Problems and Solutions in a Mixed Methods Action Research
Study of Metadiscourse Instruction (PAAL 2023)
David Gann Ed.D

Tokyo University of Science, Noda, Japandagann@rs.tus.ac.jp

Abstract
Action research is a style of research that continues to be misunderstood and undervalued. This article seeks toshow the merits of action research by highlighting four cases, in single research project, in which doing researchin accordance with precepts common to an interpretive paradigm helped to support a reflexive relationship withthe research context. Research in argumentative writing suggests that coherence in the writing of non-native
English speaking university students is closely related to the skilled and measured use of metadiscourse markers.
To improve instruction in language learners' use of metadiscourse markers, the unique pedagogical affordances oftext reconstruction exercises was implemented and studied. In a small-scale study, involving nine first-year
university students, a mixed-methods approach was used to triangulate quantitative and qualitative data.
Quantitative data in the form of discourse marker counts revealed trends in the frequency metadiscourse marker
use following post-text reconstruction sessions. Qualitative data, in the form of transcripts of student-student talkduring the group work sessions and responses recorded during researcher-participant interviews helped give thestudy explanatory power. The five cases presented herein, may convince researchers of the potential merits ofaction research in their own research contexts.

Keywords
action research, mixed methods, argumentative writing, metadiscourse marker, text reconstruction

1

Introduction

This paper discusses the ways in which action research was used in a small-scale study involving nine firstyear students. That study, Gann (2023), concluded that a text reconstruction exercise application called
WebSequitur can be effective in teaching novice writer EFL students to use metadiscourse markers
commonly employed to signal the presence of premises and conclusions in written arguments.
During the course of that study, action research principles were employed in a mixed-methods
approach to triangulate qualitative data with quantitative data; to improve the research plan itself; and tomaintain ethical standards. In this paper, following a review of the background literature and an explanationof the rationale of the study. Five examples are presented in which the precepts and abilities of action
research and mixed-methods were applied in an iterative approach to research design in order to overcome
emergent problems in the research process.
I conclude that action research is an approach well-suited to mixed methods research and that its
ability to respond to problems that arise during the research process makes it particularly useful for those
doing research in the classroom.

2

Literature

2.1
Action research
The origins of action research can be found in the social sciences of the 1940s as researchers then sought
methods that could be applied to affecting social change. Its use and acknowledgement as a valid approach
has increased in recent decades. Action research can be applied toward practical issues and the improvementof social conditions in the contexts in which the research is being conducted (Denscombe, 2014). It is
iterative (Luttenberg et al., 2017) as researchers revisit the research context (Fouché and Chubb, 2017).
There has been resistance to action research from some researchers. Interpretive researchers havetended to view quantitative data as the purview of positivism. Conversely, researchers who work with large
numbers of subjects often criticize small-scale interpretivist studies for results lacking statistical significance(Sale et al., 2002). Small-scale study researchers acknowledge that control groups and other tools used inpositivist research cannot be used in small-scale studies to generate validity or reliability outside the context

