paüefd

Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

1301-0085 1309-0275

Pamukkale Üniversitesi

10.9779/pauefd.1597376

Other Fields of Education (Other)

Alan Eğitimleri (Diğer)

The Effect of Interactionist versus Interventionist Dynamic Assessment on Metadiscourse Markers in Turkish EFL Students’ Argumentative Essays

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1980-6229

Aykut Kolay

Cansu

Kocaeli University

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0567-1818

Altay

İsmail Firat

HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ

04 15 2026

0 66 304 327 12 06 2024 10 16 2025

1996

Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi

This multiple case study investigates whether interactionist or interventionist dynamic assessment (DA) produces different effects on ELT students’ use of metadiscourse markers in argumentative essays. 10 first-year ELT students at a state university in Turkey participated and were randomly assigned to interactionist (n=5) and interventionist (n=5) DA groups. Data were collected through individual mediation sessions, and participants’ use of metadiscourse markers in both their first and second drafts was analyzed according to Hyland’s (2005) metadiscourse framework. A qualitative content analysis using NVivo 12 examined error types, metadiscourse marker categories, responsiveness to mediation, and participants’ perceptions of DA sessions. Findings indicate that both interactionist and interventionist DA positively influenced learners’ use of metadiscourse markers, though interactionist DA yielded slightly greater improvements in error correction and autonomous problem-solving. Participants reported increased awareness of punctuation, transition markers, and the syntactic placement of metadiscourse markers, and valued the implicit, dialogue-based nature of mediation. These results underscore the potential of DA as a formative tool that supports metadiscursive awareness and enhances L2 academic writing competence. Pedagogical implications include integrating flexible mediation strategies, peer-assisted DA, and self-monitoring activities, while future research could explore DA effects across different genres, language skills, and more diverse learner populations.

Dynamic assessment metadiscourse argumentative essay

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 288 297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.24

Ädel, A. (2010). Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 69 97. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.218

Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, 1-11.

Akbas, E. (2012). Exploring metadiscourse in master’s dissertation abstracts: Cultural and linguistic variations across postgraduate writers. International journal of applied linguistics & English Literature, 1(1), 12-26. https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v1n1p12

Akbas, E., & Hardman, J. (2017). An exploratory study on authorial (in)visibility across postgraduate academic writing: Dilemma of developing a personal and/or impersonal authorial self. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas, & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp. 139–174). Peter Lang.

Akbas, E., & Hatipoglu, C. (2018). Metadiscourse variations across academic genres: Rhetorical preferences in textual and interpersonal markers. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 767-775.

Al Zangana, A. A., & Jawad, H. F. (2023). An empirical study of the application of dynamic assessment in EFL students’ academic writing. The Scientific Journal of Cihan University–Sulaimaniya, 7(2), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.25098/7.2.30

Alavi, S. M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’ internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational Assessment, 19, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.869446

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465 483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064

Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576–598.

Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., & Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at intermediate and advanced levels. System, 83, 79 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.02.010

Broome, B. J. (1993). Managing differences in conflict resolution: The role of relational empathy. In D.J. Sandole & H. van der Merwe (Eds.) Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application (pp. 95-111). Manchester University Press.

Bunton, D. (1999). The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 41-56.

Chien, C.-W. (2024). Influence of dynamic assessment on Taiwanese undergraduates and graduate students’ academic writing of research proposals. Language Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2023-0031

Crismore, A., & Farnsworth, R. (1990). Metadiscourse in popular and professional science discourse. In W. Nash (Ed.), The Writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse (pp. 118-136). Sage.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71.

Crosthwaite, P., & Jiang, K. (2017). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 69, 92-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.010

Dafouz-Milne, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95–113.

Dahl, T. (2004). Textual metadiscourse in research articles: A marker of national culture or of academic discipline? Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1807-1825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004

Dastjerdi, H. V. & Shirzad, M. (2015). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners’ writing performance. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 155-174.

Dobbs, C. L. (2014). Signaling organization and stance: Academic language use in middle grade persuasive writing. Reading and Writing, 27, 1327-1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9489-5

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5 6), 1 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press.

