The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL
Open accessOverview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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
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.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Multilevel analysis techniques and applications
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2002) · Cited by 6,006
Goldstein, H. (2006) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2006.s417 · Cited by 4,960
The Psychology of Written Composition
Cumming, A. H., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/327270 · Cited by 2,806
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(1977) · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-10517-x · Cited by 2,457
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S. W., & Fitzgerald, J. (2005) · Cited by 2,327
Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989) · Springer series in cognitive development · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4 · Cited by 1,926
A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445 · Cited by 1,609 · cited 3×
“They are particularly effective in teaching students criteria for reflecting on and evaluating writing, and thereby improving their revision skills (Englert et al., 2006; Graham & Perin, 2007).”
BackgroundCollaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches
Jones, A. C. (2000) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/s0360-1315(00)00011-7 · Cited by 1,511
Barron, B. (2003) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1 · Cited by 1,446
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
- Hayes, 1987, Cognitive processes in revision, Vol. 2, 176
- MacArthur, 2004, Revision with struggling writers, Vol. 13, 125
- Mittan, 1989, The peer review process: harnessing students' communicative power, 207
- Oxford University Press, 2001
- Rijlaarsdam, 2000, What do writers learn from peer comments on argumentative texts?, Vol. 6, 167
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–124 of 124
Effects of peer feedback and self-assessment on writing
Lorca, A. L., Peltzer, K., Busse, V., & Krause, U.-M. (2026) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102253 · Cited by 4
Sustaining EFL Learners’ Motivation in Writing Classrooms Via Computer-Based and Peer Feedback
Alnasser, S. M. N., & Almoaily, M. (2026) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440261423405 · Cited by 1
“According to Van Steendam et al. (2010, p. 319), feedback provision adequacy refers to ‘detailed feedback which addresses global concerns in a text, uses metalanguage to diagnose textual problems, and suggests specific revisions’.”
ENG Students’ Attitude towards Peer Review
Muzahmi, M. S. A., Bataineh, A., & Douzandeh, E. A. (2024) · Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics · doi:10.32996/jeltal.2024.6.1.8 · Cited by 1
Eika, E. (2021) · English Linguistics Research · doi:10.5430/elr.v10n1p10 · Cited by 1
STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE PRACTICES OF ONLINE PEER- FEEDBACK IN EFL WRITING CLASS
Shofiya, A. (2021) · Lingua Scientia Jurnal Bahasa · doi:10.21274/ls.2021.13.1.125-140 · Cited by 1
Pombo, L., & Loureiro, M. J. (2013) · International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) · doi:10.3991/ijac.v6i2.2829
Tips Towards Tackling Distance Education Modules
Pombo, L., & Moreira, A. C. (2016) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0039-1.ch015
Entrepreneurial pedagogies in the Arts
Papadopoulos, P. M., & Robinson, S. (2015)
Twinning two mathematics teachers teaching Grade 11 Algebra: a strategy for change in practice
Makgakga, S. (2016) · Boloka Institutional Repository (North-west University)
A Study on the Role of Peer Feedback in High School Learners’ Writing
김경숙, & 서영미 (2016) · The Journal of Studies in Language · doi:10.18627/jslg.32.3.201611.357
Harney, O. (2018) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · doi:10.13025/17913
Placing Peer Response at the Center of the Response Construct
Melzer, D. (2020) · ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University)
Souissi, M. A., Kammoun, M. M., Trabelsi, O., Souissi, O., Souissi, H., Chikh, S., Bragazzi, N. L., & Souissi, N. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.34766
Adegbola, F. F., & Popoola, A. A. (2023) · Canadian Journal of Educational and Social Studies · doi:10.53103/cjess.v3i3.144
Küster, M., Gomez, A. P., & Olivares, E. M. (2023) · Estudios pedagógicos · doi:10.4067/s0718-07052023000100219
Mit E-Portfolioarbeit Selbstregulations- und Reflexionsprozesse anregen
Osterrieder, M., & Drechsel, B. (2025) · Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung · doi:10.21240/zfhe/20-1/28
How we learn language collaboratively through technology: a systematic review
Li, Z., & Zhou, Z. (2026) · Journal of Computers in Education · doi:10.1007/s40692-026-00385-2 · Cited by 1
“This instructional model fosters students’ interdependence, shared responsibility, and cognitive development (Gokhale, 1995; Ibáñez et al., 2011; Steendam et al., 2010).”
ÇİFTCİ, H. (2026) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331261469720
Metadata
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