in which the research is being conducted (Schofeld, 2007). Some also question how the conclusions ofresearch situated in often highly specific environmental conditions can be generalized and applied to broader
contexts (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003). Action research's legitimacy has also been questioned due to its often
deep investment in ethical concerns which can conflict with otherwise unquestioned research practices(Brydon-Miller et al., 2003). Luttenburg, et al. (2017) notes that the iterative, reflective nature of action
research can complicate research as moral concerns arise, such as the issue of power dynamics between
genders in small groups, which I address in Section 4.4. For the researcher who places a priority on the
emancipatory potential of action research, this is a point to its credit. It has also been seen as having weak
theoretical underpinnings due to how it sometimes builds theories based on observation, rather than applying
established theories (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003). To the counterpoint, action research in education draws aclose correpondance between the classroom as both workplace and as research space. It highlights areas
where teaching and action research overlap and exploits those to the researcher's advantage (The Open
University, 2001).
2.2
Mixed methods
An advantage of action research is its ability to integrate quantitative and qualitative study through mixedmethods approaches. This third paradigm (Denscombe, 2008) approach to data gathering and data analysis
can often reveal details unavailable within an exclusively quantitative or qualitative analysis (Boeije et al.,2013). A mixed-methods approach can provide pragmatic resolution to apparent contradictions which mightotherwise invalidate the combining of data derived within different paradigms (Flick, 2014). Through mixedmethods, trends within and across individual's and group's single and multiple activities may be inferred later
during data analysis and interpretation (Evans, et al., 2012). Mixed-methods is not constrained to action
research approaches. Likewise, action research does not always use mixed methods. When the need arises toinclude both quantitative and qualitative data, mixed methods provide three ways of systematicallyintergrating data. Creswell (2009) writes in terms of concurrent, sequential and transformative design.
Transformative design involves a predetermined theoretical framework which the researcher brings to theresearch context from the outset. For this reason, it may be less suited to the more reflexive action researchthat the first two. In their discussion of mixed methods and action research, Clark and Ivankova (2016) also
write in terms of sequential and concurrent triangulation designs. In the former, it is common for theunderstanding of quantitative data to be nuanced by qualitative data. In the latter, both types of data areproduced at the same time. In either case, triangulation of data is performed to nullify the influence of bias ofany one research method or type of data (Creswell, 2009). Triangulation identifies areas of consistency,
contrast or complementarity (Hammond and Wiriyapinit (2005); or, similarly, corroboration, elaboration,complementarity, or contradiction (Brannen, 2007).
One of the most common forms of action research methods is the researcher-participant interview.
Interviews may be designed to obtain simple, objective facts; may draw out respondents’ beliefs(Brinkmann, 2007); or may challenge respondents to explain what they understand to be the reasons for theirbeliefs (Curato, 2012). Here, the interviewer views interlocutors as equals, and listens, as they ‘tell their story
in their own terms’ (MacCracken, 1998, p. 34).
Mixed methods and action research approaches are relatively new in research, and are still not wellunderstood by many in various fields, including education. It is likely to become increasingly prominent as
education becomes more politicized by the tensions between the economic pressures toward globalizationand the practical demands of each educational and research context.
2.3
Text reconstruction
The term text reconstruction can refer to a variety of text manipulation exercises which involve returning an
incomplete text to its completed state or altering a flawed text so that it is error-free (Johns and Lixun, 1999).
Arguments may be structured so that the conclusion is either at the end or the beginning of a text passage;and premises may either follow the conclusion or precede it. Depending on the direction of the logical flow,
different metadiscourse markers are used.
Little research exists in the literature about online text reconstruction. Kameen (1978) discusses the
subject, but, as the Internet did not yet exist at the time of the writing, does not examine online or digitalapplications. The originators of WebSequitur and others researchers wrote on the topic of their suite ofapplications (Johns and Lixun, 1999; Levy, 1997; Davies, 2007; Winke and MacGregor, 2001; Sadeghi andSoleimani, 2015; Solemani and Raeesi, 2015). However, that suite does not include WebSequiturs. For
reasons involving copyright, WebSequitur was not further developed, but was left behind as a part of HalfBaked Technology. Higgins and White (1999) and Higgins, Lawrie and White (1999) discuss using Web

Sequiturs to ‘reduce grammatical clueing’ in order to focus on ‘constituent boundaries’ of sentences, but thisis the last mention of its use for teaching purposes other than vocabulary. Rodríguez (2010) and Čechovičová(2010) discuss their use of simlar online applications, but their focus is predominantly on grammar skills andgeneral vocabulary development. Vargas and Monge (2014) focuses on classroom management. Shintani and
Aubrey (2016) employs an online collaborative editing/correcting exercise. None of these studies takes asystematic approach to researching the efficacy of the use of this sort of exercise in teaching argumentative
writing. Hence, the study described in detail in Gann (2023) was considered to be of potential value for EFL
instructors teaching argumentative writing skills.
2.4
Metadiscourse in argumentative writing
Metadiscourse markers build coherence between passages in a text (Hyland, 2005). They make it possible fora text to be self-referential (Halliday, 2009). Metadiscourse in argumentative writing signals to readers theargumentative structure that is likely to follow (Kopple, 2012). Argument indicators are metadiscourse
markers through which skilled writers direct the logical movement of information (Mauranen, 2010) byconnecting premises and conclusions for the reader.
In the case of premise indicators, this includes words like because and since; and with conclusionindicators, words and phrases such as hence, therefore and for that reason (Fisher, 2001). To a non-native
reader the order of premises and the conclusion may not be easily discerned unless learners notice (Schmidt,
1990) or otherwise respond to the presence of the metadiscourse markers that signpost the argument's
structure. Specially designed online text reconstuction exercises were implementated with the aim ofsupporting students' developing awareness of metadiscourse markers used in the regulation and signpostingof logical flow in argumentative writing.
Beginner writers often do not skillfully signpost their arguments. For this reason, their arguments
often lack the coherence sufficient for delivering a clear and focused argument (Cheng and Steffensen,
1996). Intaraprawat and Steffensen (1995) reported on the scoring of nearly 50 placement test essays written
by EFL students, including Japanese. Essays assessed as low in argumentative impact had few metadiscourse
markers; and higher scoring essays had a greater number of metadiscourse markers. To this point, theinstruction in metadiscourse markers that most non-native English learners receive is limited to generaltextual connectives, e.g., and, moreover, in addition, and not to specifically logical connectives, i.e.,
premises, receive much less attention (Fung and Carter, 2007). Earlier, Williams (1992) had also found nonnative English learners' writing often included equal numbers of metadiscourse markers, but these were
mostly textual connectives, and unskillfully applied, to the detriment of the essays' coherence.
Metadiscourse marker use is a critical area in argumentative writing. ESL studies indicate that
instruction in the use of these markers is problematic and merits closer examination. The potential of
WebSequitur exercises to improve metadiscourse marker instruction should be part of that study.

