Mixed-methods study explores metadiscourse patterns in Tibetan EFL classrooms, highlighting implications for teacher communication.
This study investigates the use of metadiscourse in Tibetan English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms, drawing on Activity Theory to examine the sociocultural and institutional factors shaping teachers’ discourse. Using a mixed-methods approach, it combines quantitative analysis of metadiscourse patterns with qualitative insights from interviews and classroom observations. Findings reveal an overall low frequency of metadiscourse, with a dominant use of interactional metadiscourse and meta-talk, particularly topic-shifting, student-inclusive pronouns, self-mention, and attitude markers. In contrast, interactive metadiscourse, particularly expert, paraphrase, and example markers, was notably scarce, suggesting limited scaffolding for textual coherence or deeper meaning negotiation. This pattern reflects a teacher talk style prioritizing efficiency, authority, and engagement, shaped by policy pressures, exam-oriented objectives, limited instructional time, and routinized pedagogical practices. Interpreted through Activity Theory, the findings highlight how teachers’ metadiscursive choices are influenced by tensions between curricular ideals and systematic constraints. While teachers demonstrated professional dedication and adapted their talk to meet student needs, their practices remained constrained by structural limitations – dual teaching responsibilities, reduced assessment weight for English, and rigid initiation–response–feedback (IRF) cycles – ultimately narrowing opportunities for dialogic interaction and cognitive development in the multilingual EFL context. Theoretically, this research extends metadiscourse studies beyond writing and tertiary contexts, foregrounding its role in mediating power, control, and lesson flow in multilingual, border classrooms. Practically, it also underscores the importance of addressing both pedagogical practices and structural limitations to support meaningful classroom communication in border regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: