CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Metadiscourse and Teacher Moves for Supporting Student Reasoning in Linguistics Classroom Interactions

Open access
Li, Jingjie, Hu, Wenjie·2026·International Journal of Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.1111/ijal.12793
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper examines the features of metadiscourse across different teacher moves in university linguistics classroom discourse and the teaching strategies reflected in its use. The results reveal that teachers employ diverse metadiscourse during classroom interactions to support student reasoning. This includes interactive metadiscourse to organize and guide classroom discourse and interactional metadiscourse to express attitudes and foster dialogue to encourage engagement. Teachers tend to favor specific types of metadiscourse when performing particular moves. They also have preferred ways of structuring moves into extended sequences and jointly mobilize move sequencing and metadiscourse to construct differing dialogic spaces that foster student thinking. These findings highlight strong links between metadiscourse and teacher moves, underscoring the integral role of metadiscourse in shaping effective teacher moves to support student engagement and thinking.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study analyzes how metadiscourse is used across four teacher-move categories (eliciting, responding, facilitating, extending) in university linguistics classroom interactions. It finds that teachers favor particular metadiscourse types for particular moves and combine move sequences with metadiscourse to construct dialogic spaces supporting student reasoning.

Key findings

  • Overall metadiscourse frequency was similar for the two teachers: T1 totaled 134.87 per 1000 tokens and T2 135.34; an independent t-test found no significant difference (t = −0.0223, p = 0.9828). Facilitating moves had the highest metadiscourse frequency for both teachers (T1 = 60.99; T2 = 81.96), followed by eliciting (T1 = 34.12; T2 = 22.9), responding (T1 = 27.67; T2 = 22.71), and extending (T1 = 9.4; T2 = 7.76).
  • In eliciting, engagement markers were most frequent: 48.83% (16.66/34.12) of T1’s eliciting metadiscourse and 38.86% (8.90/22.9) of T2’s. In responding, attitude markers were prominent, especially for T2 (11.36) versus T1 (5.10); positive markers such as “right,” “good,” “very good,” and “excellent” dominated, while negative attitude markers were rare (T2 used them twice; T1 none).
  • In facilitating, T2 used more interactive metadiscourse than T1: transitions (17.04 vs. 10.48), frame markers (7.95 vs. 2.42), connectives (12.11 vs. 8.06), and code glosses (6.25 vs. 4.84). T1 used more hedges (7.25 vs. 6.06) but fewer boosters (6.72 vs. 11.55) than T2. Extending moves had the least metadiscourse; T1’s largest extending category was engagement markers (3.49), while T2’s was transitions (2.27).
  • The teachers used different move sequences: T1 favored “validating a correct answer + revoicing/re-representing + providing explanation (optional) + encouraging peer agreement/reflection,” while T2 favored “validating a correct answer + revoicing/re-representing (optional) + providing explanation + pressing for reasoning.”

Methods

  • Two experienced Chinese university linguistics teachers (T1 and T2) participated; four 45-min classes per teacher were video recorded, totaling 360 min, with an average class size of 25 students. For analysis, segments of classroom interaction totaling 47 min were selected based on sustained teacher–student exchanges (minimum three turn-takes) and range of teacher moves.
  • Teacher moves were coded using the Teacher Moves for Supporting Student Reasoning (TMSSR) framework (Ellis et al. 2019): eliciting, responding, facilitating, and extending. Metadiscourse was coded using an adapted Hyland and Tse (2004) interpersonal model, with interactive metadiscourse (transitions, frame markers, connectives, code glosses) and interactional metadiscourse (hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers, self-mentions).
  • Coding involved independent coding, comparison, and discussion until 90% inter-code agreement was reached; approximately 10 min (about 20% of the dataset) was independently coded by both authors, and each author then independently coded 40% of the remaining data. Frequencies were normalized per 1000 tokens because T1’s talk had 3722 tokens and T2’s had 5283 tokens in their respective 24-min interactions.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: this is a small-scale study of two highly rated teachers in university linguistics classes; the number of teachers and range of topics are restricted, partly because traditional teacher-centered approaches are prevalent and fewer dialogic classes were available. The authors also note the study focuses on Chinese university classrooms and call for further research on cultural and disciplinary factors.
  • Evident from the text: the analysis is based on a selected 47-min subset of 360 min of recorded video, only two teachers, one disciplinary area (linguistics), and no student learning outcomes are measured. The paper also reports coding ambiguity between eliciting(answer) and eliciting(idea), resolved through discussion and reference to prior examples.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ijal.12793

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

2 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Hyland and Tse's model, although initially designed for written language, is applicable to the analysis of spoken language, particularly classroom discourse.

