The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 53 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study
Open accessAbstract
Cohesion has long been regarded as one of the main components of successful writing. The basic assumption of this concept is that the interpretation of one element in a text is based on the interpretation of another in the same text. It has been noticed that Saudi EFL students seem to lack some basics in writing a cohesive paragraph. Certain conjunctions were overused, underused, or misused. The present empirical study, therefore, attempted to investigate the impact of explicit teaching of conjunctions as cohesive devices on the development of paragraph writing. The subjects of this study were 43 EFL students at a Saudi University studying in the first year. Data were collected from pre and post tests and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results showed significant differences between the experimental and control groups in the post test. Pedagogical implications are presented.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This experimental study found that explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices improved Saudi EFL university students’ paragraph writing. The experimental group significantly outperformed the control group on the post-test, with gains in both conjunction knowledge and use.
Key findings
- On the written diagnostic test post-test, the experimental group scored significantly higher (Mean = 17.76, SD = 6.05) than the control group (Mean = 10.68, SD = 6.21), t = 3.783, p = 0.000.
- The experimental group improved significantly from pre-test (Mean = 11.14) to post-test (Mean = 17.76), p = 0.000; the control group’s pre-to-post change (Mean = 9.5 to 10.68) was not significant, p = 0.069.
- In the pre-paragraph writing test, causal devices were most used (34.72%), followed by additive (31.94%), temporal (30.56%), and adversative (2.78%). In the post-test, the experimental group used 124 conjunctive ties versus 53 in the control group; overall, additives ranked first (36.16%), temporal second (31.64%), causal third (22.60%), and adversative fourth (9.60%).
- Qualitatively, the experimental group used more varied conjunctions after instruction (e.g., “moreover,” “furthermore,” “on the other hand,” “as a result,” “to sum up”), while the control group continued to rely on simple items.
Methods
- An experimental and control group design with pre- and post-tests was used. Participants were 43 EFL students in the Preparatory Year Program at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia, randomly selected from two classes and divided into an experimental group (n = 21) and a control group (n = 22); the Oxford Placement Test was used to check homogeneity/proficiency.
- Instruments included the Oxford Placement Test, a written diagnostic test on conjunctions adapted from Yousif (2021) with three sections, and a paragraph writing test of about 100–150 words scored with a rubric adopted from Abdelreheim (2014).
- The experimental group received five 30-minute oral sessions, one per week, on cohesion and conjunctions based on Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) taxonomy; the control group studied the same course material without explicit instruction. Data were analyzed quantitatively with t-tests in SPSS for the written diagnostic test and qualitatively through frequency counts and expert rubric evaluation for the paragraph writing test.
Limitations
- Stated: the authors recommend research on larger samples and at different levels of study to generalize the results, and note that the study was confined to conjunctions as a predictor of cohesion, suggesting more studies on additional types of cohesiveness and complementary use of conjunctions.
- Evident from the text: participants were 43 female students in one preparatory-year engineering track at a single Saudi university, and the intervention was brief (five 30-minute sessions), which limits generalizability.
