The Significance of English Scientific Writing Proficiency for Publishing Purposes: The Case of Moroccan EFL PhD Students at the Euromed University of Fes
Keywords:Scientific writing, Indexed journals, writing across the curriculum, academic research, recommendations
This study aspires to theoretically and empirically investigate the dearth of English scientific writing in the engineering PhD programs at the Euromed University of Fes. It must be noted that the entire absence of English in the curriculum of PhD programs unequivocally creates myriad challenges, mainly in the writing process. Doctoral students find themselves impotent to publish in indexed journals, be it a single-blind peer review or a double-blind peer review, due to the high demands of scientific writing proficiency and accuracy alongside the scrupulous treatment of data. In like manner, novice researchers lack expertise and oftentimes agonize about the writing task as their meta-cognitive skills need to be rejuvenated, revitalized, and rigorously fortified. To that end, the use of numerical data by means of questionnaire is highly estimated by researchers to vigorously help in unveiling the aforementioned challenges, while simultaneously systematically paving the way for context-specific recommendations to be made in order to alleviate some of the pressure that doctoral students undergo with respect to English scientific writing for the purpose of producing quality publishable materials.
Alsamadani, A. (2010). The relationship between Saudi EFL students’ writing competence, L1 writing proficiency, and self-regulation. European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 53-63.
Anderson, P. (2003). Technical communication: A reader-centered approach. 5th Edition. United States: Thomson Heinle.
Bachiri, H. (2017). The need for extensive reading in the production of English academic writing by non-English speakers. Ph.D. Dissertation. Kenitra: Applied Linguistics Department.
Belcher, D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 1–22.
Christiansen, A. (1965). Tripping writing and omitting readings in freshman English: An experiment. College composition and communication, 16, 122-124.
Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
De Vries, D. (1970). Reading, writing frequency, and expository writing. Reading Improvement, 7, 14-19.
Ferguson, G., Pe´rez-Llantada, C., & Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientiﬁc publication: A study of attitudes. World Englishes, 30, 41–59.
Gibson, F., Perez-Llantada., & C., Plo, R. (2011). English as an international language of scientific publication: a study of attitudes, World Englishes, 30(1), 41–59.
Gopen, D. (1990). The common sense of writing: Teaching writing from the reader’s perspective. University Writing Program: Duke University.
Halliday, G., Yore, D., & Alvermann, E. (1994). The reading science-learning-writing connection: Breakthroughs, barriers, promises. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 877-893.
Heys, F. (1962). The theme-a-week assumption: A report of an experiment. English Journal, 51, 320-322.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
Kasraoui, S. (2019). French Vs. English: How Morocco Is Debating Foreign Languages in Schools. Morocco World News.
Kirub, A. (2014). Essentials of scientific writing. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR).
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kuh, D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, D.C: AAC&U.
Mars, A. (1989). Textual approach to teaching composition to university students. Proceedings of the Xth national Mate conference, 72-76. Joppe, M. The Research Process. Retrieved from http://www.ryerson.ca/~mjoppe/rp.htm. 2000.
Meziani, A. (1983). Modality in English and Moroccan Arabic. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 21, 267-282.
Musa, F. (2010). Teaching writing to post-secondary students: Procedure and technicalities in an EFL classroom. Paper presented at the First National Conference on English Language Teaching, Al-Quds Open University, Palestine. Retrieved from http://www.qou.edu/english/conferences/firstNationalConference/pdfFiles/ farouqMusa. pdf.
Nerad, M. (2012). Conceptual approaches to doctoral education: A Community of Practice Alternation, 19(2), 57–72.
Rababah, G. (2003) Communication problems facing Arab learners of English: A personal perspective. TEFL Web Journal, 2(1), 5-30.
Richards, C. (1990). The Teacher As Self-Observer. In Jack C. Richards, The Language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). Referential behavior in scientific writing: a diachronic study. English for Specific Purposes, 13, 149-71.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). Language is not a physical object. English for specific purposes, 17(3), 295–303.
Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance. Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social Studies of Science, 14, 481-520.
Shawn, M., & Dennis, M. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 1057-1073.
Starovoytova, D. (2017). Scientific research, writing, and dissemination: (Part 3/4) -Journal of Education and Practice, 8(28), 1-24.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: CUP.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Linguistic Forum - A Journal of Linguistics [E-ISSN-2707-5273]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.