    “Furthermore, although initially designed for written language, subsequent research has confirmed its applicability to the analysis of spoken language; particularly demonstrating its robust adaptability in classroom discourse analysis (e.g., Lee and Subtirelu 2015;Zhang and Lo 2021;Doiz and Lasagabaster 2022;Rababah et al. 2024;Yılmaz and İlerten 2024).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lee and Subtirelu 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Zhang and Lo 2021 source
    • cites Doiz and Lasagabaster 2022 source

      Section 4.2 applies Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse framework to spoken university lectures, supporting its use in classroom discourse analysis. But the paper identifies that framework as Hyland’s (2005), not specifically Hyland and Tse’s model, and Section 2 describes a historical focus on written metadiscourse without saying the model was initially designed for writing. The claim’s stronger characterization of ‘robust adaptability’ is therefore not fully supported. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    Teachers use interactive metadiscourse to organize and guide classroom discourse.

    “This includes interactive metadiscourse to organize and guide classroom discourse and interactional metadiscourse to express attitudes and foster dialogue to encourage engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Teachers employ diverse metadiscourse during classroom interactions to support student reasoning.

    “The results reveal that teachers employ diverse metadiscourse during classroom interactions to support student reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Teachers jointly mobilize move sequencing and metadiscourse to construct differing dialogic spaces that foster student thinking.

    “They also have preferred ways of structuring moves into extended sequences and jointly mobilize move sequencing and metadiscourse to construct differing dialogic spaces that foster student thinking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Teachers tend to favor specific types of metadiscourse when performing particular moves.

    “Teachers tend to favor specific types of metadiscourse when performing particular moves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 24
  • May combine two claims. 41

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Metadiscourse in lectures emerges as an important discourse strategy for lecturers to scaffold their subject matter, enhancing comprehension and clarity with content organizing cues, while catering for their audience.

    “As Aguilar-Pérez and Khan (2023, 298) noted,”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Aguilar-Pérez and Khan 2023 source
    • cites Sánchez-García 2019 source

      The Abstract says the study examines university lecturers’ discourse strategies and their communicative goals, but it does not identify metadiscourse or describe scaffolding through content-organizing cues. Searches for “metadiscourse” and the claimed scaffolding and comprehension terms found no passage addressing those specifics; the indexed copy provides no article-body passage that could settle them. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teachers use interactional metadiscourse to express attitudes and foster dialogue to encourage engagement.

    “This includes interactive metadiscourse to organize and guide classroom discourse and interactional metadiscourse to express attitudes and foster dialogue to encourage engagement.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The teachers exhibit preferred patterns in structuring moves into extended sequences and jointly mobilize move sequencing and metadiscourse to construct differing dialogic spaces that foster student thinking.

    “they exhibit preferred patterns in structuring moves into extended sequences and jointly mobilize move sequencing and metadiscourse to construct differing dialogic spaces that foster student thinking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1 frequently re-voices or re-represents student responses in detail, using more connectives and engagement markers to emphasize key points and encourage broader discussion.

    “T1 frequently re-voices or re-represents student responses in detail, using more connectives and engagement markers to emphasize key points and encourage broader discussion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The most frequent engagement markers used by T1 and T2 are generally the same, though they may appear in different orders.

    “The most frequent engagement markers used by T1 and T2 are generally the same, though they may appear in different orders.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both teachers actively affirmed students' ideas using straightforward positive attitude markers, while rarely using negative attitude markers.

    “It is found that both teachers actively affirmed students' ideas using straightforward positive attitude markers, while rarely using negative attitude markers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T2 engages in less re-voicing or re-representing and uses fewer connectives and engagement markers, but makes greater use of positive attitude markers, particularly during validating a correct answer.

    “In contrast, T2 engages in less re-voicing or re-representing and uses fewer connectives and engagement markers.However, T2 makes greater use of positive attitude markers, particularly during the move of validating a correct answer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1 uses hedges more frequently than T2 but boosters less so in facilitating.

    “Notably, T1 uses hedges more frequently than T2 but boosters less so.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Compared to T1, T2 less frequently asks students whether or not they agree with a student's answer, and more often provides in-depth or extended explanations following a student's answer.

