Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 47Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesLinguistics and Education ResearchEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interactional Conflicts among Audience, Purpose, and Content Knowledge in the Acquisition of Academic Literacy in an EAP Course

HANSEN, JETTE G.·2000·Written Communication

Abstract

The issues of authentic context and authoritative ethos are explored through a study of a graduate student learning to write for mathematics within the context of an English for academic purposes (EAP) course. The student faced conflicts about audience, purpose, and content knowledge as she was required to write math texts within what she perceived was an inauthentic context, an English as a second language (ESL) course. She questioned the purpose of the writing tasks as well as why an ESL instructor was teaching her to write for math, and she addressed the conflicts by writing for the instructor's discourse community and expectations, rather than her own, to earn a grade for the course. The text the student created was thus inauthentic within her own discourse community and lacked her voice of authority. These findings question the validity of EAP courses and raise several issues, especially in terms of the transferability of skills from EAP to content courses.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0741088300017001002

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Ash, A., Generalized reciprocity laws: A context for Wiles's achievement
  2. Belcher, D., Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy
  3. Braine, G., Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, 113
  4. Casanave, C. P., Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, 83
  5. Frodesen, J., Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, 331
  6. Gale, X. L., 1994, Journal of Advanced Composition, 14, 457
  7. Halmos, P. R., 1970, Enseignement Math, 2, 123
  8. Johns, A., Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, 277
  9. Leki, I., Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy, 23
  10. Rouzer, J., 1993, The Ohio TESOL Newsletter, 17, 8
  11. Shen, F., 1989, CCC, 40, 459
  12. Swales, J. M., Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings

Metadata

Authors
HANSEN, J. G.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
HANSEN, JETTE G.
Venue
Written Communication
Published
2000-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
27-52
ISSN
  • 0741-0883 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8472
OpenAlex
W2036424327
Cited by
44
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
32.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Written Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
English for academic purposes, academic literacy, discourse communities, graduate student writing, mathematical writing, ESL teaching, transfer of writing skills

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: Interactional Conflicts among Audience, Purpose, and Content Knowledge in the Acquisition of Academic Literacy in an EAP Course. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0741088300017001002
The paper
HANSEN, J. G. (2000). Interactional Conflicts among Audience, Purpose, and Content Knowledge in the Acquisition of Academic Literacy in an EAP Course. Written Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088300017001002