The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 35 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers
Open accessAbstract
The current study aimed to compare the influence of explicit versus implicit instruction on EFL learners’ use of interactional metadiscourse markers in their writing. The study also aimed to explore the perceptions of EFL learners on the instruction of these markers in their writing classes. 120 female undergraduates who are Arab EFL learners took part in the investigation. A mixed-methods research design was adopted with an explicit instruction group, an implicit instruction group and a control group. The experimental groups were introduced to a set of interactional metadiscourse markers as per Hyland’s (2005) interaction model in two 70-minute sessions. Additionally, the experimental groups completed two post-experimental questionnaires. The results of analysis of variance showed a positive, albeit very limited, influence for the explicit/implicit teaching with the markers of self-mentions, appeals to shared knowledge, directives and questions. As for the participants’ perception of the instructional intervention, the participants viewed both explicit and implicit instruction as helpful but could not always apply what they had learned due to task demands. The results are discussed in light of the existing literature and the specific context in which the study was implemented. Furthermore, implications for writing pedagogy are proposed.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This mixed-methods study compared explicit, implicit, and no instruction on Arab female EFL undergraduates’ use of interactional metadiscourse markers in city-review writing. It found only limited positive effects for self-mentions, appeals to shared knowledge, directives, and questions, with no gains for hedges, boosters, attitude markers, reader pronouns, or personal asides.
Key findings
- Mixed ANOVA showed no significant between-group or within-subject differences for hedges, boosters, attitude markers, reader pronouns, or personal asides.
- For self-mentions, the explicit group outperformed the implicit group on the immediate posttest (M = 0.0250 vs. M = 0.0108; MD = 0.0142; SE = 0.0050; p = 0.015) and delayed posttest (MD = 0.0117; SE = 0.0041; p = 0.014); the implicit group used fewer self-mentions than its pretest on the immediate posttest (M = 0.0108 vs. M = 0.0259; p = 0.001) and delayed posttest (M = 0.0098 vs. M = 0.0259; p < 0.001). No significant differences appeared between either experimental group and the control group.
- For appeals to shared knowledge, the explicit group outperformed the implicit group (M = 0.0013 vs. M = 0.0001; p = 0.003) and control group (M = 0.0013 vs. M = 0.0000; p = 0.003) on the immediate posttest only; most students used “as you may know.”
- For directives and questions, the implicit group used more directives than the control group on the immediate posttest (M = 0.0060 vs. M = 0.0021; p = 0.035), and more questions than the control group on the immediate posttest (M = 0.0027 vs. M = 0.0005; p = 0.010) and delayed posttest (M = 0.0029 vs. M = 0.0000; p = 0.001), as well as more questions than the explicit group on the delayed posttest (M = 0.0029 vs. M = 0.0009; p = 0.001). Within groups, explicit instruction increased questions from pretest to immediate posttest (p = 0.002) but not delayed posttest; implicit instruction increased questions from pretest to immediate and delayed posttests (p < 0.001).
- Questionnaires: 81% of the explicit group (N = 37) and 84% of the implicit group (N = 43) found the training helpful or extremely helpful; many reported focusing on genre structure/content and requested more practice and feedback.
Methods
- 130 female Arab EFL undergraduates were recruited; 120 were analyzed after exclusions: 33 control, 46 implicit, 41 explicit. Participants were second-year BA students at a Saudi public university; Oxford Quick Placement Test mean level was B1 (range A2–C2), with no significant group differences (F = 1.830, p = 0.165).
- The 8-week study used a pretest, two 70-minute treatment sessions (140 minutes total), an immediate posttest in Week 4, and a delayed posttest in Week 7. Students wrote city reviews. The explicit group learned Hyland’s (2005) interactional markers with terms, definitions, and examples; the implicit group worked with sample reviews, jumbled paragraphs, comprehension questions, and a cloze activity without explicit marker terms; the control group followed the regular syllabus.