    “Compared to T1, T2 less frequently asks students whether or not they agree with a student's answer.Instead, she more often provides in depth or extended explanations following a student's answer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    In T1's configuration, student contributions are foregrounded and peer interactions are actively incorporated into the evolving discourse.

    “Student contributions are foregrounded, and peer interactions are actively incorporated into the evolving discourse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In T1, engagement markers comprise 48.83% of metadiscourse instances in eliciting; in T2, 38.86%.

    “In T1, engagement markers comprise 48.83% (16.66/34.12) of metadiscourse instances, and in T2, 38.86% (8.90/22.9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In facilitating, T1 and T2 show remarkable alignment in their use of attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions, but they differ in other categories of metadiscourse.

    “In facilitating, T1 and T2 show remarkable alignment in their use of attitude markers, engagement markers, and self-mentions, but they differ in other categories of metadiscourse.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Facilitating moves generally exhibit a frequent use of metadiscourse across categories, with three exceptions: frame markers for T1 (2.42) and self-mentions for both T1 (1.61) and T2 (1.70).

    “Facilitating moves generally exhibit a frequent use of metadiscourse across categories, with three exceptions: frame markers for T1 (2.42) and self-mentions for both T1 (1.61) and T2 (1.70).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1 uses far fewer boosters (6.72) compared to T2 (11.55), but more hedges (7.25) than T2 (6.06) in facilitating.

    “T1 uses far fewer boosters (6.72) compared to T2 (11.55), but more hedges (7.25) than T2 (6.06).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1's move sequence of validating a correct answer, revoicing/re-representing, optional providing explanation, and encouraging peer agreement/reflection is marked by frequent use of engagement markers and fosters an extended dialogic cycle.

    “T1's move sequence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1 typically uses engagement markers in extending moves to encourage students to reflect on provided answers and to ask students whether they agree with one another's answers.

    “T1 typically use engagement markers in extending moves to encourage students to reflect on provided answers and to ask students whether they agree with one another's answers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only two categories of metadiscourse are relatively more frequent in extending: T1's engagement markers (3.49, largest for T1) and T2's transitions (2.27, largest for T2).

    “Only two categories of metadiscourse are relatively more frequent: T1's engagement markers, with a frequency of 3.49 (the largest category for T1), and T2's transitions, with a frequency of 2.27 (the largest category for T2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T2's normalized frequency of metadiscourse per 1000 tokens was 22.9 for eliciting, 22.71 for responding, 81.96 for facilitating, and 7.76 for extending.

    “In comparison, T2 used metadiscourse items 22.9 times for eliciting, 22.71 for responding, 81.96 for facilitating, and 7.76 for extending.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    After validating a correct answer, T2 engages less often in elaborating on student responses and instead moves more quickly into teacher-led explanation.

    “As such, after validating a correct answer, T2 engages less often in elaborating on student responses, instead moving more quickly into teacher-led explanation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1 used connectives (5.64) almost five times more frequently than T2 (1.14), and engagement markers (6.45) nearly four times as often as T2 (1.70) in responding moves.

    “T1 used connectives (5.64) almost five times more frequently than T2 (1.14), and engagement markers (6.45) nearly four times as often as T2 (1.70).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Teachers use interactive metadiscourse to organize classroom discourse, ensuring that students interpret information in line with teachers' goals, and interactional metadiscourse to express views and attitudes and create an environment conducive to dialogue.

    “This includes interactive metadiscourse to organize classroom discourse, ensuring that students interpret information in line with teachers' goals, and interactional metadiscourse to express views and attitudes and create an environment conducive to dialogue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1's frequency of attitude markers in responding was 5.10, ranking third in T1's responding moves.

    “T1's use of attitude markers is also notable, with a frequency at 5.10, ranking third in T1's responding moves.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T1's normalized frequency of metadiscourse per 1000 tokens was 34.12 for eliciting, 27.67 for responding, 60.99 for facilitating, and 9.4 for extending.

    “The figure shows that for every 1000 tokens, T1 used metadiscourse items 34.12 times for eliciting student reasoning, 27.67 for responding, 60.99 for facilitating, and 9.4 for extending.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During extending moves, T2 employs more interactive metadiscourse than T1 (5.12 vs. 3.22), but less interactional metadiscourse (2.66 vs. 6.18).