- Evident from the text: no delayed post-test is reported, so longer-term retention of the instructional effects is not established.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own result · 16 Sources not found · 16 Not checked yet · 11 Own interpretation · 7 Own method · 4 No full text of the sources · 3 Supported · 3 Partly supported · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These results support the previous findings and suggest the potential effectiveness of teaching conjunctions explicitly as cohesive devices (Abdelreheim, 2014; Adiantika, 2015; Boukra et al., 2019; Othman, 2019; Alqasham et al., 2021).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Abdelreheim, 2014
- Partly supportedcites Adiantika, 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on the contribution of cohesive devices says conjunctions enhance logical connections in students’ writing, but also reports that misplaced conjunctions caused incoherence. The Conclusion suggests that inadequate teaching may contribute to students’ difficulties. The paper does not assess explicit teaching of conjunctions or establish that it improves writing. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites Boukra et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Such instruction might contribute to a development in the context of teaching as well as learning writing, especially that previous studies have demonstrated that EFL learners struggle with the use of cohesive devices, particularly conjunctions (Arabi and Amin Ali, 2014; Othman, 2019; Alqasham et al., 2021).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Arabi and Amin Ali, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Othman, 2019 source
The Conclusion reports that Saudi EFL students overused, misused, and omitted cohesive devices, including conjunctions, in their written paragraphs. This supports the claim that EFL learners struggle with cohesive devices, particularly conjunctions. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites Alqasham et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results showed significant differences between the experimental and control groups in the post test.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding temporal ties, students used the words “first”, “second”, “finally”, and “in the end” to indicate the order of their thinking more often than others.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite a slight improvement, the control group’s post-test results indicate no statistical significance, as shown in Table 6. In the pre-test, the mean score was (Mean = 9.5), while in the post-test, the mean score was (Mean = 10.65). The obtained p-value (p = 0.069) is greater than the pre-determined significance level (p < 0.05).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the result shown in Table 3, both groups had almost identical mean scores in the pre-test (11.1 and 9.5, respectively) regarding their knowledge of connectors. In this case, the p-value detected (p = 0.314) is greater than the pre-determined significant level (p < 0.05). Hence, the values obtained for both groups revealed that there was no statistically significant difference prior to the”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Table 5, a comparison of the experimental group’s pre- and post-test results shows that students’ mean score increased significantly. In the pre-test, the mean score was (Mean = 11.14), while in the post-test, the mean score was (Mean = 17.76). The obtained p-value (p = 0.000) is smaller than the pre-determined significance level (p < 0.05), indicating a significant difference in the mean”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings, shown in Table 4, showed a statistically significant difference in the scores for the experimental group (Mean = 17.76, SD = 6.04) and the control group (Mean = 10.68, SD = 6.21) in favor of the experimental group. The p-value detected (p = 0.000) is smaller than the pre-determined significance level (p < 0.05).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Further, the results of the pre-PWT showed that Saudi EFL learners overused causative devices (34.72%) in contrast with other studies where causal devices ranked third (Abdelreheim, 2014; Aziz and Nuri, 2021) or even the fourth (Alshalan, 2019).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the students were able to display a variety of conjunctive items instead of relying solely on simple ones.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 37
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“On the contrary, Alshalan (2019) found that the use of cohesive devices is one sign of high-quality texts.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Alshalan, 2019 source
The Abstract (p. 1) reports a relationship between students’ writing scores and their use of cohesive ties. It also recommends teaching cohesive tools to help improve writing, supporting the claim that their use is a sign of writing quality. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The findings of their study revealed that using conjunctions as cohesive devices had a weak negative but insignificant correlation with writing quality.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Al Shamalatm and Ghani, 2020 source
The Abstract explicitly reports a weak negative correlation between writing quality and the frequency of conjunctions as cohesive devices, and calls the correlation insignificant for Jordanian EFL students. The Research Question section also describes the correlation as negative and insignificant. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, Adiantika (2015) found out in his study EFL students that their errors were due to the lack of training on the appropriate use of cohesive devices.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Adiantika, 2015 source
The Abstract states that students’ use of cohesive devices remained problematic because they had not received sufficient training in using them appropriately. The Conclusion also reports that students often used inappropriate cohesive devices in their writing. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover, she found out that there were positive correlations between the writing scores of the students and the length of their essays.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Alshalan, 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (p. 1) says Pearson’s correlation coefficient found a relationship between students’ writing scores and essay length. It does not state that the correlation was positive, so the direction attributed to the source is not supported by the passages in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Table 8 shows that participants in both groups used more conjunctive ties in the post- PWT. However, the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group. The experimental group applied 124 ties, while the control group applied only 53.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the distinctions between the four types, learners adopted 177 different devices in total. They depended most heavily on additives, as they represent (36%) of the total cohesive relations generated. Temporal is ranked second (31%), followed by causal (22%), while adversatives are ranked fourth (9.6%).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among all forty-three students, the only adversative ties used were “but” and “however”, with each used only once.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Based on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2020), results demonstrated that nearly 71% of the participants were English basic users or lower with 8% of the students are starters (Pre-A), 37% are beginners (A1), 26% elementary learners (A2), 15% lower intermediate learners (B1), 8% upper intermediate learners (B2), and 4% advanced (C).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Instruments
