An Investigation of the Generic Features of Research Articles Published in the Bulletin of Iranian Mathematical Society

Document Type : Research Paper


English Language Department, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran


In light of the understanding that the analysis of the generic features of different academic genres can enhance the ability of non-native members of academic discourse communities to understand, and where appropriate, to produce them, the present study aimed at investigating the dominant generic structure of research articles in mathematics. To start with a relatively narrow focus, a corpus of thirty mathematics research articles were randomly selected from The Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society(BIMS), and were analyzed in terms of their macro-organizational structure. An eleven-move structure was identified in the analyzed corpus, while it was also found that the research articles in the corpus did not follow the conventional Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion structure found in many other disciplines. Methods and Discussion sections which are frequently encountered in research articles of many other disciplines were missing in the analyzed articles. It is argued that the findings may have theoretical implications in revealing some discipline specific conventions of organizing macro structure. Since all the authors were Iranian, the emerging model should be treated cautiously because some aspects of the emerging macro structure may also be under the influence of culture specific conventions.   


Akkaya, N. & Demirel, M. V. (2012). Teacher candidates’ use of questioning skills during-reading and post-reading strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 (2012) 4301 – 4305.
Anderson, N. (2003). Reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.) Practical English Language Teaching (pp. 67-86). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Antoniou, F., &   Souvignier, E. (2007). -Strategy instruction in reading comprehension-: An intervention study for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5, 41-57.
Armstrong, E. M., & Ferguson, A. (2010). Language, meaning, context, and functional communication. Aphasiology, 24(4), 480-496.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal,72(2), 150-162.
Coiro, J. (2003). Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding Our Understanding of Reading Comprehension to Encompass New Literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56,458- 464.
Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Habibian, M. & Roslan, S. (2014). The relationship between self-efficacy in reading with language proficiency and reading comprehension among ESL learners. Journal of Education and Practice, (5)14, 119-126.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance  understanding. Markham: Pembroke.
Kassem, H.M. (2013). The effect of collaborative versus individual strategic reading on college EFL learners’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy. Asian EFL Journal. Professional Teaching Articles, 60, 21-23.
Khansir, A.A., & Gholami Dashti, J. (2014). The Effect of Question-Generation Strategy on Iranian EFL Learners’ Reading Comprehension Development. English Language Teaching, 7(4), 41-44.
Kose, N. (2006). Effects of portfolio implementation and assessment critical reading on   learner autonomy of EFL students. Retrieved from  portfolioimplementation-and-assessment-on-critical-reading-and-learner-autonomy-of-elt-students
Linse, T. C. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching, Young Learners. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Look, S., M. (2000). Effective Instructional Strategies Series. USA: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning
Mc Namara, D. S. (2009). The Importance of Teaching Reading Strategies:Perspectives on Language and Literacy. The International Dyslexia Association, 3(2), 4-40.
Miciano, R. Z. (2002). Self-questioning and prose comprehension: A sample case of ESL reading. Asia Pacific Education Review, 3(2), 210-216.
Mirhassani, A. & Farhady, H. (2012). New Reading Through Interaction, book two. Tehran:Zabankadeh.
Nunan, D. (Ed.). (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. McGraw Hill.
Pardo, L. S. (2004). What Every Teacher Needs to Know About Comprehension. The ReadingTeacher, Nov. 2004, 272-281.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1985). Fostering the development of self-regulation in children's knowledge processing. In S. F. Chipman & J. W. Segal (eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills(pp.563-577).. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Serravallo, J. (2010). Teaching reading in small groups: Differentiated instruction for building strategic, independent readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sunggingwati, D., & Nguyen, H.T.M. (2013). Self-questioning strategy training: Insights from implementation. Asian EFL Journal ( Professional Teaching Articles), 68,39-72.
Van den Broek, P., & Espin, C. A. (2012).Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 315-325.
Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: Re-reading, answering questions, and generating questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 308-316.
Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Reading and communication. In C. Alderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 213-227). New York: Longman.
Ziyaeemehr, Z. (2012). The Efficacy of collaborative strategic reading on the reading comprehension of ESP learners. Higher Education of Social Science, 2(1), 38-42.