CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 90EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing

Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi·2011·Assessing Writing
DOI 10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Peer feedback compared to self-assessment showed a small but significant composite effect size of 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.64) based on three studies (Diab 2011; Stellmack et al. 2012; Cahyono and Amrina 2016).

    “Regarding the comparison between peer feedback and self-assessment, the composite effect size of the three available studies that directly make this comparison (Diab 2011; Stellmack et al. 2012; Cahyono and Amrina 2016) was small but significant (0.33 [0.01, 0.64]).”

    From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Diab 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diab, N. M.
Affiliations
Lebanese American University (LB)
Corresponding author
Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi
ORCID
Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi
Venue
Assessing Writing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-10
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
274-292
ISSN
1075-2935 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
OpenAlex
W2004936229
Cited by
90
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
32.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Assessing Writing (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
peer editing, self-editing, student feedback, writing revision, argumentative essay, writing instruction, peer interaction, language learning strategies, English as a foreign language

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