3

Methodogical considerations

3.1
Research context
This study was conducted at Tokyo University of Science in a first-year undergraduate English course madeup of 29 Mechanical Engineering students with the highest scores for English proficiency among theircohorts. The selection of participants was based first on a assumed need for gender diversity within the three
triads of participants. As there were only two female students in the class, and they had each joined two othermale students, each of these two self-forming triads was invited to participate. As each of these two triads
were seated near the back of the computer lab where the class meetings were held a third triad of three males
students seated behind them were also invited to participate. During the pilot, the recording device hadrecorded the utterances of students in adjacent groups and this caused difficulty during transcription. The
location, in the back of the room made for easier and more accurate transcription later.
These transcriptions were the second of seven data sources (Table 1) used in this study. They werecoded and treated with thematic analysis (Clarke and Braun, 2017). This identified which groups and groupmembers verbally acknowledged the presence of metadiscourse markers. The treated transcripts were later
used to triangulate these noticing events with the frequency of metadiscourse marker use.
Frequency of metadiscourse marker use was determined in data sources which make up the third
through the sixth data sources listed in Table 1. The student writing which was drawn upon crossed several
genres. The first of these was online class forums. The activity was carried out asynchronously, outside ofclass, over two-week periods, for each forum. The discussions concerned issues presented each unit of theclass textbook. Two chat rooms sessions were a second source of student writing. These occurredsynchronously, during class, in groups of three, each participant grouped with two other non-participant

classmates. Each chat room session had a duration of one hour and fifteen minutes. The discussion topics andquestions were identical to the forum discussions with two unit topics discussed in each forum during 45minute durations. A third source of written output was a small-group written report in which each triad alsocollaborated on a short report (a page-and-a-half to two pages) in which they composed an argument
concerning cause-and-effect involving a classwide project involving probability. In the fourth source of
written output participants were tasked, in class, to rewrite from memory, as much of the group-written
report as they could. Participants and the class were informed that there would be a final writing test, butwere not informed about the details. This accomplished two goals: first, it confirmed that all participants had
contributed to the group written report; and it provided further data to support conjecture about how well
metadiscourse usage had been internalized by each individual participant.
The seventh data source used was semi-structured one-on-one interview responses. These wereaudio-recorded, and like the groupwork session transcripts, treated to thematic analysis. The themes werelater drawn upon to triangulate with both qualitative data and quantitative data. This helped to confirm someunderstandings and explain inconsistencies such as low numbers of relevant utterances and high frequencies
of metadiscourse marker use, or, in other cases, the converse.
Data Source
1 Questionnaire
2 Text reconstruction session talk transcripts
3 Forum written output
4 Chat room written output
5 Final report
6 In-class rewrite-from-memory task
7 Semi-structured interviews

Table 1: Seven sources of data used in the study
Table 2 includes responses to the questionnaire which was distrbuted to participants in the main
study. The factors that led to implementing the questionnaire and the selection of questions is discussed in
Section 4.2.
1. How much experience did you have with English beyond high school classes?
2.

Did you take private English lessons?

3.

At what age did your English study begin?

4.

Have you lived overseas, and if so, how many years?

5.

Have you travelled overseas? If so, when, where and for how long?

6.

How skilled of an English communicator are you?

7.

How willing or motivated are you to communicate in English?

I also included in the second and third column participants’ recent TOEIC scores and the CEFR equivalents(Educational Testing Service, n.d.).

Table 2: Results of a participant questionnaireThis data in Table 2 was gathered with the expectation that significant differences in responses might laterhave explanatory power when triangulated with the quantitative data presented below in Section 3.2.
Because the responses fell within a narrow range, however, the questionnaire suggested more similarity thandifference. Triangulated with the data presented below in Table 3 in Section 3.2, the responses in Table 2
suggested lack of relation between prio, except for the case of Participant 6, who was a standout.
3.2
Quantitative data in a qualitative study
To explore these issues, rather than develop a hypothesis, as is typical in more positivist studies, thefollowing research question was posed: To what extent does completing WebSequiturs influence language
learners to use selected metadiscourse markers in their written arguments? (Gann, 2023). In order to detectchanges in the frequency of metadiscourse marker use, the discourse markers used would have to bequantified. This was done by categorizing marker use along several lines of inquiry:Total word count

Metadiscourse marker countPercentage of total word count devoted to metadiscourse marker useUnique uses of metadiscourse markers (as contrasted with repeated uses)

Number of communicative functions engaged

As noted in Section 4.6, during this iterative process, the distinction between markers which explicitly
pointed to a connection between premises and conclusions and those which implicitly suggest suchconnections was noticed and this parameter was added to the ones listed above.
As noted in Section 2.2, triangulation was applied to data from various sources, including data fromboth qualitative sources (e.g., participants' writtten output and participants' uttererances during reconstruction
sessions) and quantitative sources (e.g. word counts, measurements of frequency of use, quantity of different
markers used and rankings of appropriacy of use).

Table 3: Participants’ utterance count groupings converted to L(ow), M(edium) and H(igh), compared withappropriacy of discourse marker use ratings
In Table 3, participants' ID numbers are placed in left and right columns, one ranking from L(ow) to H(igh)the number of utterances made during text reconstruction sessions related to discourse markers and discourse
markers' functions, and the other column ranking the quantity of discourse markers used in written output.
Triangulation produced results that include cases of contrast (participants 1, 4, 6, 8), but also enough cases ofconsistency (participants 2, 7, 3, 9) to argue that the the approach used in the study merits further
exploration. The case of Participant 6 illustrates the utility of mixed methods. Triangulating the data in Table
3 with his responses to the questionnaire, his student-student talk during WebSequitur sessions, and the word
count in his written output showed that he was outgoing and expressed himself fluently in English. However,
his TOEIC/CEFR scores were lower than Participant 1's scores. Participant 1, who had the highest
TOEIC/CEFR score, was a similar case. Both made a higher than average number of metadiscourse marker
related utterances. However, in their written output, neither Participant 1 nor 6 made consistent or sustained
use of the metadiscourse markers modelled in the exercises. In contrast, Participants 4 and 8, whose
TOEIC/CEFR scores were the lowest in the group, made a lower medium and low number of marker related
utterances, respectively and used a high number of those discourse markers in written output.

The small number of participants precludes any claims of results which could be generalized acrossbroad contexts. However, triangulation of the data, in this mixed methods approach, does these support
interpretations that suggests that a larger study with a greater number of participants might yield interesting
results.
3.3
Web Sequitur
An online exercise known by the trade name, WebSequitur, is shown below (Figure 1). The application has
been largely used for vocabulary and grammar instruction. In a repurposing of this application, an argumentwith either a premises-first, conclusion-last; or a conclusion-first, premises-last construction is presented in
the gray field near the top of the display. Students are then tasked to reconstruct a similar text which argues
to the same point, but reverses the order of premises and conclusion.

Figure 1: A WebSequiturThis reconstruction is performed in the window below the multiple choice array. Fragments of text passages
are arranged as multiple-choice selections, which, in successive steps, students select to rebuild the text. The
linear, beginning-to-end formation of the text is well-suited to teaching argumentative structure. This is incontrast to fill-in-the-blank reconstructions in which the entire text body is displayed with blanks in the
beginning, middle or end, which can all be filled in here and there. The immediate feedback is also a uniquequality. As students make correct selections, the reconstructed text appears in the white field below. This
responsive quality of the application can accelerate the learning process.

4

Action research

4.1

Action research in practiceParticipants in this study, along with the rest of the class completed five WebSequitur sessions
during twelve weeks of class. This main study was preceded by a pilot study. There were five cases in which
the need for changes to the research design emerged. These involved, (1) the previously discussed
questionnaire, (2) a problem with cognitive fatigue, (3) an issue of gender and power distribution, (4) aquestion regarding inconsistent activity in the online forums and chat rooms, and (5) differences between theuse of implicit and explicit discourse markers. Each of these cases is discussed below.

4.2
Action research case 1: Participant questionnaire
At the end of the pilot study, it became apparent that knowledge of each participant's background in English

study and possible overseas English use might explain differences in metadiscourse use. A questionnaire wasdeveloped and administered at the beginning of the main study.
A questionnaire is a suitable methodological tool for learning about simple facts that do not need tobe co-constructed, such as whether participants have studied English privately or how much time they havespent overseas. The questions were either short-answer format or made use of a Likert scale of 1-5. The
questions are listed in Section 3.1.
Distributing this questionnaire made it possible to later triangulate other data with student
responses and derive explanations about trends in individual participants' metadiscourse marker use.
Questionnaire data helped to further develop interview questions and, in turn, participants' interview
responses helped to construct a nuanced interpretation of the quantitative data.
In the interviews, data was generated collaboratively with the participants, by listening to responses
to interview queues and considering both what participants said and the expressions they used (MacCracken,
1998); and by requesting clarification or further information when the need or opportunity arose. The
following response given during the pilot study by Participant 3 is an example of the kind of data which thisinterpretive approach to interviews can yield:
By doing WebSequiturs I learned the language of argument and practically, so if I study byreading texts, I will not use answer. [Trans.] If you just read it, you probably won't actually use
it as you read it, so you can't study efficiently. For example, if you just read the score of the
piano, you can't play it, but if you actually play it while looking at the score, it's easy tounderstand what's wrong and it's easy to improve. It was easy to understand.
Action research accommodates mixed-methods and the use of both qualitative and quantitative data, where,as Stringer and Aragon (2021) argue, both models are at times necessary.
4.3
Action research case 2: Research design demands vs cognitive load and fatigue
The original number of planned WebSequitur sessions had been four. However, participants in the pilot study
expressed the view that the first two sessions had been exceedingly long and that the participants had become
fatigued and unable to complete the exercises at their full competence. These expressions took the form ofutterances made within the single pilot triad:
P3: [Trans:] Ohh, I’m tired.
P1: [Trans:] Yeah. How far do we work? We have already done a lot.
P3: [Trans:] What? Three more?
P1: [Trans:] Oh no!
P3: [Trans:] It’s already a lot!
P1: [Trans:] Oh no!
P3: [Trans:] My eyes are getting shaky!
These utterances emerged during thematic analysis (Clarke and Braun, 2017) of transcripts of recordings ofeach WebSequitur session. During the scheduled semi-structured interviews near the end of the term,
participants confirmed that in the latter half of the first and second session they had become fatigued. They
had enjoyed the the exercises less and their ability to complete the later exercises had been reduced. During
the semi-structured interviews, P1 and P3 both stated that distributing the WebSequiturs over three sessions
with fewer exercises in each session would be an improvement. Moreover, P2, who seems to have been themost critical of the WebSequiturs said:[Trans:] I think that more opportunity to do this is help more helpful for study.
Responding to these comments, the first two exercises were expanded into three sessions. Analysis oftranscripts of participant-participant talk during the sessions in the main study included no mention of fatigue
and throughout the first three sessions all nine participants actively worked together.
Luttenberg et al. (2017) write of how the reflective component of action research can be a morally
complicating element, as, for example, reflection can make the researcher aware of contradictions between
knowledge and action. In this case, a certain number of exercises had been scheduled for a limited number oflessons. Decreasing the number of exercises was not an option, because each modeled the use of specificdiscourse markers. Extending the study an additional week into the term was untenable for practical reasonsconcerning the requirements of class administration. This made it necessary to begin the main study a weekearlier in the term when general issues of class orientation would still be ongoing. This was a conflict
between the plan as first set and the emergent knowledge of the hardship that the original plan would place
upon the nine participants in the main study as well as the entire class. For that reason, although doing so
was inconvenient, one more session was added. With the workload distributed across a greater number ofsessions, there were far fewer utterances noted later in the transcript of student-student talk. This is anillustrative example of how a constructivist approach can work to enhance an action research design, when
students' responses were acted upon to affect change that has continued to be applied in subsequent terms.
In addition, participants in the pilot study were told that their contribution to the research design
was valuable and that it had been revised as a result of their input. In this way, the participants were made tofeel that they had agency as collaborators in the ongoing research design revision, which they were made tounderstand had been the ultimate purpose of the pilot study. Conveying this to the pilot study participants
was something which, being after the fact, did nothing to enhance the outcome of the research, but which
was important for maintaining the research's ethical integrity.
4.4
Action research case 3: Gender awarenessIn some cases, as Luttenberg et al. (2017) notes, moral reflection solely on the part of the researcher can leadto transformative change in practice. This moral reflection "reconstructs experience in light of the values one
has in life, such as justice and equality" (p. 90). Such was the case when during the pilot, it was observed thatwhen the middle position to which control of the mouse was given was occupied by a male triad member, thefemale participant was often shut out of the discussion. Male members tended to talk over the female
member, or the female member simply remained silent. When the female member of a triad was positioned
in the center, she took on the role of triad-leader, and was empowered to speak out more, asking for opinionsfrom the others and giving her own opinion as she navigated the triad through the exercises. Thus, by settingroles for the group, consistency was maintained from session to session. Additionally by taking gender
related issues into account, an even-proportioned amount of utterances were encouraged within the pilotgroup.
Because of the low number of participants in the pilot (three) and in the main study (nine), no
statistical significance could be attributed to trends observed in the transcripts of utterances recorded during
the WebSequitur sessions. However, qualitative differences in behavior between the sessions before and after
this role designation were observed and noted. As in the pilot, female triad members tended to fill out theleadership role in which they had been placed. The male members in the triad were responsive to the female
members' utterances. The discourse overall became less chaotic and more organized. These observations
were later supported during quantitative analysis of the WebSequitur session transcripts of the threeparticipating triads. Only two of the three triads included a female, due to there being only two female
students in the class. The discourse of the two triads that included a female participant was of a higher
quality than the triad comprised of three male participants, having a greater number of utterances related toacknowledging the presence of relevant metadiscourse markers. Thus, importance of the discovery, not only
for the quality of the research but also for its emanicipatory potential, became apparent. As Luttenberg et al.
(2017) write, "moral reflection [. . .] transforms practice. [. . .] It reconstructs experience in light of the values
one has in life, such as justice and equality" (90). The teacher with a personal conviction regarding gender
related issues and emancipatory pedagogy (Zuber-Skerritt, 1996) may act upon such observations in a waythat leads to better research results in a more egalitarian teaching and learning context.
4.5
Action research case 4: Inconsistent levels of written output in forums and chat rooms
During the pilot, Participant 1's and Participant 3's low written output in the forums compared to greater
output in the chat rooms had created a great amount of variance in the quantitative data. This was animportant issue, because it related directly to the quality of specific WebSequiturs scheduled before the chatroom sessions. In a way that would not be possible in a larger scale study with many subjects, in this smallscale study, a focus on individual participants could lead to a revision of interview questions. When asked tocomment on this large variance in output Participant 1:
Gann: I had hoped to have students increase their use of the argumentative vocabulary byseeing much use from you of the language.
P1: Chat room is very flexi–? Reply is very fast, partner. However, forum is very–I don’t geta reply. So, I wrote hitorigoto [as if talking to myself].
Gann: Of course, you had the chance to–there are many responses in there–you had thechance to reply to another person's comments.
P1: (Laughs)
Gann: Why didn't you do that?
P1: I am very shy and I don't know how, the way to reply to another person.
Gann: I see. So, you have very little experience working inside of a discussion thread?
P1: (nods)
Participant 3 reticently admitted: I didn't understand the– very much about forum–

