文档介绍：I L L N 0 ISUNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGNPRODUCTION NOTEUniversity of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign LibraryLarge-scale Digitization Project, 2007./%&4, 4z;9 ~14~%-~Technical Report No. 366METADISCOURSE IN SOCIAL STUDIES TEXTSAvon CrismoreIndiana UniversityDecember 1985Center for the Study of ReadingTECHNICALREPORTSUNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN174 Children's Research Center51 Gerty DriveChampaign, Illinois 61820BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN Moulton StreetCambridge, Massachusetts 02238The NationalInstitute ofEducation370 .152722614-1 3/5CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READINGTechnical Report No. 366METADISCOURSE IN SOCIAL STUDIES TEXTSAvon CrismoreIndiana UniversityDecember 1985University of Illinoisat Urbana-Champaign51 Gerty DriveChampaign, Illinois 61820Bolt Beranek and Newman Moulton StreetCambridge, Massachusetts 02238The work upon which this publication is based was performed pursuant toContract No. 400-81-0030 of the National Institute of Education. Itdoes not, however, necessarily reflect the views of this (an author's presence in a text) and its benefitsfor improving textbooks and children's learning and attitudes areexplored in this paper. An historical review reveals that usingthe interpersonal voice (I/you) and the author'mentary arelegitimate rhetorical devices. Interviews with prominentcontemporary rhetoricians disclose various ideas for improvingtextbooks with metadiscourse. A descriptive study ofmetadiscourse use in social studies textbooks and nontextbooksfinds that books which are not textbooks use more metadiscourseand appear more lively than textbooks. A case study evaluationof a chapter in a typical sixth grade social studies textbookdiscovers several problems related to metadiscourse. In anexperimental study, this is modified by adding metadiscourse andinterpersonal voice and the effects of this manipulation onretention and attitude is investigated. No significant maineffects are