Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions

Journal of Second Language Writing

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 377-403

  Jarvis, Scott ^a   Grant, Leslie ^b   Bikowski, Dawn ^a   Ferris, Dana ^c  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cluster analysis; Highly rated compositions; Linguistic features; Multiple profiles

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347122991     PISSN: 10603743     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Biber D. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings Language 62 1986 384-411
2. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Biesenbach-Lucas S. Meloni C. Weasenforth D. Use of cohesive features in ESL students' e-mail and word-processed texts: A comparative study Computer Assisted Language Learning 13 2000 221-237
5. Burrough-Boenisch J. Examining present tense conventions in scientific writing in the light of reader reactions to three Dutch-authored discussions English for Specific Purposes 22 2003 5-24
6. Carlson, S., Bridgeman, B., Camp, R., & Waanders, J. (1985). Relationship of admission test scores to writing performance of native and non-native speakers of English (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
7. 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.
8. Cheng X. Steffensen M. Metadiscourse: A technique for improving student writing Research in the Teaching of English 30 1996 149-181
9. Connor U. Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive students writing Research in the Teaching of English 24 1990 67-87
10. Crismore A. Metadiscourse and discourse processes: Interactions and issues Discourse Processes 13 1990 191-205
11. Crismore A. Markkanen R. Steffensen M. Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students Written Communication 10 1993 39-71
12. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Ferris, D. (1991). Syntactic and lexical characteristics of ESL student writing: A multidimensional study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
14. Ferris D. Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency TESOL Quarterly 28 1994 414-420
15. Foster P. Skehan P. The influence of planning and task type on second language performance Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18 1996 299-323
16. Frase, L., Faletti, J., Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1999). Computer analysis of the TOEFL Test of Written English (TOEFL Research Rep. No. 64). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
17. Gonzalez-Bueno M. Perez L. Electronic mail in foreign language writing: A study of grammatical and lexical accuracy, and quantity of language Foreign Language Annals 33 2000 189-198
18. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. London: Longman.
19. Grant L. Ginther A. Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences Journal of Second Language Writing 9 2000 123-145
20. Hewings M. Hewings A. "It is interesting to note that ...": A comparative study of anticipatory 'it' in student and published writing English for Specific Purposes 21 2002 367-383
21. Hinkel E. Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts Applied Language Learning 12 2001 111-132
22. Hyland K. Writing without conviction? Hedges in science research articles Applied Linguistics 17 1996a 433-454
23. Hyland K. Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts Language Awareness 9 1996b 179-197
24. Hyland K. Options of identity in academic writing ELT Journal 56 2002 351-358
25. Intaraprawat P. Steffensen M. The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays Journal of Second Language Writing 4 1995 253-272
26. Jarvis S. Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity Language Testing 19 2002a 57-84
27. Jarvis S. Topic continuity in L2 English article use Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 2002b 387-418
28. Jin, W. (2001). A quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students' writing: Variations across genres and proficiency levels (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452 726).
29. Kaplan R. Grabe W. A modern history of written discourse analysis Journal of Second Language Writing 11 2002 191-223
30. Li Y. Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities System 28 2000 229-245
31. Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners' written English. Malmö, Sweden: CWK Gleerup.
32. Longo B. Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion Technical Communication 41 1994 348-352
33. Master P. Generic "the" in Scientific American English for Specific Purposes 6 1987 165-186
34. Master P. Teaching the English articles as a binary system TESOL Quarterly 24 1990 461-478
35. Master, P. (1996). Systems of English Grammar: An introduction for language teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
36. Master P. The English article system: Acquisition, function, and pedagogy System 25 1997 215-232
37. McClure E. Mir M. Cadierno T. What do you include in a narrative? A comparison of the written narratives of Mexican and American fourth and ninth graders Monograph Series 4 1993 209-224
38. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. NY: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. Reid J. A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers Journal of Second Language Writing 1 1992 79-107
42. Reppen, R. (1994). Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
43. Rubin J. What the "good language learner" can teach us TESOL Quarterly 9 1975 41-51
44. Shaw P. Liu E. What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied Linguistics 19 1998 225-254
45. 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.
46. TOEFL Test of Written English Guide. (1992). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
47. 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.
48. Vande Kopple W. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse College Composition and Communication 36 1985 82-95
49. Yuen, H. (2000). A cluster-based approach for identifying East Asian economies: A foundation for monetary integration. Department of Economics Working Paper Series, Department of Economics, National University of Singapore.