Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Writing

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 6 (3), July 2014; 132-‐141 Sadat Roozafzai, Z., & Talebinejad, M. R
EISSN: 2289-‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-‐3245 www.ijllalw.org
THE EFFECT OF MODEL-ESSAY AID TO DIRECT
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACKON EFL LEARNERS᾽ USE OF
META-DISCOURSE MARKERSIN WRITING
Zahra Sadat Roozafzai (corresponding author, Ph.D. Candidate)
Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research (ACECR), IUT Branch
Email: Zahra80R@gmail.com
Mohammad Reza Talebinejad, Ph.D.

Islamic Azad University of Shahreza,
Email: MRezaTalebinezhad@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Meta-discourse markers (henceforth MDMs) like street signs are a good way to show the reader
how ideas in a sentence are connected; whether the writer is adding to or explaining the previous
ideas or going to a new or opposite direction or giving examples or so on. Teaching English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) learners how to use MDMs properly is one of the highlights of an essay
writing class. So the current study tried to know if the kind of feedback which teachers give to
students᾽ writing can have more effective impact on the proper use of MDMs. In other words, the
attempts have been done to investigate if there was a difference in the appropriate application of
MDMs in writing comparison-contrast essays between corrective feedback and model-essay
feedback. To this aim two groups of lower-intermediate EFL students, in writing module, were
selected. To the treatment group oral instructor-student-conference direct corrective feedback to
students’ composition skill and MDM errors was given with reference to a model essay. The
control group was carried out the same way without reference to any model essay. Finally, both
groups were asked to write two comparison-contrast essays as an exam and a chi-square was
applied. The result showed that treatment group performed more effectively in proper use of
MDMs in their writing. So, one of the implications of the study could be in TEFL in practice, to
offer an enhancing method to writing instructors for more efficacious teaching MDMs in writing
comparison-contrast essays to EFL learners.
KEYWORDS: direct corrective feedback, metadiscourse markers, model essay
INTRODUCTION
Metadiscourse is defined by Hyland (2000) as the linguistic resource used to organize a discourse
or a writer᾽ s stance towards either its content or the reader. It includes a list of cohesive and
interpersonal features which help relate a text to its context by assisting readers to connect and
interpret texts according to the discourse community (Hyland, 1998a). Hyland (2004) also views
metadiscourse as "self-reflective linguistic expressions referring to the evolving text, to the
writer, and to the imagined readers of that text" (p. 133). While some scholars have textual
perspective towards metadiscourse markers like Bunton(1999), Mauranen (1993a,b)and Valero-
132
(IJLLALW)
Garces (1996), Hyland (2005) has both "interactional" and "interactive" view towards these
rhetorical organizational features.
Metadiscourse may be broadly described as overtly expressing the writer’s acknowledgement of

the reader. It is a multifunctional concept. A lot of linguists have defined the term metadiscourse,
among them VandeKopple (2002), Halliday (1973), and Hylland (1998) are the most significant
explications. There are a great many of cross disciplinary and cross cultural studies on
metadiscourse markers like Rashidi&Alihosseini (2012), Dahl (2004), VahidDastjerdi and
Shirzad (2010), Khedri ,Heng&Ebrahimi (2013), Hashemi&Golparvar (2012) and many other
most of which are based on Hylandian framework. So, in order to account for the type of
metadiscourse analysis, the present study concentrates on the Hyland's 2005 model, known as the
interpersonal model of metadiscourse, in which textual metadiscourse comprises five sub-classes
and interpersonal category consists of 5 types of metadiscourse markers. He explains the
framework in terms of Interactive and Interactional resources. The interactive resourcesguide the
reader through the text through the use of transition markers, frame markers, endophoric
markers, and code glosses. The interactional resources, on the other hand, deal withthe writers’
emotions or reactions to the propositional content and also to build a personal affinity with the
readers. The resources are the use of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and
self-mentions.Table 1 is a summary of Hyland’s framework.
Table 1: An Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005, p.49)

