This study compares teacher talk in one middle-school and one high-school EFL lesson to examine cross-level differences in the distribution and density of teachers’ metadiscourse and their functional roles in classroom interaction. Based on lesson transcripts, metadiscourse was categorized and quantified using Hyland’s[1] framework. Frequencies were standardized per 1,000 teacher words. Findings show that although the high-school lesson had a higher raw frequency of metadiscourse, the middle-school lesson displayed greater metadiscourse density and higher interaction-turn density once teacher talk length was controlled. The middle-school classroom showed denser use of frame markers and engagement markers, while the high-school classroom showed denser self-mentions, attitude markers, and boosters. These results suggest that the essential cross-level difference lies in the functional configuration of metadiscourse within classroom progression mechanisms.

Hu Xiao. The Use of Teacher Metadiscourse in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from One Middle-School and One High-School Lesson. International Journal of New Developments in Education (2026), Vol. 8, Issue 5: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJNDE.2026.080501.

[1] Hyland K. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing[M]. Continuum, 2005. 

[2] Crawford Camiciottoli B. The language of business studies lectures: A corpus-assisted analysis[M]. John Benjamins Publishing, 2007. 

[3] Williams J M. Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace[M]. Scott, Foresman, 1981.

[4] Hyland K, Tse P. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2004, 25(2): 156-177.

[5] Ädel A. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English[M]. John Benjamins Publishing, 2006.

[6] Fu X, Xu J. New developments in international metadiscourse research[J]. Contemporary Linguistics, 2012, 14(3): 260-271+329-330. 

[7] Yan T, Zhang L. A corpus-based study on the multidimensional functional mechanism of college English teachers’ classroom metadiscourse[J]. Journal of PLA Foreign Languages Institute, 2013, 36(2): 59-64+127-128. 

[8] Zhang M, et al. A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers[J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 2017, 117: 106-118. 

[9] Lin W, He A. A study on the English metadiscourse competence of university students from four countries based on machine-cut spoken chunks[J]. Chinese Foreign Languages, 2019, 16(1): 71-78. 

[10] Lu J, Chen X. A study on the pragmatic disfluency and acquisition of second language conversation among Chinese English learners[J]. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, 2019(2): 14-23+146. 

[11] Sinclair J M, Coulthard M. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils[M]. Oxford University Press, 1975. 

[12] Hyland K, Jiang K. Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts[J]. Text & Talk, 2024, 44(3): 411-433. 

[13] Doiz A, Lasagabaster D. Looking into English-medium instruction teachers’ metadiscourse: An ELF perspective[J]. System, 2022, 105: 102730. 

[14] Li J, Hu W. Metadiscourse and teacher moves for supporting student reasoning in linguistics classroom interactions[J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2025: Online first. 

[15] Tong Z, An F, Cui Y. Exploring teacher discourse patterns: Comparative insights from novice and expert teachers in junior high school EFL contexts[J]. Heliyon, 2024, 10(16): e36435.  

[16] Hyland K, Jiang K. Metadiscourse: The evolution of an approach to texts[J]. Text & Talk, 2022.

[17] Alexander R. A dialogic teaching companion[M]. Routledge, 2020. 

[18] Rababah G, Yagi S, Alghazo S. Using metadiscourse to create effective and engaging EFL virtual classrooms during the Covid-19 pandemic[J]. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2024, 12(1): 107-129.