Participants had been informed via university messaging about the procedure for replying to others in theforum and had included screenshots. It may be that replying to others is seen as creating an obligation to
reply in turn. In turn, Participant 3 was more opinionated:
P3: Chat, like–
Gann: Uh-huh. How about the forum? Don't you like the forum?
P3: Chat, tanoshi (fun)Gann: Why? What is different?
P3: [Trans:] Doing with others is more enjoyable than working alone.
Synchronous chat has the quality of immediacy, while in asynchronous forums students may sense
they are working in isolation. Moreover, chat is done during class meetings, while forum contribution is doneon students' time and they must first be reminded to do it by the instructor or be disciplined enough to set
aside a time for doing it. This may also explain much of the difference. It may also be that the participant has
no background in multiple thread forum discussions, as one participant interviewee stated.
4.6
Action research case 5: Explicit and implicit metadiscourse marker use
A fifth and final case, which occurred during the main study was an unexpected way in which participants
used metadiscourse markers in their written arguments. Participants were tasked to use the premise andconclusion indicators to clearly mark out the structure and direction of logical flow in their arguments. The
expectation was that after each WebSequitur session there would be an increase in the use of the prescribed
metadiscourse markers.
As predicted, subsequent to each session participants used a greater number of the modelled
metadiscourse markers. However, there was also an unexpected increase in metadiscourse markers which
had not been modelled. At first, it seemed that these merely represented a broader variety of markers, but aclose inspection of these metadiscourse markers showed that these could be categorized as implicit premiseand conclusion indicators; and the markers modelled in the exercises as explicit. The distinction between thetwo categories can be summed up thus: explicit markers unambiguously connect premises and conclusions
with words and phrases such as because and therefore. Implicit markers require an inferential step incognition to make the logical connection between premises and conclusions. These explicit and implicit
metadiscourse markers can be further categorized according to Hyland's taxonomy (Hyland, 2005) (Table 4).
The use of these implicit markers raised the question of why participants, to varying degrees, either
ignored or disregarded the modelling of the explicit markers or avoided their use. Bao (2014) notes that
Asian cultures, including Japan's, highly value polite and reserved manners. This was borne out, in Gann
(2024), where two Tokyo University of Science student interviewees stated that merely making assertive
statements can be considered rude and may be met with negative responses. As Bax, et al. (2019) points out,
many of the implicit markers carry out dual or multiple communicative functions. For example, the phrase,
we know that, introduces a premise, and also establishes that the fact being referenced is widely known.
Moreover, it develops a relationship between the writer and readers. The use of implicit markers therefore
may sometimes be a matter of economy on the part of the novice writers who have not yet understood theimportance of unambiguously signposting their argumentative writing.