Friedman, D. A. (2012). How to collect and analyze qualitative data. In A. Mackey, & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 180-200). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Gholami, J., Nejad, S. R., & Pour, J. L. (2014). Metadiscourse markers misuses; a study of EFL learners’ argumentative essays. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 580 589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.454

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.) Edward Arnold.

Hatipoglu, C., & Algi, S. (2017). Contextual and pragmatic functiosns of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas & Y.Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of text (pp.85- 108.). Peter Lang.

Hinkel, E. (2002) Second language writers' text. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ho, V., & Li, C. (2018). The use of metadiscourse and persuasion: An analysis of first year university students’ timed argumentative essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 33, 53–68.

Hong, H., & Cao, F. (2014). Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 201 224. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.2.03hon

Hyland, K. (1998a). Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (1998b). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-51.

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics. 113, 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007

Hyland, K. (2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Academic.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Hryniuk, K. (2018). Expert-like use of hedges and boosters in research articles written by Polish and English native-speaker writers. Research in Language, 16(3), 263–280. https://doiorg/10.2478/rela-2018-0013

Intaraprawat, P., & Steffensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253-272.

Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 350-377). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Kawase, T. (2015). Metadiscourse in the introductions of PhD theses and research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 114-124.

Kaya, F., & Sofu, H. (2020). Exploring effects of explicit teaching of metadiscourse markers on EFL students' writing proficiency. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 20(2), 113-130.

Kumar, A., Rupley, W. H., McKeown, D., Seyed, H., & Paige, D. (2023). Beyond the red pen: Using dynamic assessment to mediate writing mechanics issues among ESL learners. Journal of Contemporary Language Research, 2(4), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.58803/jclr.v2i4.89

Kushki, A., Nassaji, H., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment of argumentative writing in an EFL program. System, 107, 102800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102800

Lantolf, J. P. (2009). Dynamic assessment: The dialectic integration of instruction and assessment. Language Teaching, 42(3), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005569

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11 33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328

Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813850

Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interaction in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.004

Li, L., Franken, M., & Wu, S. (2017). Bundle-driven metadiscourse analysis: Sentence initial bundles in Chinese and New Zealand postgraduates’ thesis writing. In Y. Bayyurt, C. Hatipoglu, & E. Akbas (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts (pp. 251-286). Peter Lang.

Li, T., Wharton, S. (2012). Metadiscourse repertoire of L1 Mandarin undergraduates writing in English: A cross-contextual, cross-disciplinary study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11, 345-356.

Li, Z., & Xu, J. (2020). Reflexive metadiscourse in Chinese and English sociology research article introductions and discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 47 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.07.004

Liao, J. (2020). Metadiscourse, cohesion, and engagement in L2 written discourse. Languages, 5(2), 25.

Lidz, C. S., & Elliott, J. G. (2000). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. JAI/Elsevier Science.

Lorés-Sanz, R. (2009). (Non-)Critical voices in the reviewing of history discourse: A cross-cultural study of evaluation. In Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.) Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings (pp. 143–160). Palgrave.

MacMillan.Luria, A. R. (1961). Study of the abnormal child. American Journal of Orhopsyhiatry: A Journal of Human Behavior, 31(1), 1-16.

MacIntyre, R., (2017). Should I boost or should I hedge: the use of hedges and boosters in the writing of argumentative essays by Japanese university students. In C. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.), Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of text (pp.57-84). Peter Lang.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2012). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Wiley Blackwell.

Mackiewicz, J., & Thompson, I. (2016). Adding quantitative corpus-driven analysis to qualitative discourse analysis: Determining the aboutness of writing center talk. The writing center journal, 35(3), 187-225.

Masrul, M., Rasyidah, U., Yuliani, S., Nurmalina, N., Erliana, S., & Wicaksono, B. H. (2022). The implementation of dynamic assessment in EFL learners’ writing. World Journal of English Language, 13(5), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n5p191

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric: A textlinguistic study. Peter Lang.

