Cited by 54Science Education and PedagogyDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Analyzing Teachers’ Use of Metadiscourse: The Missing Element in Classroom Discourse Analysis

Tang, Kok‐Sing·2017·Science Education

Abstract

Metadiscourse, or metatalk, is a discursive resource used in virtually any text or conversation to organize its content or signal the author's stance toward the content. Despite its prevalence in classroom talk, few have examined the role of metadiscourse and how it assists teachers and students to manage classroom communication of scientific knowledge. Thus, the purpose of this study is to analyze how science teachers use metadiscourse to construct scientific knowledge with their students. Based on a corpus of classroom video data, I developed a typology of metadiscourse commonly found in science classroom discourse. The typology comprises six major categories of metadiscourse, namely text connective, knowledge connective, activity connective, attitude marker, epistemology marker, and interpretive marker. In addition, I showed how the analysis on metadiscourse was necessary to complement the gaps from classroom analysis focusing on the interaction and content development aspects of classroom talk, particularly during the opening and reviewing stages of constructing a scientific explanation. With a better understanding of metadiscourse, its potential use as a pedagogical intervention to promote science learning is then discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sce.21275

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Metadiscourse has been widely recognized as a valuable approach to characterizing and understanding the interactional features of teachers' talk and their instructional strategies.

    “As such, metadiscourse has been widely recognized as a valuable approach to characterizing and understanding the interactional features of teachers' talk and their instructional strategies (e.g. Lee and Subtirelu 2015;Tang 2017Tang , 2021;;Rappa and Tang 2018;Aguilar-Pérez and Khan, 2023;Khan and Aguilar-Pérez 2023;Ko and Luna 2023).”
  • Metadiscourse is not merely an adjunct to propositional content but a key feature of teacher talk, instrumental in managing classroom discourse and fostering student engagement.

    “Findings indicate that metadiscourse is not merely an adjunct to propositional content but a key feature of teacher talk, instrumental in managing classroom discourse and fostering student engagement.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, K.
Affiliations
Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Tang, Kok‐Sing
Venue
Science Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-05-04
Volume
101
Issue
4
Pages
548-583
ISSN
  • 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-237X
OpenAlex
W2611357772
Cited by
54
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6
FWCI
11.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science Education (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Education
  • Nanyang Technological University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
metadiscourse, science classroom discourse, science teachers, attitude markers, classroom discourse, science learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review