Table 4: A categorization of premise and conclusion indicators as metadiscourse markers
5Conclusion
In this short article, examples have been presented in which mixed-methods action research was
implemented iteratively to adapt to the emergent qualities of the research context. These included preparatory
measures for later nuancing data through triangulation; matters relating to language learners' limits ofstamina and mental acuity; practical details in the research design; ethical concerns in power inequity; andunexpected outcomes, which led to greater definition and categorization. When one's research design isviewed through participants' points of view, the benefits of a social constructivist approach to research may
become salient. Research practices can then improve, and in turn, a better-informed position to affect change
may be reached. As a practitioner, one's classes can undergo transformation; and as a researcher theknowledge gained through one's action research can be of use to other faculty.
The tendency for most of the participants to sometimes use implicit markers where an explicit
marker would have been more effective did not occur until well after the course had finished and participants
could not easily be contacted for further interviewing. In such cases, one must remember that action researchis continual and iterative. With that in mind, the proper course is to prepare for a similar trend in the next
iteration of one's research so that this issue and others like it can be explored during researcher-participant
interviews. In this way, the mindset concordant with action research prepares the researcher to think ofresearch as an ongoing cyclical activity. Issues raised in one iteration can be further explored in the nextschool term as the research design improves upon the previous one.
References
Bao, D. (2014) Understanding Silence and Reticence: Ways of Participating in Second Language
Acquisition, London, Bloomsbury Academic.
Bax, S., Nakatsuhara, F., and Waller, D. (2019). Researching L2 writers’ use of metadiscourse markers at
intermediate and advanced levels. System. 83, 79-95.

