The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Van Steendam et al. (2010, 2014) found that collaborative revision strategy instruction via modelling was more effective than practising with guiding questions.
“The results showed that the collaborative revision strategy instruction via modelling was more effective for improving undergraduates' revision skills than practising the instructed strategy following guiding questions presented in a handout.”
From Learning paths in synthesis writing: Which learning path contributes most to which learning outcome? (2020) · cites this paper as Van Steendam et al. 2014
In “Revision instruction: modelling or learning-by-observation” (page unavailable), the paper reports that Van Steendam et al. (2010) found undergraduate pairs benefited more from observation than practice for L2 revision quality. Its “Instruction” section describes the modelling and handout-guided practice conditions. However, the 2014 study’s “Discussion” describes observation as effective across pair types without establishing the claimed overall superiority over practice in its own results. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 127 · Cited by 32
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [4]4. Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of of written discourse (pp. 345-363). New York: Aca- demic Press.
- [6]6. Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modification of the Hayes and Flower model to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice. Children's writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (Vol. 2, pp. 57-82). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- [25]25. Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Knowledge in writing. Illustration from revision studies. New York: Springer.
- [48]48. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
- [56]56. Oxford University Press. (2001). Oxford computer-based Quick Placement Test (QPT). Oxford, UK: Author.
- Authors
- Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G. C. W., Van den Bergh, H. H., & Sercu, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Venue
- Instructional Science
- Published
- 2014-05-04
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 905-927
- ISSN
- 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1952
- OpenAlex
- W2158083572
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 127
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 18.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Instructional Science (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- ability grouping, heterogeneous grouping, collaborative revision, second language writing, proficiency level, L2 writing instruction
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
