1. The study aimed to analyze metadiscourse categories (interactive and interactional) in the writing of International Program School students at Muhammadiyah University Surakarta, with a focus on gender differences.
2. The results showed that interactive metadiscourse consisted of frame markers, transition markers, endophoric marker, evidentials, and code glosses, while interactional metadiscourse consisted of boosters, edges, attitude markers, self-mentions and engagement markers.
3. Female students had a higher use of transition markers compared to male students, possibly due to their learning experiences outside the classroom such as at pondok pesantren.
The article titled "Interactive Metadiscourse and Interactional Metadiscourse Categories of Students’ International Program School Based on Gender" by Suhono and Haikal explores the use of metadiscourse categories in second language learners of International Program School at Muhammadiyah University Surakarta. The study aims to analyze the differences in metadiscourse categories with regard to gender and factors affecting metadiscourse in male and female students.
The article provides a comprehensive introduction to the concept of metadiscourse, its importance in writing, and its role in guiding a reader's perception of a text. The authors also explain their choice of Hyland's metadiscourse model for analyzing students' written forms, citing its effectiveness in characterizing the need for writers to produce good writing.
However, the article has several limitations that affect its credibility. Firstly, the sample size is small, consisting of only 10 male and 7 female students. This limits the generalizability of the findings to a larger population. Secondly, there is no clear explanation provided for why transition markers were found to be higher among female students who learn outside class such as at pondok pesantren. This lack of evidence weakens the claim made by the authors.
Additionally, there are potential biases present in the article that may affect its objectivity. For instance, there is no mention of any counterarguments or alternative perspectives on the topic. The authors also do not provide any information about possible risks associated with their findings or acknowledge any limitations or weaknesses in their study.
Overall, while this article provides some useful insights into metadiscourse categories among second language learners based on gender, it is limited by a small sample size and lacks sufficient evidence for some claims made by the authors. Additionally, it could benefit from more balanced reporting that acknowledges alternative perspectives and potential limitations or weaknesses in their study.