CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Discourse Analysis in Language StudiesLinguistics and Education ResearchWriting and Handwriting Education

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

Mastering Academic Language: Organization and Stance in the Persuasive Writing of High School Students

Open access
Uccelli, Paola, Dobbs, Christina L., Scott, Jessica·2013·Written Communication
DOI 10.1177/0741088312469013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Beyond mechanics and spelling conventions, academic writing requires progressive mastery of advanced language forms and functions. Pedagogically useful tools to assess such language features in adolescents’ writing, however, are not yet available. This study examines language predictors of writing quality in 51 persuasive essays produced by high school students attending a linguistically and ethnically diverse inner-city school in the Northeastern United States. Essays were scored for writing quality by a group of teachers, transcribed and analyzed to generate automated lexical and grammatical measures, and coded for discourse-level elements by researchers who were blind to essays’ writing quality scores. Regression analyses revealed that beyond the contribution of length and lexico-grammatical intricacy, the frequency of organizational markers and one particular type of epistemic stance marker (i.e., epistemic hedges) significantly predicted persuasive essays’ writing quality. Findings shed light on discourse elements relevant for the design of pedagogically informative assessment tools.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0741088312469013

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

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Bailey A. L., 2007, The language demands of school: Putting academic English to the test
  2. 10.1002/9780470694138.ch43 · DOI
  3. 10.1515/LING.2007.001 · DOI
  4. Bazerman C., 2004, Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities
  5. 10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9 · DOI
  6. 10.1075/tilar.3.05ber · DOI
  7. 10.1017/S0305000904006038 · DOI
  8. 10.1075/wll.5.2.06ber · DOI
  9. 10.1017/CBO9780511609664.007 · DOI
  10. Berman R. A., 1994, Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study
  11. 10.1075/wll.5.1.02ber · DOI
  12. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871 · DOI
  13. Blum-Kulka S., 2008, From research to practice in early education, 117
  14. Christie F., 2008, School discourse
  15. 10.1080/00405849209543556 · DOI
  16. 10.1093/applin/25.2.220 · DOI
  17. 10.1598/JAAL.44.8.3 · DOI
  18. 10.1515/ling.1992.30.1.5 · DOI
  19. Halliday M. A. K., 2004, The language of science
  20. Halliday M. A. K., 1989, Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective
  21. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00337.x · DOI
  22. 10.1017/CBO9780511841057 · DOI
  23. Hillocks G., 2002, The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning
  24. Hillocks G., 2011, Teaching argument writing, Grades 6–12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning
  25. Hyland K., 2005, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing
  26. 10.1016/j.asw.2011.07.001 · DOI
  27. MacWhinney B., 2011, The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk
  28. Martin J. R., 1989, Factual writing
  29. 10.1177/0741088309351547 · DOI · Paper page
  30. National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2007, The nation’s report card: Writing results
  31. National Commission on Writing, 2004, Writing: A ticket to work . . . or a ticket out. A survey of business leaders
  32. Ninio A., 1996, Pragmatic development
  33. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2603_3 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1007/978-1-4757-0608-6 · DOI
  35. 10.1017/S0305000902005111 · DOI
  36. 10.1075/wll.5.2.04rei · DOI
  37. Scarcella R., 2003, Academic English: A conceptual framework
  38. 10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0 · DOI
  39. 10.4324/9781410610317 · DOI
  40. Selman R., 2003, The promotion of social awareness: Powerful lessons from the partnership of developmental theory and classroom practice
  41. 10.1075/prag.1.1.01slo · DOI
  42. 10.1017/CBO9780511609664.008 · DOI
  43. Sommers N., 2012, Responding to students’ writing
  44. 10.2307/357609 · DOI
  45. Zwiers J., 2007, Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms, Grades 5–12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 168

Metadata

Authors
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Written Communication
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-12-06
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
36-62
ISSN
  • 0741-0883 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8472
DOI
10.1177/0741088312469013
OpenAlex
W2104739300
Cited by
168
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
68.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Written Communication (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
Keywords
academic writing, writing quality, persuasive essay, high school students, discourse markers, writing assessment, adolescents, urban schools

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