CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions

Jarvis, Scott, Grant, Leslie, Bikowski, Dawn, Ferris, Dana·2003·Journal of Second Language Writing
DOI 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Biber, 1986, Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings, Language, 62, 384, 10.2307/414678 · DOI
  2. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  4. Biesenbach-Lucas, 2000, Use of cohesive features in ESL students’ e-mail and word-processed texts: A comparative study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 221, 10.1076/0958-8221(200007)13:3;1-3;FT221 · DOI
  5. Burrough-Boenisch, 2003, Examining present tense conventions in scientific writing in the light of reader reactions to three Dutch-authored discussions, English for Specific Purposes, 22, 5, 10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00049-7 · DOI
  6. Chafe, W. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 105–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Cheng, 1996, Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing, Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 149, 10.58680/rte199615322 · DOI
  8. Connor, 1990, Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive students writing, Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67, 10.58680/rte199015501 · DOI
  9. Crismore, 1990, Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues, Discourse Processes, 13, 191, 10.1080/01638539009544753 · DOI
  10. Crismore, 1993, Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students, Written Communication, 10, 39, 10.1177/0741088393010001002 · DOI
  11. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Ferris, D. (1991). Syntactic and lexical characteristics of ESL student writing: A multidimensional study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
  13. Ferris, 1994, Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency, TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414, 10.2307/3587446 · DOI
  14. Gonzalez-Bueno, 2000, Electronic mail in foreign language writing: A study of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quantity of language, Foreign Language Annals, 33, 189, 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00911.x · DOI
  15. Grant, 2000, Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences, Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123, 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9 · DOI
  16. Hewings, 2002, “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing, English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367, 10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3 · DOI
  17. Hinkel, 2001, Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts, Applied Language Learning, 12, 111
  18. Hyland, 1996, Writing without conviction? Hedges in science research articles, Applied Linguistics, 17, 433, 10.1093/applin/17.4.433 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Hyland, 1996, Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts, Language Awareness, 9, 179, 10.1080/09658410008667145 · DOI
  20. Hyland, 2002, Options of identity in academic writing, ELT Journal, 56, 351, 10.1093/elt/56.4.351 · DOI
  21. Intaraprawat, 1995, The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays, Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 253, 10.1016/1060-3743(95)90012-8 · DOI
  22. Jarvis, 2002, Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity, Language Testing, 19, 57, 10.1191/0265532202lt220oa · DOI
  23. Jarvis, 2002, Topic continuity in L2 English article use, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 387, 10.1017/S0272263102003029 · DOI
  24. Kaplan, 2002, A modern history of written discourse analysis, Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 191, 10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00085-1 · DOI
  25. Li, 2000, Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities, System, 28, 229, 10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00009-9 · DOI
  26. Longo, 1994, Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion, Technical Communication, 41, 348
  27. Master, 1987, Generic “the” in Scientific American, English for Specific Purposes, 6, 165, 10.1016/0889-4906(87)90002-0 · DOI
  28. Master, 1990, Teaching the English articles as a binary system, TESOL Quarterly, 24, 461, 10.2307/3587230 · DOI
  29. Master, P. (1996). Systems of English Grammar: An introduction for language teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
  30. Master, 1997, The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy, System, 25, 215, 10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00010-9 · DOI
  31. McClure, 1993, What do you include in a narrative? A comparison of the written narratives of Mexican and American fourth and ninth graders, Monograph Series, 4, 209
  32. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. NY: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
  33. Reid, J. (1986). Using the writer’s workbench in composition teaching and testing. In C. Stansfield (Ed.), Technology and language testing (pp. 167–188). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
  34. Reid, J. (1990). Responding to different topic types: A quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 191–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  35. Reid, 1992, A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers, Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 79, 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90010-M · DOI
  36. Reppen, R. (1994). Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
  37. Rubin, 1975, What the “good language learner” can teach us, TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41, 10.2307/3586011 · DOI
  38. Shaw, 1998, What develops in the development of second-language writing?, Applied Linguistics, 19, 225, 10.1093/applin/19.2.224 · DOI
  39. Skehan, P. (1986). Cluster analysis and the identification of learner types. In V. Cook (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 81–94). Oxford: Pergamon.
  40. Toms, M. L., Cummings-Hill, M. A., Curry, D. G., & Cone, S. M. (2001, March). Using cluster analysis for deriving menu structures for automotive mobile multimedia applications. Paper presented at SAE 2001 World Congress, Detroit, Michigan. · DOI
  41. Vande Kopple, 1985, Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse, College Composition and Communication, 36, 82, 10.2307/357609 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 116

Metadata

Authors
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D.
Venue
Journal of Second Language Writing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-12
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
377-403
ISSN
1060-3743
DOI
10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
Cited by
116
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001
The paper
Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowski, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001