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Council of Europe, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When it comes to additive devices, the most common cohesive tie was “also”, whereas items like “further” and “moreover” were never used.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Causative devices (34.72%) were the most used subclassification, followed by additive ties (31.94%), temporal ties (30.56%), and adversative ties (2.78%).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
““Because” was the most frequently used causal tie, followed by “so”.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding the adversative devices, the learners depended mostly on the item but to establish an adversative relation between their sentences. This could be because the item but is more common than other items. The item, however, was also employed four times by the experimental group students. They were able to employ other items including: on the other hand and in fact.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The control group, in contrast, continued to use simple conjunctive items. With a slight increase in the frequency.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to establish a causal relationship between their sentences, students tended to use the words because followed by so. Obviously, these items were more prevalent than others. In the experimental group, students were able to employ other items such as: therefore, for these reasons, as a result and due to appropriately after the treatment.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, the results of the post-test for the control group were almost the same as the pre-test regarding WDT. Moreover, even while the post-test findings for PWT showed a slight increase in the quantity of conjunctive items utilized, they remained much lower than that of the experimental group. Besides, students in the control group continued to employ simple items regularly.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“He found that the students repeatedly committed errors related to the use of a conjunction as a cohesive device.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Othman, 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“Boukra et al. (2019) stated that effective paragraphs are characterized by being unified, coherent, cohesive, complete, and varied.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Boukra et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This test measures the students’ competence regarding conjunction.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Instruments
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The conjunction defines a relationship between two ideas in a discourse; understanding the first idea is essential to understanding the second, and reflect the logical-semantic relationship across sentences in a text (Halliday and Hasan, 1976).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halliday and Hasan (1976)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, there were positive correlations between the scores and the use of cohesive devices, as well as between the length and the use of cohesive ties.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alshalan, 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, to ensure homogeneity and comparability in terms of English language proficiency between the two groups, participants underwent an Oxford Placement Test (OPT).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present study, participants were selected randomly from two classes and divided into two groups: an experimental group (n = 21) and a control group (n = 22).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before any intervention, a pre- WDT was administered to all participants to ensure that both groups were on the same level and had equivalent knowledge of conjunctions.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A written diagnostic test on conjunctions, adopted from Yousif (2021), was administered pre and post the instruction.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Instruments
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yousif, 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A writing rubric was adopted from Abdelreheim (2014) for this purpose.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Instruments
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Abdelreheim, 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Halliday and Hasan (1976) observed that conjunctions express some cohesive relation in an indirect way through certain meanings.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halliday and Hasan (1976)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results showed that students used more sequential and additive conjunctive adverbs than adversatives and causative adverbs.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aziz and Nuri, 2021 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results of her study indicated that Saudi students tend to frequently use repetition in their writing.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alshalan, 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the pre- PWT results, participants had a limited understanding of conjunctive devices and could use some of them in their writing.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Aziz and Nuri (2021) also found that learners relied mainly on conjunctive adverbs in the initial position.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aziz and Nuri, 2021 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“She concluded that cohesive devices continue to be a source of difficulty for many EFL students.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yousif, 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In his study, Abdelreheim (2014) found out that all types of grammatical cohesion were employed: references, substitutions, ellipses, and conjunctions.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Abdelreheim, 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As for the PWT, paragraphs were analyzed qualitatively as frequencies of conjunctions were counted and their appropriateness was evaluated by a panel of experts using the rubric mentioned above.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, there were positive correlations between the scores and the use of cohesive devices, as well as between the length and the use of cohesive ties.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alshalan, 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“In Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) framework for categorizing conjunctive relations, four categories are described: additive, adversative, causal, and temporal, each category is further subdivided.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halliday and Hasan (1976)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Put simply, using conjunctions can help writers in organizing the content in a way that the readers can understand.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The results revealed that the majority of errors were created by additives, followed by causals and adversatives.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Arabi and Amin Ali, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This test measures the students’ ability to use conjunctions appropriately in their writing, and how such cohesive devices contribute to developing their performance.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Instruments
