers 7th grade schoolbooks 8th grade schoolbooks
A B A B
Interactive Transition markers (examples, causal relations, temporal structures) 36 (15.9.%) 9(4.6%) 21(18.5%) 15(10.4%)
Frame markers (structure parts of the text, label stages of processes, announce targeted objectives) 67 (29.6%) 51(26.4%) 35(30.9%) 46(31.9%)
Endophoric markers (send reader to other parts of the text, focus reader’s attention on previous contents) 14 (6.1%) 9(4.6%) 9(7.9%) 29(20.1%)
Evidentials (references to other sources) 16 (7.07%) 6(3.1%) 6(5.3%) 4(2.7%)
Code glosses (announce rephrasing, explanations, illustrations) 18(7.96%) 6(3.1%) 12(10.6%) 6(4.1%)
Total 66.8% 41.9% 73.4% 69.4%
Interactional Boosters (state certainty) 7(3.09%) 2(1.02%) 2(1.7%) 4(2.7%)
Attitude markers (indicate writer’s qualitative evaluation of a contents) 12(5.3%) 13(6.7%) 11(9.7%) 9(6.2%)
Engagement markers (evoke readers in order to engage them into the contents) 52(23%) 90(46.6%) 14(12.3%) 17(11.8%)
Self-mentions (authors refer to themselves as persons or authorities or makes personal procedural references) 4(1.76%) 7(3.6%) 3(2.6%) 14(9.7%)
Total 33.1% 58.03% 26.5% 30.5%
GENERAL TOTALS 226 193 113 144
< Back to article