    “During these moves, T2 employs more interactive metadiscourse than T1 (5.12 vs. 3.22), but less interactional metadiscourse (2.66 vs. 6.18).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    T2 exhibits a markedly higher frequency of use than T1 across all interactive metadiscourse categories in facilitating: transitions (T2: 17.04, T1: 10.48), frame markers (T2: 7.95, T1: 2.42), connectives (T2: 12.11, T1: 8.06), and code glosses (T2: 6.25, T1: 4.84).

    “T2 exhibits a markedly higher frequency of use than T1 across all categories: transitions (T2: 17.04, T1: 10.48), frame markers (T2: 7.95.T1: 2.42), connectives (T2: 12.11, T1: 8.06), and code glosses (T2: 6.25, T1: 4.84).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The frequent use of engagement markers observed in Chinese classrooms aligns with findings from Western contexts, suggesting potential cross-cultural commonalities in strategies for fostering student participation.

    “For example, the frequent use of engagement markers observed in Chinese classrooms aligns with findings from Western contexts (Lee and Subtirelu 2015), suggesting potential cross-cultural commonalities in strategies for fostering student participation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lee and Subtirelu 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hyland and Tse's interpersonal model of metadiscourse has been validated by numerous studies, demonstrating its effectiveness in analyzing metadiscourse in English and Chinese.

    “(a) Hyland and Tse's model has been validated by numerous studies, demonstrating its effectiveness in analyzing metadiscourse not only in English but also in Chinese (e.g., Cai 2017;Gong et al. 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cai 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Gong et al. 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hyland (2005) offers a systematically organized list of search items potentially functioning as metadiscourse under the interpersonal model, expanded and refined in later studies to over 300 metadiscourse items.

    “(b) Hyland (2005, 218-224) offers a systematically organized list of search items potentially functioning as metadiscourse under the interpersonal model.These items have been expanded and refined in later studies (e.g., Text Inspector; Lee and Subtirelu 2015), resulting in a comprehensive and empirically validated repertoire of over 300 metadiscourse items.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hyland 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Lee and Subtirelu 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lee and Subtirelu 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Tang 2017 source
    • cites Rappa and Tang 2018 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lee and Subtirelu 2015

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Tang 2017 source
    • cites Rappa and Tang 2018 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Eliciting moves are key for teachers to understand, assess, and clarify students' knowledge and ideas during discussions.

    “(a) Eliciting moves are key for teachers to understand, assess, and clarify students' knowledge and ideas during discussions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ellis et al. 2019

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Inter-code agreement of 90% was achieved.

    “This process was iteratively applied across multiple video segments until an inter-code agreement of 90% was achieved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    T2's approach reflects a pedagogical focus on teacher-guided cognitive development, with a prioritization of more structured reasoning.

    “This approach reflects a pedagogical focus on teacherguided cognitive development, with a prioritization of more structured reasoning.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The interactive metadiscourse resources in T2's extending moves serve to signal logical progression, maintain coherence, and structure students' reasoning trajectories in line with the teacher's intended direction.

    “These resources serve to signal logical progression, maintain coherence, and structure students' reasoning trajectories in line with the teacher's intended direction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each author independently coded 40% of the remaining data.

    “Subsequently, each author independently coded 40% of the remaining data.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Segments were transcribed by a research assistant and reviewed by one of the co-authors to ensure accuracy.

    “These segments were first transcribed by a research assistant, and then reviewed by one of the co-authors to ensure accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    How teachers respond to students' thinking influences students' learning.

    “As noted by Bozkus andGuner (2024, 1116),”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bozkus and Guner 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The first author conducted a comprehensive review of the coded transcripts to ensure accuracy and consistency.

    “Before finalizing the dataset, the first author conducted a comprehensive review of the coded transcripts to ensure accuracy and consistency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Approximately 10 min of data, representing about 20% of the total dataset, were independently coded by both authors.

    “At this stage, approximately 10 min of data-representing about 20% of the total dataset-were independently coded by both authors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The use of various discourse strategies in eliciting likely contributes to the fairly frequent use of metadiscourse in eliciting, making it the second-largest category for both T1 and T2.

    “This likely contributes to the fairly frequent use of metadiscourse in eliciting, making it the second-largest category for both T1 and T2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Although T2 restates student responses less often, the frequent use of positive evaluative language still affirms students' ideas, offering recognition that may foster participation, motivation, and a supportive classroom environment.