Category Function Example
Interactive Help to guide the reader through Resources
the text
Transitions Express relations between main In addition; but; thus; and
clauses
Frame markers Refer to discourse acts, sequences Finally; to conclude; my purpose is
and stages
Endophoric markers Refer to information in other parts Noted above; see figure; in section
of the text 2
Evidentials Refer to information from other According to X; Z states;
texts
Code glosses Elaborate propositional meaning namely; e.g.; such as; in other
words
Interactional Involve the reader in the text Resources
Hedges Withhold commitment and open Might; perhaps; possible; about
dialogue
Boosters Emphasize certainty and close Absolutely; definitely; it is clear
dialogue that.
Attitude markers Express writer’s attitude to Unfortunately; I agree; surprisingly
proposition
Self-mentions Explicit reference to authors I; we; my; me; our
Engagement markers Explicitly build relationship with Consider; note; you can see that
reader
Metadiscourse markers (MDMs) are a gadget for writers to manifest themselves in the discourse
community and show their attitude towards the content and text. They are a way for writers to
organize and express themselves in the social communication with readers and guide them to
133
(IJLLALW)
understand the text the way they meant. They are like signals of Peripheral Nervous System for
the writer to communicate with readers and direct their understanding. So improving proper use
of MDMs in any genre can have a leading role in enhancing the ability to write in EFL. One way
to this aim can be through the kind of feedback EFL teachers give to students᾽ writing. According
to Mackey (2012) corrective feedback and negotiation accelerates the learning process very
effectively and it causes learners to notice the gap between their output and the target forms.
More specifically, Ellis (2009) has proposed a typology of written corrective feedback as the
following:
Table 2: Types of teacher written CF
Type of CF Description
1. Direct CF The teacher provides the student with the correct form.
2. Indirect CF The teacher indicates that an error
Indicating + locating This takes the form of exists but does not provide the correction.
the error underlining and use of
cursors to show
omissions in the student’s
text.
Indication only This takes the form of an
indication
in the margin that an error
or errors
have taken place in a line
of text.
3. Metalinguistic CF The teacher provides some kind of
Use of error code Teacher writes codes in metalinguistic clue as to the nature
the margin of the error.
(e.g. ww ¼ wrong word;
art ¼ article).
Brief grammatical Teacher numbers errors
descriptions in text and
writes a grammatical
description
for each numbered error
at the
bottom of the text.
4. The focus of the This concerns whether the teacher
feedback attempts to correct all (or most)
Unfocused CF Unfocused CF is of the students’ errors or selects
extensive. one or two specific types of errors to
Focused CF Focused CF is intensive. correct. This distinction can be
applied to each of the above options.
5. Electronic feedback The teacher indicates an error and
provides a hyperlink to a concordance
file that provides examples of correct usage.
6. Reformulation This consists of a native speaker’s
reworking of the students’ entire
text to make the language seem as
native-like as possible while keeping
the content of the original intact.
The basic paramount issue under question is the debate for or against giving corrective feedback
to students’ writing. Providing students with corrective feedback has always been a controversial
134
(IJLLALW)
issue. While some claim that it is ineffective, disadvantageous and even harmful (Truscott, 1996,
1999; Semke, 1984; Kepner,1991; Sheppard, 1992), others (e.g., Ferris, 1999; Lalande, 1982;
Ferris, Chaney, Komura, Roberts, & McKee, 2000; Chandler, 2003) argue for the practice.
Truscott (1996) discusses two reasons why CF is not effective: firstly it does not take into
account the insights to SLA about the gradual process of acquiring a second language, and
secondly there are practical problems in terms of teachers’ abilities to give correction and
students’ keenness to receive it.
Ferris (2002); on the other hand, speaks in favor of CF and gives two reasons why CF is useful:
according to many studies (e.g. Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995c,1997; Ferris & Roberts,
2001) firstly, CF can help improve the accuracy of students’ writing in the short term, secondly,
students themselves expect to be corrected and think that it can help them improve their writing.
Regarding the efficacy of CF the type of more efficient CF can be another subject to be
investigated.
So the present study has tried to see if giving direct CF in form of oral conference and negotiation
between the teacher and students with reference to a model essay will cause to more efficient use
of MDMs by EFL students than implementing the same strategy without reference to a model
essay. In other words the attempts have been done to answer the following research questions.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Then the current study tried to answer the following questions:
1. Does the use of model essay as error treatment make any difference in EFL learners’
appropriate application of MDMs in comparison-contrast writing?
2. Do EFL learners use MDMs in writing comparison-contrast essays more effectively when they
are presented model-essay as error treatment than when they receive corrective feedback to their
MDM errors?
3. Do EFL learners apply MDMs in writing comparison-contrast more efficiently when they are
given corrective feedback to their MDM errors than when they are provided with model essay?
METHODOLOGY
Participants
For the purpose of this study, two intact groups from an English institute in Isfahan working
based on communicative language teaching method, each of which including 30 female
participants, were selected. The participants’ age ranged from 20 to 35, and are all Iranian
students of differing majors studying English as a foreign language at lower-intermediate level.
The language proficiency level of students was determined according to CEF (Common
European Framework).
135
(IJLLALW)
CEF is a guideline used to describe achievements of learners of foreign languages. It is a system
of validation of language ability with six reference levels: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2. Pre-
intermediate level equals B1 where learners can understand the main points of clear standard
input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. They can deal with
most situations likely to arise while travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Students
at this level can produce connected text on topics that are familiar, instructed or of their interest.
They can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons
and explanations for opinions and plans.
Materials and precedure

