Cited by 21EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesWriting and Handwriting Education

Multi-draft composing: An iterative model for academic argument writing

Eckstein, Grant, Chariton, Jessica, McCollum, Robb Mark·2011·Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.05.004

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Eckstein, G., Chariton, J., & McCollum, R. M.
Affiliations
Brigham Young University (US)
Corresponding author
Eckstein, Grant
Venue
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
162-172
ISSN
1475-1585 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094530296
Cited by
21
References
43
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
13.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of English for Academic Purposes (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
Keywords
ESL writing, second language writing, writing instruction, intensive English programs, writing scores, student perceptions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review