Meisuo, Z. (2000). Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities. RELC Journal, 31(1), 61–95.

Mohamed-Sayidina, A. (2010). Transfer of LI cohesive devices and transition words into L2 academic texts: The case of Arab studies. RELC, 41(3), 253-266.

Mur-Duenas, P. (2007). I/we focus on…: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 143– 162.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyan perspective towards corrective feedback in L2: The Effect of random vs. negotiated help on the acquisition of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135

Nassaji, H., Kushki, A., & Rahimi, M. (2020). The differential diagnostic affordances of interventionist and interactionist dynamic assessment for L2 Argumentative Writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 7(20), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1558/lst.37685

Nesi, H. (2021). Sources for courses: Metadiscourse and the role of citation in student writing. Lingua, 253, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LINGUA.2021.103040

Ningrum, S., Puspita, H., & Mulyadi, A. I. (2024). Hedges and boosters in academic writing of ASEAN EFL learners. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 8(1), 202 218. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.8.1.202-218

Nouri, J. (2023). On the impact of online interactionist vs. interventionist dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 66936. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v13i3.66936

Pérez-Llantada, C. (2010). The discourse functions of metadiscourse in published academic writing: Issues of culture and language. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 41 68. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.217

Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Springer.

Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2005). Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 9, 233–265.

Poehner, M. E., Davin, J.K., & Lantolf, J. P. (2017). Dynamic assessment. In E. Shohamy, I. Or & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (3rd ed.) (pp. 243-256). Springer International Publishing.

Poehner, M. E. (2018). Probing and provoking L2 development: The object of mediation in dynamic assessment and mediated development. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, & M. Swain (Eds), The routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 249–265). Routledge.

Rahimi, M., Kushki, A., & Nassaji, H. (2015). Diagnostic and developmental potentials of dynamic assessment for L2 writing. Language and Sociocultural Theory, 2(2), 185-208.

Rezai, A. (2023). Online peer-dynamic assessment as an approach for promoting listening comprehension and relieving learning anxiety: Evidence from Iranian EFL learners. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 24(2), 1–15.

Salas, M. D. (2015). Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: Variation across three disciplines (linguistics, economics and medicine). Journal of Pragmatics, 77, 20–40.

Sheldon, E. (2009). From one to another: Discursive construction of self-representation in English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28(4), 251 265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.05.001

Shrestha, P., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic Writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003

Simin, S., & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Asian EFL J., 11, 230-255.

Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge University Press.

Steffensen, M. S., & Cheng, X. (1996). Metadiscourse and text pragmatics: How students write after learning about metadiscourse. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, monograph series: 7 (pp. 153-171). (ERIC Document Reproduction in Service No. ED 400 709).

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing. The nature and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge University Press.

Taghizadeh, M. (2017, February). The impact of dynamic assessment on EFL learners discourse markers internalization [Paper presentation]. The First International Conference on Current Issues of Languages, Dialects and Linguistics & The Third National Conference on English Studies and Linguistics, Ahwaz, Iran.

Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129–148.

Ulu, B. (2020). Dynamic assessment of the use of metadiscourse markers in EFL writing [Unpublished master’s thesis], Kocaeli University, Türkiye.

Ulucay, C., & Hatipoglu, C. (2017). Causal markers in Turkish cause paragraphs. In Ç. Hatipoglu, E. Akbas & Y. Bayyurt (Eds.) Metadiscourse in written genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of text (pp.223-250). Peter Lang.

Qin, W., & Uccelli, P. (2019). Metadiscourse: Variation across communicative contexts. Journal of Pragmatics, 139, 22-39.

Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students' argumentation. RELC, 37, 329-353.

Yaghoubi, A., & Ardestani, S. (2014). Explicit or implicit instruction of metadiscourse markers and writing skill improvement. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3, 14-22.

Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q., & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 106–118.

Zhang, Y., & Xi, J. (2022). Fostering self-regulated young writers: Dynamic assessment of metacognitive competence in secondary school EFL class. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2022.2103702