Boeije, H., Slagt, M., and Wesel, van F. (2013). The contribution of mixed-methods research to the field ofchildhood trauma: A narrative review focused on data integration. Journal of Mixed-methods Research.
7, 4, 347-369.
Brannen, J. (2007). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research
process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8,3, 173-183.
Brinkmann, S. (2007). Could interviews be epistemic: An alternative view to qualitative opinion polling.
Qualitative Inquiry. 13,8, 1116-1138.
Čechovičová, L. (2010). Using interactive exercises in teaching English. Published thesis, Oloumoci,
Palacký University.
Cheng, X., and Steffensen, M. (1996). Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing. Researchin the Teaching of English. 30,2, 149-181. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/40171358 (Accessed
27 January 2024).
Clarke, V. and Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology. 12,13, 297-298.
Clark, P. and Ivankova, N. V. (2016). Mixed-methods Research. London: SAGE.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Curato, N. (2012). Respondents as interlocutors: Translating deliberative democratic principles to qualitativeinterviewing ethics. Qualitative Inquiry. 18,7, 571-582.
Davies, G. (2007). Total cloze text reconstruction programs: A brief history, [Online] Available at
http://www.ict4lt.org/en/FWTHistory.doc (Accessed 27 January 2024).
Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed-methods approach.
Journal of Mixed-methods Research. 2,3, 270-283.
Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide for small-scale research projects. Milton Keynes: McgrawHill/Open University Press.
Educational Testing Service. (n.d.). TOEIC score vs CEFR, [Online]. Available athttps://yourenglishtest.com/article/index/art/54 (Accessed 19 January 2021).
Evans, B. C., Belyea, M. J., Coon, D. W., et. al. (2012). Activities of daily living in Mexican American
caregivers: The key to continuing informal care. Journal of Family Nursing. 18,4, 439-466.
Fung, L. and Carter, R. (2007). Discourse markers and spoken English: Learner and native uses in pedagogic
settings. Applied Linguistics 28,3, 410-439.
Fisher, A. (2001). Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flick, U. (2006) Triangulation of qualitative and qualitative research. in Flick, U. (ed) Managing Quality in
Qualitative Research. London, Sage.
Gann, D. A. (2023). Investigating the Efficacy of Online Text Reconstruction Exercises for Facilitating theUse of Metadiscourse Markers in First-Year Japanese University Students’ Argumentative Writing.
Published thesis, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2009). The Essential Halliday. London, U.K., Continuum.
Hammond, M. and Wiriyapinit, M. (2005). Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation inresearch. [Online] Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 21,3, 283-302 (Accessed 27
January 2024). http://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1321/692.
Higgins, J. J. and White, A. G. (1999). Learning about coherence: Using a text game to measure andreinforce awareness of coherence in text. BALEAP Conference. EAP Learning Technologies. 142-146.
Higgins, J. J., Lawrie, A. M., and White, A. G. (1999). Recognising coherence: the use of a text game tomeasure and reinforce awareness of coherence in text. System. 27,3, 339-349.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing, London: Continuum.
Intaraprawat, P. and Steffensen, M. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of
Second Language Writing. 4,3, 253-272.
Johns, T. F. and Lixun, W. (1999). Four versions of a sentence-shuffling program. System. 27,3, 329-338.
Kameen, P. (1978). A mechanical, meaningful and communicative framework for ESL sentence combining

exercises. TESOL Quarterly. 12,4, 395-401.
Kopple, W. J. V. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1,2, 37-44.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Luttenberg, J., Meijer, P. and Oolbekkink-Marchand, H. (2017). Understanding the complexity of teacher
reflection in action research. Educational Action Research. 25,1, 88-102.
MacCracken, G. (1998). The Long Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE.
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity-a discourse universal? The case of ELF. NordicJ. English
Studies. 9,2, 13-40.
Open University. (2001). Hammersley, M., Gomm, R., and Woods, P, et al. Research methods in education.
Masters Programme in Education. Handbook. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Rodríguez, M. Q. (2010). Use of Hot Potatoes to improve effective paragraph writing. Published thesis,
Chia, Columbia, Universidad de la Sabana.
Sadeghi, N. and Soleimani, H. (2015). A description and evaluation of Hot Potatoes web-authoring softwarein educational settings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. 5,11, 2407-2415.
Sale, J. E. M., Lohfeld, L. H., and Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate:
Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality & Quantity. 36, 43-53.
Shintani, N. and Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous corrective feedback
on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Association. 100,1,
296-319.
Soleimani, H. and Raeesi, A. (2015). Hot Potatoes: The merits and demerits. Theory and Practice inLanguage Study. 5,6, 1291-1295.
Stringer, E. and Aragon, A. (2021). Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Winke, P. and MacGregor, D. (2001). Review of Hot Potatoes, Language Learning & Technology. 5,2.
Available at https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25125/1/05_02_review3.pdf(Accessed 27 January, 2024).
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 11,2, 129–

158.
Vargas, J.P.Z. and Monge, G.S. (2014). Considering the use of Hot Potatoes in reading comprehension,autonomy in TEFL, and learning styles. Revista De Lenguas Modernas. 16, 309-321.
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking and the comprehensibility of international teachingassistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26,4, 693-711.
Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1996). New directions in action research. London: The Falmer Press.