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies have found no difference between good and bad manuscripts in terms of the use of cohesive devices (Al Shamalatm and Ghani, 2020).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Al Shamalatm and Ghani, 2020 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“in her study, Yousif (2021) found out that nearly 60% of students passed the exam, while 40% failed.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yousif, 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Conjunctional devices were largely used followed by references, while elliptic and substitutional were rarely employed.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Abdelreheim, 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although students’ showed use of the conductions (Table 7), analysis of their writing as just discussed above revealed the students’ poor knowledge and improper use of conjunctive devices. The students’ writing lacked cohesion and clear connection of ideas in a paragraph.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), cohesion requires employing cohesive devices that fall under two categories: lexical and grammatical.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halliday and Hasan (1976)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Many English teachers have observed that learning a skill such as writing is more challenging than learning any other language skill (Rassouli and Abbasvandi, 2013).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rassouli and Abbasvandi, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Conjunction, as they suggested, is a type of cohesion in which sentences in a text are linked together using a set of ties.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halliday and Hasan (1976)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Cohesion has long been regarded as one of the main components of successful writing.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
“Halliday and Hasan (1976) argued that cohesiveness and coherence, as two fundamental textual aspects, have long been recognized as important characteristics of effective writing.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
“Nevertheless, cohesion is of paramount importance (Du et al., 2022).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Halliday and Hasan (1976)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Du et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · boosted
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Her study indicated that high-scoring essays seemed to have more cohesive devices than low-scoring ones.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alshalan, 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not checked yet
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, in order to ensure the groups’ homogeneity, both groups were required to undergo pre-tests to measure their ability to compose cohesive paragraphs and to assess their knowledge regarding conjunctions as cohesive devices as mentioned above.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Othman (2019) further added that such errors were committed due to several factors including the students’ lack of knowledge of such devices, their poor vocabulary, the mother tongue interference, and the language background.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Othman, 2019 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Analysis of students’ compositions in the post-WDT showed that they seemed to be more cohesive, unified, and easier to read, encouraging the reader to explore the writer’s ideas as the message swiftly move from one thought to another.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Adiantika (2015) source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
- Not matchedcites Alqasham et al. (2021)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on the discussion above, the experimental group participants made significant progress in paragraph writing, and this is believed to be due to the explicit instruction of conjunctions, especially in terms of cohesion.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The experimental and control groups were equivalent in all relevant respects other than the intervention, so the post-test difference can be attributed to the intervention.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The findings of the present study confirmed Alshalan (2019) who maintained that using cohesive devices in writing can be one indicator of high-quality writing.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alshalan (2019) source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not checked yet
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen above, the results of both post- WDT and post- PWT showed a remarkable improvement in favor of the experimental group. The students’ mean scores changed significantly following explicit instruction. Not only did students’ scores increase, but also the quality of their writing.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen from the results discussed above, results from the post- PWT supported the post- WDT results, as students in the experimental group were able to successfully and more frequently identify the relationship between sentences in their paragraphs and determine the appropriate item to link the sentences.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Saudi EFL first-year students lack some basics in writing a cohesive paragraph.
“It has been noticed that Saudi EFL students seem to lack some basics in writing a cohesive paragraph.”
“It has been observed that EFL students in their first year of study in Saudi Arabia lack some basics in writing a cohesive paragraph.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Saudi EFL students tend to overuse, underuse, and misuse certain conjunctions.
“Certain conjunctions were overused, underused, or misused.”
“They tend to overuse, underuse, and misuse certain conjunctions.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The interpretation of one element in a text is based on the interpretation of another element in the same text.
“The basic assumption of this concept is that the interpretation of one element in a text is based on the interpretation of another in the same text.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The experimental and control groups were equivalent in all relevant respects other than the intervention, so the post-test difference can be attributed to the intervention.
“Before any intervention, a pre- WDT was administered to all participants to ensure that both groups were on the same level and had equivalent knowledge of conjunctions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The WDT is a valid measure of students' knowledge and application of conjunctions.
“The results of pre- and post-WDT were analyzed quantitatively using t-test with SPSS.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The rubric and expert panel validly assess the appropriateness of conjunctions in PWT paragraphs.