- Analysis normalized marker counts by total words, used intraclass correlation (ICC above 90%) for coding reliability, mixed ANOVA with group as between-subject and time as within-subject factors, Tukey post-hoc comparisons, and questionnaire analysis using percentages for Likert items and thematic examination of open-ended responses.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: only female participants were recruited because the researchers had access only to the female campus; treatment duration was short (140 minutes total) and students received no feedback; results are confined to the city-review genre.
- Evident from the text: participants’ B1 proficiency was lower than in prior studies showing stronger explicit-instruction effects; the unfamiliar city-review genre may have diverted attention to structure and content; collaborative activities may have prevented some students from noticing target features; several significant effects had very small effect sizes; students expected feedback that was deliberately withheld.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
52 Own result · 14 Own method · 13 Own interpretation · 8 Sources not found · 7 Not checked yet · 7 No basis given · 4 No full text of the sources · 1 Supported so far · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and in the delayed post-test (MD: 0.0117; SE: 0.0041; Sig: 0.014; Eta2: 0.00004).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the students in the EG who completed the questionnaires (N = 37) mentioned that they had not been taught how to write city reviews before the treatment.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant gains over time were observed for the other two groups (i.e., EG and CG).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The comparisons showed that there were no statistically significant differences among the three groups across all the metadiscourse markers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, no significant gains were found over time in any of the three groups.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the participants in the EG (81%) found the training extremely helpful or helpful, while the remainder were neutral.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of the students (84%) found the training extremely helpful or helpful, while the remainder were neutral.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainn = 43- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only three students commented on the interactional aspect of writing through referring to learning to express one's opinions, using questions to engage the reader or writing an interesting and catchy review.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the mixed ANOVA comparisons that were run to examine the effect of the instructional intervention showed no significant differences between groups or within subjects on immediate and delayed posttests for five types of markers, namely, hedges, boosters, attitude markers, reader pronouns and personal asides.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This advantage, however, was not carried over to the delayed posttest.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- Probably not a substantial claim. 34
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Although the two instructional approaches have been frequently compared in the literature (e.g., Hernández 2011;Kapranov, 2018;Moody, 2014;Nguyen et al., 2012;Ziafar, 2020), this has rarely been done in the context of teaching a complete set of interactional markers as presented by Hyland (2005).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hernández 2011 source
- Could not verifycites Kapranov, 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) describes a study of implicit instruction and discourse-marker use, but does not compare implicit and explicit instruction. The References list studies of both approaches, yet the available passages do not establish that such comparisons have been frequent. The claim about the rarity of teaching Hyland’s complete set of interactional markers is not addressed in the available passages. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Moody, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This may also explain why the literature has focused on particular markers in earlier studies, such as hedging, which has often proved to be challenging for EFL and ESL learners”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Burrough-Boenisch, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hyland & Milton 1997 source
- Supportedcites Prasithrathsint 2015 source
The Introduction describes numerous earlier studies focused on hedging, including its use by non-native English speakers. The Conclusion says appropriate hedging is difficult for second-language learners and recommends that EFL teachers address it. This supports the claim without requiring the paper to be the original source of that observation. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, they were not familiar with the generic structure of city reviews, potential content as well as relevant metadiscourse markers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the IG used fewer self-mentions in the immediate posttest (M = 0.0108; MD: 0.015; SE: 0.004; Sig: 0.001; Eta2: 0.256) and the delayed post-test (M = 0.0098; MD: 0.016; SE: 0.004; Sig:<0.001;Eta2: 0.256) than the pre-test (M = 0.0259).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of them explained that the treatment helped them better organize their ideas and learn what to include in every paragraph of the city review.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plaindirectn = 43- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of them could not explain why the training was helpful, but a few students referred to its relevance to improving their choice of words and style of writing.