Cited by 124EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL

Open access
Van Steendam, Elke, Rijlaarsdam, Gert, Sercu, Lies, Van den Bergh, Huub·2010·Learning and Instruction

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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. 2010

    The Discussion (section 4; page unavailable) explicitly says the hypothesis that observation would outperform practising was falsified: its effectiveness depended on the subsequent emulation setting. Observation helped when followed by collaborative emulation, but practising followed by individual emulation was as effective or better on the posttest revision score. The paper therefore does not support the sentence’s unqualified claim that modelling was more effective than guided practice. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [7]7. Rijlaarsdam, G. (Ed.), Studies in writing, Vol. 13 (pp. 157e170). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  2. [20]20. Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Towards knowledge in writing: Illustration from revision studies. New York: Springer.
  3. [26]26. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Learning disabled and normally achieving students' knowledge of the writing and the composing process, attitude to writing and self-efficacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237e249.
  4. [34]34. MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2004). Revision with struggling writers. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes. In Rijlaarsdam, G. (Ed.), Studies in writing, Vol. 13 (pp. 125e137). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  5. [46]46. A double challenge. In R. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 157e190). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
Learning and Instruction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
316-327
ISSN
0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157381667
Cited by
124
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
51.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • 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 › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
peer feedback, social cognitive model, observation, practice, strategy acquisition, EFL writing, business English, global feedback

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