“As for the PWT, paragraphs were analyzed qualitatively as frequencies of conjunctions were counted and their appropriateness was evaluated by a panel of experts using the rubric mentioned above.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
“while in the post-test, the mean score was (Mean = 10.65).”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
“| Control post-test | 22 | 10.6818 | 6.21355 | | |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
“Analysis of students’ compositions in the post-WDT showed that they seemed to be more cohesive, unified, and easier to read”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Instruments
“It has three sections. The first section is a completion question concerning different types of conjunctions, the second question consists of ten connectors and their functions to be identified, whereas the third one is a multiple-choice question.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of paragraph writing test
“despite the fact that the majority of the learners in the present study were beginners.”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Materials and methods > Instruments
“8% of the students are starters (Pre-A), 37% are beginners (A1), 26% elementary learners (A2)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
“the control group (n = 22) and the experimental group (n = 21). Based on the result shown in Table 3, both groups had almost identical mean scores in the pre-test (11.1 and 9.5, respectively)”
§ Enhancing English as a foreign language university students’ writing through explicit instruction of conjunctions as cohesive devices: An experimental study > Results and discussion > Results of written diagnostic test
“| Experimental | 21 | 11.1429 | 4.95236 | 1.020 | 0.314 | | Control | 22 | 9.5 | 5.56990 | | |”
Citations
Cites
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1982) · Cited by 533
Academic writing : from paragraph to essay
Zemach, D. E., & Rumisek, L. A. (2003) · Cited by 165
Kolin, P. C., & Bronson, J. G. (1984) · IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication · doi:10.1109/tpc.1984.6448779 · Cited by 54
Du, X., Afzaal, M., & Alfadda, H. A. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.752134 · Cited by 43
Fostering EFL Students’ Paragraph Writing Using Edmodo
Alsmari, N. A. (2019) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n10p44 · Cited by 33
Semantic Grammars: How They Can Help Us Teach Writing
Holloway, D. W. (1981) · College Composition and Communication · doi:10.58680/ccc198115913 · Cited by 24
Afzaal, M., & Xiangyi, J. (2020) · Discourse Studies · doi:10.1177/1461445620905135 · Cited by 11
Great writing.Great paragraphs
Folse, K. S., Muchmore-Vokoun, A., & Solomon, E. V. (2014) · Cited by 9
Othman, A. K. A. (2019) · European Scientific Journal, ESJ · doi:10.19044/esj.2019.v15n2p1 · Cited by 9
Yousef Salman Al Shamalat, R., & Binti Abdul Ghani, C. A. (2020) · Arab World English Journal · doi:10.24093/awej/call6.19 · Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Alalwi, 2021, Attitudes of saudi common first year students towards english as a foreign language., Asian ESP J., 17, 33
- Alqasham, 2021, Coherence and cohesion in saudi EFL learners’ essay writing: A study at a tertiary-level institution., Asian EFL J. Res. Artic., 28, 8
- Arabi, 2014, Explication of conjunction errors in a corpus of written discourse by sudanese english majors., Arab World Engl. J., 5, 111
- Boukra, 2019, The effect of explicit instruction of grammatical cohesive devices on students’ paragraph quality
- 2020, Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume.
- Folse, 2020, Great writing 2: Great paragraphs.
- Halliday, 1976, Cohesion in english (English language series; NO. 9)
- Khelifii, 2014, The use of cohesive devices in paragraph writing case study: Second year LMD students at Biskra University, Algeria
- Tsareva, 2010, Grammatical cohesion in argumentative essays by Norwegean and Russian learners
- Yousif, 2021, Examining the influence of using cohesive devices to develop academic writing to students at university level., Sust J. Linguist. Lit. Stud., 22, 109
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Asnas, S. A. M., & Hidayanti, I. (2024) · Journal on English as a Foreign Language · doi:10.23971/jefl.v14i1.7472 · Cited by 37
Sanosi, A. (2024) · Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics · doi:10.17509/ijal.v14i1.70418 · Cited by 23
A Systematic Review of Interventions Improving University Students’ EFL Writing Competence
Zhang, D., Tan, J. T. A., & Roy, S. S. (2023) · International Journal of Learning Teaching and Educational Research · doi:10.26803/ijlter.22.10.6 · Cited by 17
Sholahudin, S., Idris, I. M. A., & Abdurahman, M. (2025) · Aphorisme Journal of Arabic Language Literature and Education · doi:10.37680/aphorisme.v6i2.8329 · Cited by 8
The evolving trajectory of conjunction use in the ELT research articles
Safari, M., & Mahdavirad, F. (2024) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2024.1337836 · Cited by 5
Maharani, S., & Yunita, W. (2023) · Jurnal Lebesgue Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika Matematika dan Statistika · doi:10.46306/lb.v4i3.460 · Cited by 3
Does Explicit Instruction Drive Improvement in Writing and Collocation?