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ease of learning was explained in terms of learning new terms, definitions and examples, benefiting from the teacher's clear explanation and having taken an earlier course in Pragmatics.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only one student commented on the importance of having a good rapport with the reader.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only one student mentioned that the training helped her build a good relationship with readers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, when writing their city reviews, they found it difficult to focus on all of these aspects and they mainly concentrated on the generic structure and appropriate content of the reviews rather than on the inclusion of relevant metadiscourse markers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notably, most students used one and the same structure for the appeals of shared knowledge, which is”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Around 60% of the students found the training easy to follow, while the rest were neutral.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainn = 37- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This tendency was mirrored in the IG, where an increase in the use of questions was also found on the immediate post-test in comparison with the pretest (MD: 0.003; SE: 0.000; Sig: <0.001; Eta2: 0.300), but in this case, the instructional gains were retained on the delayed post-test(MD: 0.003; SE: 0.001; P: <0.001; Eta2: 0.300) for the IG.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When asked what things they paid special attention to in the texts, the majority of students referred to the organization/structure of the texts.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With respect to within-group comparisons, significant gains were observed in the use of questions from the pretest to the immediate posttest in the EG, but the improvement was not carried over to the delayed posttest.(MD: 0.002; SE: 0.001; P: 0.002; Eta2: 0.163).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only two students mentioned that they had learned how to draw the reader's attention.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the students thought that the teacher could have helped them more if she had offered them more opportunities to practice writing and provided them with feedback on their errors.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar to the EG, the participants in the IG (N = 43) mentioned that they had not learned how to write city reviews before the intervention.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plainn = 43- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the Tukey post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed that the EG outperformed the IG (M = 0.0013 vs. M = 0.0001; MD: 0.0012; SE: 0.0004; P: 0.003; Eta2: <0.001) and the CG (M = 0.0013 vs. M = 0.0000; MD: 0.0013; SE: 0.0004; P: 0.003; Eta2: <0.001) in the immediate post-test.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the students requested more practice sessions and regular feedback on their errors, which was in line with the findings in the EG.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > What are the participants' perceptions concerning explicit and implicit instruction targeting interactional metadiscourse markers?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What is more, the instructional gains in this group were carried over to the delayed post-test, which was not the case for the EG.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They even thought that the treatment sessions were similar to instruction in the course they had taken in pragmatics.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the EG used significantly more self-mentions than the IG, but not the CG, in the immediate and delayed posttests.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of explicit instruction in the current study was extremely limited, since the EG outperformed the CG only in the use of appeals to shared knowledge in the immediate post-test.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the students expressed a need to receive feedback on their writing before submitting more city reviews.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the within-subject comparisons revealed progress over time in the use of only one metadiscourse marker, namely, questions, with the caveat that the instructional gains were not always maintained.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More precisely, it was shown that the IG outperformed the CG under three conditions, namely, the use of directives in the immediate posttest and the use of questions in the immediate and the delayed posttests.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To construct these social relations, writers use metadiscourse”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hyland, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These calls have gained additional support from empirical findings showing that novice (e.g., El-Dakhs, 2018a; Jin 2015) and non-native speaking writers (Ament et al., 2020;Eghtesadi & Navidinia, 2009;Ghazanfari et al., 2018;Mauranen, 1993;Vassileva, 2001) use metadiscourse differently and less effectively than expert and native-speaking writers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As for the participants' perception of the instructional intervention, the participants viewed both explicit and implicit instruction as helpful but could not always apply what they had learned due to task demands.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Exploring the students' perceptions would help achieve a more comprehensive understanding of how the different teaching approaches impact students' writing.