In the first 3 sessions, the rubric and construction of comparison-contrast writing were explained
to the students of both control and treatment groups. Different parts of an essay (introduction,
body, & conclusion) and their subcomponents (e.g. topic sentence, stance, and preview in the
introduction, and appropriate coherence conjunctures and cohesive devises for comparison-
contrast essays ) were explained.
A model essay was given to the students in both groups to be able to better understand the
instructor’s explanations. The whole three sessions were spent on explaining and working on the
components of these the kind of essay but students were not required to write complete essays.
Instead they were just asked to write different parts of this types of essay. At the end of the 3rd
session, students in both groups were given one topics to write a complete essay for the fourth
session. At the beginning of the fourth session, students in the treatment group were given a
model essay for the topic they were supposed to write.
Different parts of the model essay such as the topic sentence, writer’s stance, different parts of
the body paragraphs and conclusion, and the use of transition words and MDMs were identified
and shown to the subjects in the treatment group. Then, they were asked to read their essay part
by part as the instructor explained how and why their essay were good or bad based on the format
of the model essay and construction of a coherent and cohesive writing. It was a kind of
instructor-student-conference direct corrective feedback where the teacher provides students with
the correct form in Ellis typology of corrective feedbacks.
For the control group, the same procedure was implemented but instead of comparing their
writings with the model essay, they were asked to read their essays and the instructor comments
on them and simply explains why they are acceptable or not without any reference to a model
essay.
Then both groups were given another topic to write about for the following session sessions
likewise. The next sessions were carried out by the 10th session. The 11th session was exam
session and students were asked to write about two topics in comparison-contrast discursive
mode, with range of 350-400 words. Finally, the total frequency of interactive and interactional
MDMs in each paper and the percentage of correct use of each comparison-contrast MDMs were
tabulated and statistically compared by chi-square.
136
(IJLLALW)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Scoring of the exam papers of subjects for the current study was the number of misused MDMs,
i.e. errors of MDMs. Table 3 shows the frequency of MDM errors in subjects’ final exam of the
course for both treatment and control groups.
Table 3: Frequency of MDM errors

Category Treatment Control group Total
group
Interactive
Transitions 15 46 61
Frame markers 18 38 56
Endophoric markers 10 22 32
Evidentials 13 20 33
Code glosses 15 43 58
Interactional
Hedges 13 21 34
Boosters 19 35 54
Attitude markers 15 35 50
Self-mentions 14 21 35
Engagement markers 19 11 30
Total 151 292
Table 4: The result of Chi-square test