    “This suggests that although T2 restates student responses less often, the frequent use of positive evaluative language still affirms students' ideas, offering recognition that may foster participation, motivation, and a supportive classroom environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Research on metadiscourse has emphasized its multifunctionality in guiding and engaging students in classroom interaction.

    “Meanwhile, research on metadiscourse has emphasized its multifunctionality in guiding and engaging students in classroom interaction (e.g., Soysal 2021; Aguilar-Pérez and Khan, 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Soysal 2021 source
    • cites Aguilar-Pérez and Khan 2023 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The authors independently coded approximately a 3-min video segment, reviewing transcripts manually to identify teacher moves and verifying accuracy of automatically identified metadiscourse instances, correcting errors or omissions.

    “Initially, we independently coded approximately a 3-min video segment, reviewing the transcripts manually to identify teacher moves and verifying the accuracy of automatically identified metadiscourse instances, correcting errors or omissions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The coded results were compared, and discrepancies were discussed until a common interpretation was established.

    “The coded results were then compared, and discrepancies were discussed until a common interpretation was established.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Certain moves, like extending, are considered more effective in promoting student thinking.

    “Among these studies, certain moves, like extending, are considered more effective in promoting student thinking (e.g., Staples 2007;Bozkus and Guner 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Staples 2007 source
    • cites Bozkus and Guner 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Effective teacher moves foster deeper engagement and disciplinary understanding.

    “Prior studies have shown that effective teacher moves foster deeper engagement and disciplinary understanding (e.g., Bansal 2018; Yıldız-Feyzioğlu and Türksever-Güleç 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bansal 2018 source
    • cites Yıldız-Feyzioğlu and Türksever-Güleç 2024 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Both authors participated in the coding process.

    “Both authors participated in the coding process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    T1 seeks to prompt peer reflection and foster broader classroom interaction and collective thinking.

    “T1 seeks to prompt peer reflection and foster broader classroom interaction and collective thinking.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The differences in T1's and T2's preferences during responding moves are closely tied to their subsequent moves and align with their respective teaching intentions.

    “Moreover, the differences in T1 and T2's preferences during responding moves are closely tied to their subsequent moves and align with their respective teaching intentions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Discrepancies in coding were addressed through collaborative discussion and cross-referencing with examples from prior research before proceeding.

    “Discrepancies were addressed through collaborative discussion and cross-referencing with examples from prior research before proceeding.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each metadiscourse instance was manually examined to verify that it fulfilled the assigned metadiscourse function within its specific context.

    “Each instance was also manually examined to verify that it fulfilled the assigned metadiscourse function within its specific context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The analysis reveals a close connection between metadiscourse and teacher moves, showing that teachers tend to favor specific types of metadiscourse when performing particular moves.

    “The above analysis reveals a close connection between metadiscourse and teacher moves, showing that teachers tend to favor specific types of metadiscourse when performing particular moves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study is a small-scale study based on the analysis of metadiscourse use by two highly rated teachers in university linguistics classes.

    “This article is a small-scale study based on the analysis of the use of metadiscourse by two highly rated teachers in university linguistics classes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Moves are often purposefully sequenced to deepen student reasoning over time, and metadiscourse supports this progression by maintaining coherence and signaling the intended direction of thought.

    “As Ellis et al. (2019) emphasize, moves are often purposefully sequenced to deepen student reasoning over time, and metadiscourse supports this progression by maintaining coherence and signaling the intended direction of thought.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ellis et al. (2019)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    The study highlights the diversity of approaches or perspectives available for exploring how teachers use discourse resources to guide and engage students during class interactions.

    “It also highlights the diversity of approaches or perspectives available for exploring how teachers use discourse resources to guide and engage students during class interactions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Teachers' use of metadiscourse is intrinsically linked to their broader pedagogical intentions.

    “reaffirming Khan and Aguilar-Pérez's (2023) view that teachers' use of metadiscourse is intrinsically linked to their broader pedagogical intentions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Khan and Aguilar-Pérez's (2023) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Although each teacher's classroom interaction spans over 23 min, both the number of teachers and the range of topics covered in the study are relatively restricted.

    “Although each teacher's classroom interaction spans over 23 min, both the number of teachers and the range of topics covered are relatively restricted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Traditional teacher-centered approaches prevail in most university linguistics classes, so fewer dialogic classes are available.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The findings may point to the potential value of incorporating metadiscourse analysis into teacher education.