In the paper
“implicit teaching, which does not require overt discussion about the rules and norms associated with pragmatically appropriate behavior (Glaser, 2013;Ishihara, 2010), is often implemented in many language learning environments because it encourages problem-solving, student-teacher and student-student interaction, and a more communicative classroom (Parrish, 2006).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parrish, 2006
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The second category is labelled engagement and it allows writers to recognize the readers' presence, pull them along with their arguments, draw their attention and guide their interpretations.Engagement resources comprise reader pronouns, personal asides, appeals to shared knowledge, directives and questions.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hyland, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“explicit teaching, which involves direct explanation of metadisourse markers (Bu, 2012;Ishihara, 2010;Nguyen, 2013;Rose, 2005;Taguchi, 2015), has also proved beneficial as it helps students make informed pragmatic choices (Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In his model of interaction in academic discourse, Hyland (2005) distinguishes two broad categories of metadiscourse that writers employ to express their positions and connect with readers”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hyland, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, the pedagogical intervention targeting these discourse markers did not lead to improved performance in the EG and IG groups in comparison to the control group nor did it result in significant gains over time (i.e., from one test to the next).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > 5. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The first category, which is known as stance, refers to writers' textual voice to present themselves and include their judgments, opinions and commitments.The key resources that realize this textual voice are hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self-mentions.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hyland, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three classes were randomly designated as two experimental groups, which received explicit or implicit instruction on metadiscourse markers.The third class was a control group”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“since the teaching of metadiscourse markers in writing classes enables students to signal their communicative intentions effectively, highlight their authorial stances and thus influence how readers engage with the text (Hyland, 1998(Hyland, , 2005)).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > The present study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hyland, 1998 source
- Not matchedcites Hyland, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, the current study suggests that there could be room for implicit instruction in the teaching of metadiscourse markers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The data collected from ten students had to be excluded from the study because the students either missed one of the tests or were absent during one or two of the treatment sessions.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Apart from appeals to shared knowledge, the remaining three types of markers can be classified as grammatical categories that are regularly taught in grammar classes, namely, pronouns, imperatives and questions.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we recruited only female participants because we had access only to the female campus of the university in which the study was implemented.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The students' proficiency level was assessed using the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT), which is designed by Oxford University Press and University of Cambridge local examinations syndicate and is widely used in research to measure general language proficiency”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is worth noting that two university professors read the questionnaires before their implementation to ensure that they align with the aim of the study and match the participants' English proficiency level.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The study was implemented among Arab EFL learners, a population that has thus far been underrepresented in the instructional pragmatic literature and which is known to apply different rhetorical and argumentation traditions than the Western/Anglo-Saxon norms that typify English writing (e.g., Alharbi & Swales, 2011;El-Dakhs, 2020).”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > The present study
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Alharbi & Swales, 2011 source
- Not matchedcites El-Dakhs, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This shows that the students did not really master the different markers that can represent appeals to shared knowledge, but only picked up one structure which could have been familiar to them.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that these markers are well-defined grammatically, they have more transparent pragmatic functions than other markers, such as hedges, boosters or attitude markers, and that they are frequently the focus of instruction, may have facilitated the students' learning and were, hence, easy to use in the city reviews.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They did not know that the researchers deliberately refrained from providing such feedback because the researchers wanted to assess the relative utility of explicit and implicit instruction rather than different types of feedback.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Such a state of affairs is unfortunate because mastering the use of metadiscourse markers in relation to a model like Hyland's (2005) is likely to greatly help learners to better organize their writing and enhance readers' engagement.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hyland, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the participants completed most of the treatment activities collaboratively, which may have prevented some individual students from actually noticing the targeted features.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, inter-coder reliability was determined for each test separately using the intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).The ICC was above 90% for the three tests.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the treatment in the current study lasted a total of 140 min in the course of the two sessions.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These two reviews, which consisted of 436 words and 388 words, respectively, were subsequently revised by the two other researchers to make sure that they suited the students' proficiency and that they included a variety of the target interactional metadiscourse markers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These factors included the low proficiency level of the participants, the short duration of the treatment, the introduction of a genre with which the participants were unfamiliar (i.e., city reviews), and the lack of sufficient production practice as well as feedback.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is also worth noting that the city reviews were later read by 5 teachers who taught other subjects to the studentsparticipating in the study to ensure that the reviews matched the students' proficiency level.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Materials
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, prior studies have mainly targeted discourse marker use in the case of non-Arabic speaking EFL learners whereas the current study focused on a sample of Arab learners, a population that has evidently been neglected by researchers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > The present study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“two of the researchers, who have doctorate degrees in Applied Linguistics, read through all the students' reviews independently and identified all the instances of the targeted metadiscourse markers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, while previous studies have focused on a limited set of metadiscursive strategies/resources, the current study considers a whole set of stance and engagement markers.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > The present study
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the number of metadiscourse markers was normalized because the city reviews varied in length.This means that the analysis relied on the ratios of the total number of markers to the total number of words in the city reviews.”
§ Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Exploring the students' perceptions would help achieve a more comprehensive understanding of how the different teaching approaches impact students' writing.
“Such a decision was based on the assumption that exploring the students' perceptions would help us achieve a more comprehensive understanding of how the different teaching approaches impact students' writing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Writing city reviews was highly relevant to the learning outcomes of the course the students were enrolled in.
“We decided to use the genre of city reviews, which are critical reports on cities including information on their geography, history, tourist attractions and the like, along with the writer's opinion and recommendations, because the course the students were enrolled in was concerned with cultural studies.Thus, writing city reviews seemed to be highly relevant to the learning outcomes of this course”
Citations
Cites
Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English
Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M. (2012) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 · Cited by 1,338
Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing
Paltridge, B. (2006) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.003 · Cited by 1,234
Genre and Second Language Writing
Hyland, K. (2004) · doi:10.3998/mpub.23927 · Cited by 924
Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process
Hyland, K. (2003) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(02)00124-8 · Cited by 892
Cohen, A. D., Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. (1986) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586523 · Cited by 840
Interaction in academic writing: learning to argue with the reader
Thompson, G. (2001) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/22.1.58 · Cited by 578
Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economics texts
Mauranen, A. (1993) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-i · Cited by 550
Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse
Hyland, K. (1998) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(98)00009-5 · Cited by 422
On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics
Rose, K. R. (2005) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.003 · Cited by 382
Pragmatics and Language Learning.
Bouton, L. F. (1996) · Cited by 348
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Asadi, A. (2018). Enhancing writing skills of English learners through metadiscourse. MexTESOL Journal, 42(3), 1–19
- El-Dakhs, D.A.S. (2020). Are Arabic and English research article abstracts different? Rhetorical structure and interaction in focus. The Asian ESP Journal, 16(5.1), 6-32.
- Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC: US Department of State Office of English Language Programs
- Eghtesadi, A. R., & Navidinia, H. (2009). A comparative study of metadiscourse use in research articles written by native and non-native speakers: Is audience taken into account? The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(3), 157–176
- Moody, S. J. (2014). Should we teach rules for pragmatics? Explicit instruction and emergent awareness of Japanese plain and polite forms. Japanese Language and Literature, 48(1), 39–69
- Parrish, B. (2006). Teaching adult ESL: A practical introduction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill ESL/ELT
- Ventola, E. (1997). Probability: The exploration to its role in academic writing. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Culture and styles in academic writing. New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Esfandiari, R., & Allaf-Akbary, O. (2024) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-024-00326-9 · Cited by 25
Esfandiari, R., & Allaf-Akbary, O. (2025) · Innoeduca International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation · doi:10.24310/ijtei.111.2025.20896 · Cited by 8
Róg, T., & Urbaniak, A. (2024) · Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.31261/tapsla.15113 · Cited by 7
A Comparison of Explicit and Implicit Approaches to EAP Teaching to Postgraduate Students
Boginskaya, O. (2024) · Высшее образование в России · doi:10.31992/0869-3617-2024-33-2-148-161 · Cited by 6
The ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of pragmatics pedagogy in EFL/L2: meta-analysis review
Yalew, M. Y., Amogne, D., & Simegn, B. (2024) · Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies · doi:10.2989/16073614.2024.2316678 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Yahya, N., & Pawlak, M.
- Affiliations
- King Saud University (SA)
- ORCID
- Yahya, Noorchaya
- Venue
- Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education
- Published
- 2022-12-08
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2363-5169 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4311838095
- Semantic Scholar
- 3948caec96b979d514abd0f4979e29b153a71396
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 5.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Prince Sultan University (RL-CH-2019/9/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- explicit instruction, implicit instruction, EFL writing, writing instruction, learner perceptions, self-mentions
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40862-022-00175-0
- The paper
- El-Dakhs, D. A. S., Yahya, N., & Pawlak, M. (2022). Investigating the impact of explicit and implicit instruction on the use of interactional metadiscourse markers. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00175-0