Chi square Df p-value
17.445 9 0.0421
A Chi square descriptive statistic was used to investigate whether distributions of categorical
variables of MDMs in treatment and control groups differ from one another. Table 4 presents the
results of two-way Chi-square analysis for determining the significance of the difference between
the frequencies of occurrence in ten categories of interactive and interactional MDMs in two
groups. According to table 4 p-value of the chi-square result is less than 0.05 and it reveals that
there is a statistically significant difference between Giving teacher-student direct corrective
feedback with essay model and the same without essay model in using MDMs. Thus the answer
to research question 1 is positive. Concerning the more efficacy of the experiment, the less
frequency of MDM errors in treatment group indicates that the treatment of the study, receiving
teacher-student conference direct feedback with accompanied by an model essay, causes students
to make less MDM errors in their writing than subjects in control group who were not provided
with any model essay.
137
(IJLLALW)
Discussion
Metadiscourse is used to make the text persuasive and reader-friendly, and it also helps authors
arrive at audiences (Hyland, 2005). So one of the responsibilities of EFL writing teachers is to
teach studens how to use MDMs properly to be able to express themselves in a convincing,
directive and well-organized way. As the results showed, the participants who had received direct
corrective feedback with model essay during their instruction applied MDMs more effectively
than the control group who had received the same instruction but model essays.
Based on the figures obtained, it is evident that the use of model essays does make a difference in
the learners’ achievement in proper use of MDMs to produce a more coherent and cohesive
piece of writing. The result could be due to the more attention learners pay having received direct
corrective feedback accompanied by a model essay.
It can be inferred that students might not notice the sole feedback, pay little attention to what they
are supposed to do and do not apply the corrections; while they take more advantage in proper
use of MDMs in their writing when they are exposed to the correction of the MDM errors and
their proper use in a model essay at the same time.
It can also create mapping effect. Learners examining the model essays having received direct CF
could identify MDMs such as the use of connecting words which show the relationship between
the ideas, sentences, as well as the paragraphs and map their received CF with that in the essay.
Moreover, Lee and Schallert (2008) also explain how a trusting student-teacher relationship may
be fundamental to the effective use of feedback provided. One student building a trusting
relationship with her teacher faithfully uses her written feedback in revision to improve her drafts
whereas the other student having difficulty trusting her teacher does not respond to her feedback
positively.
It creates a more trusting atmosphere when a correction feedback is presented by a teacher,

negotiated with students and followed by the similar example(s) and applications in model
essays.
Therefore, based on the figures obtained, the answer to the first research question is positive.
That is the use of model essay as error treatment makes a significant difference in EFL learners’
appropriate application of MDMs in comparison-contrast writing. Moreover, the efficacy
comparison of model-essay and corrective feedback as error treatment, in enhancing the proper
use of MDMs in writing comparison-contrast essays, the former won.
In other words, it is evident that the use of essays does make a positive difference in the learners’
achievement by making less mistakes in the use of MDMs in the task response.
138
(IJLLALW)
CONCLUSION
Although direct corrective feedback among others seems more effective (Hyland & Hyland,
2006) because some students cannot understand their teachers’ comments and/or if they
understand, they do not know how to change the incorrect into the correct, generally speaking,
finding students’ errors and explaining the correct forms to them is quite challenging in teaching
practice. Treating students’ writing errors even in one type of CF requires different strategies and
methods. In fact, these methods are prone to change while working with different groups of
learners of diverse linguistic and cultural background and different linguistic elements.
Furthermore, the type of a linguistic elements and their simplicity and difficulty are determining
factors as well. Then it seems plausible in hypothesizing that the observation of such results in
the present study can be due to the nature of MDMs.
So it can be concluded that teacher-student-conference direct corrective feedback leaves positive

effect on Iranian EFL learners’ use of MDMs in writing comparison-contrast essays. The findings
of the present study can shed light for instructors to a more efficient teaching strategy of essay
writing to EFL learners. Although feedback is the return to the output of teaching process, it is
possible to take advantage of it in the process of teaching as an effective procedure per se, and
even part of it.
Limitations of the study