Arlius, Y., & Jufrizal, J. (2024) · Voices of English Language Education Society · doi:10.29408/veles.v8i2.26026 · Cited by 1
Navigating AI in Producing Cohesion Devices in the Preparatory Paragraph of the Essay
Maisa, M., Agustien, N. S., Fanany, S. S., Wirabhakti, A., & Kereibayeva, A. (2025) · Studies in Learning and Teaching · doi:10.46627/silet.v6i2.642
Linguistic Competence and Academic Essay Writing Ability of Grade 9 Students
Darong, M., Gallosa, T., & Futalan, M. C. (2026) · Journal of interdisciplinary perspectives · doi:10.69569/jip.2026.088
Susilowati, T., Maghfiroh, A., & Fachriza, A. (2026) · Voices of English Language Education Society · doi:10.29408/veles.v10i1.31865
Vakili, P. (2026) · Georgia Journal of Literacy · doi:10.56887/galiteracy.205
Albayyan, A. A. A., Nuraini, S., Setyaji, A., & Abdulwahhab, A. (2026) · Datokarama English Education Journal · doi:10.24239/dee.v7i1.160
Alalwi, F. S., Alqahtani, N. R., Jamshed, M., & Ahmmed, M. F. (2026) · World Journal of English Language · doi:10.5430/wjel.v16n5p197
Self-citationHong, X., Niu, R., & Zheng, Y. (2026) · IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2025-0258
Nuwagaba, L., Isa, S. M., & Kintu, J. (2026) · Journal of Educational Research and Practice. · doi:10.70376/jerp.v4i2.442
Aminoroaya, H., & Najafi, A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9805121/v1
Muryati, S., Sukarno, Wicaksana, M. F., Kusumaningsih, D., & Devi, D. A. (2026) · International Journal of Applied Educational Research (IJAER) · doi:10.59890/ijaer.v4i3.2
Alcaraz, D. I. M., & Ariza, M. Á. A. (2026) · Journal of Communication Language and Culture · doi:10.33093/jclc.2026.6.2.2
Puadi, P., & Adani, S. (2026) · Jurnal Pustaka Cendekia Pendidikan · doi:10.70292/jpcp.v4i1.569
Zhang, L. (2026) · Advanced Electromagnetics · doi:10.7716/aem.v15i3.3157
Dictogloss as a Tool for Self-Study of Conjunctions
Taguchi, A. (2026) · doi:10.37546/jaltpcp2025-23
Dictogloss-based instruction and conjunction use in Palestinian tenth-grade EFL learners
Abukhiran, A. J., & Özütürk, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1935764
EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN COHESION DEVICES: A STUDY OF EFFECTS ON EFL STUDENTS' ESSAY WRITING
Aljafen, B. S. (2025) · TPM Testing, psychometrics, methodology in applied psychology
Examining Logical Connectives and Person Markers in P4 Learners' Biographies
Nigam, K. (2024) · Anusandhanvallari
Saroh, Y. (2026) · Acuity Journal of English Language Pedagogy Literature and Culture · doi:10.35974/f99yyc11
Recurrent Multi-word Sequences: Syntactic Structure and Function in EFL Student Writing Texts
Talib, R. R., Tanipu, Z., Ali, S. W., Mahmud, M., & Gusasi, I. N. (2026) · IDEAS Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning Linguistics and Literature
Nazarina, E., Rofiqoh, R., Sadilia, S., & Patmasari, A. (2026) · IDEAS Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning Linguistics and Literature
The Use of English Conjunctions by Saudi EFL Learners and the Influence of Proficiency Level
Alhassani, A. (2026) · University of Tabuk Journal for Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.68114/1658-8797.1073
Abdimurodov, D., & Muhamadiyeva, M. (2026) · Pedagogy and Psychology in the Modern World · doi:10.70413/zdpp-v05-i10-s39141
Exploring Conjunctions as Textual Themes in Indonesian EFL Students’ Analytical Exposition Texts
Nurullita, A. P. (2026) · Enrich. · doi:10.36546/enrich.v7i1.1960
Metadata
- Authors
- Alawerdy, A. S., & Alalwi, F. S.
- Affiliations
- Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Alalwi, Fahd Shehail
- ORCID
- Alalwi, Fahd Shehail
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2022-11-28
- Volume
- 13
- Pages
- 1053310-1053310
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9742365
- OpenAlex
- W4310261181
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 6.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
- Deanship of Scientific Research, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- conjunctions, cohesion, EFL writing, explicit instruction, paragraph writing, cohesive devices, Saudi EFL learners, university students
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
