This corpus-based study examines the subtle similarities and differences between change and alter. Drawing on the Corpus of Contemporary American English, the findings show that these verbs tend to co-occur with overlapping noun and adverb collocates, confirming the existence of a robust semantic similarity. With respect to the semantic preference, the noun collocates of these verbs were distributed similarly in all the discourse domains, which again accentuated the appreciable semantic similarity between these two verbs. However, the specificities in their collocational and semantic preference make their interchangeability in all contexts impossible. The findings are of value for EFL teachers and learners as they uncover clear distinctions between these two verbs.
Academic writing has generally been regarded as being difficult to read. While this is a common sentiment about science writing, recent research has suggested that it is true of humanities writing as well. However, comparative studies involving both genres are few. This study addressed this gap by comparing the readability of 2,000 research articles from the major sub-fields in the sciences and humanities. Nine readability formulas were used, and a normed average of the readability scores was computed for ease of comparison. The results revealed that the readability of science and humanities articles was in the 12-14 grade-level range. The humanities articles were found to be generally less readable than the science articles. The least readable sub-fields were history and chemistry, and the most readable sub-fields were classics and technology. This study offers a guide to the norms in the sub-fields of each discipline. Given that research articles are intended for a specific target audience, further discussion is needed as to whether the readability scores reflect a grade level that is considered appropriate.
In English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing, feedback practices are evolving beyond traditional methods towards digital feedback. This study examines Algerian university students’ experiences, perceptions, and preferences, alongside teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding EFL writing feedback in the digital era. Data were collected through online questionnaires from 156 students and 16 teachers. Despite increasing digitalization, findings show that face-to-face feedback remains the most prevalent and preferred approach in the study’s context. Discrepancies also emerged between student and teacher perceptions of feedback frequency, depth, type, tone, and effectiveness. The findings thus imply the need to better align feedback practices, strengthen feedback literacy, and complement traditional methods with e-feedback and AI-assisted feedback, while fostering motivation and autonomy for sustained writing development.
This study examines how Iranian mainstream English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers perceive and practice action research within their mandated professional development responsibilities. Using a sequential monomethod multistrand (QUAL → QUAL) design and thematic analysis, the study identified a persistent duality in teachers’ engagement with action research. Four interrelated themes emerged, namely External Systemic Factors, Cognitive Divergence, The Paradox of Agency and Identity, and A Truncated Action Research Cycle. Findings revealed two contrasting enactments: action research as a Performative Façade, reduced to a bureaucratic requirement for evaluation and promotion, and action research as Subversive Praxis, characterized by covert, small-scale inquiries supported by informal digital networks. The study argued that imposing idealized action research models without structural, cultural, and epistemic support fosters superficial compliance and professional disillusionment.
The paper explores a more comprehensive approach to assessing text-level difficulty by combining quantitative readability metrics with qualitative analyses of content and context which help in reading comprehension and reading-for-translation. It compares two excerpts using eight readability scores formulas (Automated Readability Index, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Readability Index, Smog Index, Original Linsear Write Formula, Linsear Write Grade Level Formula) to explore how topic, content, and context may be used as indicators of text-level difficulty. Using authentic texts, specifically interviews from Humans of New York, the paper aims to demonstrate that other (extra)linguistic features must be considered beyond the numerical scores provided by readability formulas.