Internal validity is a property of research which shows the extent to which a causal conclusion of
a study is based on the effect of independent variables and non-research variables are controlled.
Constitute and enhancing internal validity imposes some limitations on scientific studies.
Moreover, it is impossible for a scientific research to investigate every aspect of one concept. So
the scope of a study should be narrowed down and limited to be applicable and valid.
The moderator but controlled variables of the current study are the subjects’ first language,
Persian, gender, female, and age, adults. So, further studies can investigate each of these
variables as an independent variable. Other limitations of the current study were subjects’ level of
language proficiency, the kind of essay, comparison-contrast, the kind of corrective feedback,
and the dependent variable, MDMs. Since neither feasible nor scientific to is it to study all
aspects of a cohesive writing and error treatments in different language proficiency level, the
present investigation selected the ones studied.
Further studies can also select other aspects of the issue in their investigation.
139
(IJLLALW)
REFERENCES
Bunton, D. (1999). The Use of Higher Level Metatext in Phd Theses.English for Specific
Purposes. 18, 41-56
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in
theaccuracy and fluency of L2 student writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 12,
267–296.
Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of
academic discipline?.Elsevier B.V. pragma.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types.ELT Journal . Volume 63/2 .
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus
content. In B.Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom
(pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1995c). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors.
TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18– 22.
Ferris, D. R. (1997).The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 315– 339.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996).Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000).Perspectives,
problems & practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International
TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it
need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Ferris, D. R. (2002).Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Halliday, A.K., (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language.Edward Arnold, London
Hashemi, M.R. & Golparvar, S.E. (2012). Exploring Metadiscourse Markers in Persian News
Reports. International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1 (2).
Hyland, K. (1998 a). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal
of Pragmatics, 30, 437-55.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman,
London.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 13, 133–151.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006).Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language
Teaching, 39 (2), 83-101.
Khedri, M., Heng, C.S., & Ebrahimi, S.F. (2013). An exploration of interactive metadiscourse
markers in academic research article abstracts in two disciplines. Sage Journals.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the
development of second language writing skills.Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal,
66, 140–149.
140
(IJLLALW)
Lee, G., & Schallert, D.L. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher–student
relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 165-182.
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, Interaction, and Corrective Feedback in L2Learning. UK: Oxford
University Press.
Mauranen, A. (1993 a). Cultural differences in academic discourse: Problems of a linguistics and
cultural minority.inLofman, L. et al. (eds.), The Competent Intercultural Communicator:
A AFinLA Yearbook, Helsinki: AFinLA, 1993b, pp. 157 - 174.
Mauranen, A. (1993 b). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric.Peter Lang. Frankfort.
Rashidi, N., & Alihosseini, F. (2012). A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse Markers in
Research ArticleAbstractsAcross Disciplines.Philology and Cultural Studies, 5 (2).
Preacher, K. J. (2001). Calculation for the chi-square test: An interactive calculation tool for chi-
square tests of goodness of fit and independence [Computer software]. Available
fromhttp://quantpsy.org.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen.Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–
110.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.Language
Learning, 46, 327– 369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A
response to Ferris.Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP Rhetoric: Metatext in Spannish-English Economics
Texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15(4), 279-94.
VahidDastjerdi, H., & Shirzad, M. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse
markers on EFL Learners' Writing Performance. The Journal of Teaching Language
Skills (JTLS), 2 (2), Summer 2010, Ser. 60/4
VandeKopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In
E. Barton and G. Stygall (Eds.), Discourse studies in composition (pp. 91- 113). NY:
Hampton Press
141

Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Writing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of Metadiscourse Markers in Writing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World

Mohammad Reza Talebinejad, Ph.D.

KEYWORDS: direct corrective feedback, metadiscourse markers, model essay

Metadiscourse may be broadly described as overtly expressing the writer’s acknowledgement of

Table 1: An Interpersonal Model of Metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005, p.49)

Materials and precedure

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 3: Frequency of MDM errors

Table 4: The result of Chi-square test

It creates a more trusting atmosphere when a correction feedback is presented by a teacher,

So it can be concluded that teacher-student-conference direct corrective feedback leaves positive

Limitations of the study

You might also like