    “The findings may also point to the potential value of incorporating metadiscourse analysis into teacher education.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Differences between science and language education may lead to variations in move structures and metadiscourse use.

    “Moreover, differences between science and language education may lead to variations in move structures and metadiscourse use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Raising teachers' awareness of the cognitive and communicative benefits of metadiscourse can enhance teaching effectiveness.

    “Raising teachers' awareness of the cognitive and communicative benefits of metadiscourse can enhance teaching effectiveness (Khan and Aguilar-Pérez 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Khan and Aguilar-Pérez 2023 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    By equipping teachers with a deeper understanding of how metadiscourse and moves interact in discipline-specific contexts, teacher training programs can better prepare instructors to manage the complexities of classroom discourse in science and social science settings.

    “By equipping teachers with a deeper understanding of how metadiscourse and moves interact in discipline-specific contexts, teacher training programs can better prepare instructors to manage the complexities of classroom discourse in science and social science settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Metadiscourse, working in tandem with teacher moves, not only scaffolds student reasoning but also serves as a valuable discursive resource for decoding how instructional choices align with broader pedagogical purposes.

    “The findings show that metadiscourse, working in tandem with teacher moves, not only scaffolds student reasoning but also serves as a valuable discursive resource for decoding how instructional choices align with broader pedagogical purposes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
62 of 62

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Limited research has examined the links between metadiscourse and teacher moves in content classroom teaching, particularly how metadiscourse supports the enactment of teacher moves to foster student reasoning.

    “However, limited research has examined the links between metadiscourse and teacher moves in content classroom teaching, particularly how metadiscourse supports the enactment of teacher moves to foster student reasoning.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a notable lack of studies examining the interplay between metadiscourse and teacher moves, particularly regarding how metadiscourse interacts with and operationalizes moves to foster student reasoning.

    “There is a notable lack of studies examining the interplay between metadiscourse and teacher moves, particularly regarding how metadiscourse interacts with and operationalizes moves to foster student reasoning.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Existing studies have primarily focused on science education, with limited attention to the humanities and social sciences.

    “Additionally, existing studies have primarily focused on science education, with limited attention to the humanities and social sciences (HSS).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two strands of research on teacher moves and metadiscourse have largely developed in parallel.

    “However, these two strands of research have largely developed in parallel.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two participating linguistics teachers notably use a dialogic approach in their classroom teaching.

    “Two linguistics teachers (referred to as T1 and T2), who notably use a dialogic approach in their classroom teaching, participated in the present study.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Eliciting (ideas) is a higher-potential move than eliciting (answers) for drawing students into thinking and articulating their thinking.

    “Eliciting (ideas), a high-potential move within the TMSSR framework, is believed to have stronger potential in drawing students into thinking and articulating their thinking, compared with eliciting (answers), a low-potential move.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Traditional teacher-centered approaches prevail in most university linguistics classes, so fewer dialogic classes are available.

    “This limitation is partly due to the prevalence of traditional teacher-centered approaches in most university linguistics classes, with fewer dialogic classes available.”
7 of 7

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • T1's reported total does not match its move-category frequencies

    Minor

    T1's reported frequencies for eliciting, responding, facilitating, and extending sum to 132.18 per 1,000 tokens, not 134.87. The difference is too large to be explained by rounding.

    Reported 134.87 · recomputed 132.18

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Brodie K.2008. “Describing Teacher Change: Interactions Between Teacher Moves and Learner Contributions.” InProceedings of the Fifth International Mathematics Education and Society Conference(MES5) 31–50.Universidade de Lisboa.
  2. 10.13978/j.cnki.wyyj.2017.04.001 · DOI
  3. Hyland K., 2009, Academic Discourse
  4. Michaels S., 2012, Talk Science Primer
  5. 10.30466/ijltr.2024.121421 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Li, J., & Hu, W.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai International Studies University (CN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Li, Jingjie
ORCID
Li, Jingjie
Venue
International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-06-26
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
522-539
ISSN
  • 0802-6106 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-4192
DOI
10.1111/ijal.12793
OpenAlex
W4411706892
Cited by
2
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
22.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
International Journal of Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
metadiscourse, teacher moves, student reasoning, dialogic space, student engagement, higher education teaching strategies, classroom interaction

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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