The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The outcomes, therefore, confirm the contention by Li et al. (2010), Ellis (2011), and Diab (2016) that students produce a higher quality of products because a substantial percentage of explicit e-PF contains a wide lexical range and facilitates the grammar acquisition.”
From Electronic Peer Feedback, EFL Academic Writing and Reflective Thinking: Evidence From a Confucian Context (2020) · cites this paper as Diab (2016)
Citations
Cites
To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 · Cited by 843
Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9 · Cited by 648
The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing
Paulus, T. M. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80117-9 · Cited by 522
LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING: Case Studies
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990532 · Cited by 398
SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING: AN INFORMATION‐PROCESSING PERSPECTIVE1
McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00532.x · Cited by 348
MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.113 · Cited by 303
Revision Workshops: An Alternative to Peer Editing Groups
Graner, M. H. (1987) · The English Journal · doi:10.2307/818540 · Cited by 39
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Abadikakh, 2014, Comparison of the effects of peer- versus self-editing on linguistic accuracy of Iranian students, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20, 113, 10.17576/3L-2014-2003-09 · DOI
- Berger, 1990, The effects of peer and self-feedback, CATESOL Journal, 3, 21, 10.5070/B5.36654 · DOI
- Bitchener, 2009, The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback, ELT Journal, 63, 204, 10.1093/elt/ccn043 · DOI
- Bitchener, 2010, The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: a ten month investigation, Applied Linguistics, 31, 193, 10.1093/applin/amp016 · DOI
- Bitchener, 2010, Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback, Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207, 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 · DOI
- Charles, 1990, Responding to problems in written English using a student self-monitoring technique, ELT Journal, 44, 287, 10.1093/elt/44.4.286 · DOI
- Connor, 1994, Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much impact on revision?, Journal of Second Language Writing, 257, 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90019-1 · DOI
- Cresswell, 2000, Self-monitoring in student writing, ELT Journal, 54, 235, 10.1093/elt/54.3.235 · DOI
- Crinon, 2010, The role of peer feedback in learning to write explanatory texts: why the tutors learn the most, Language Awareness, 19, 111, 10.1080/09658411003746604 · DOI
- De Guerrero, 2000, Activating the ZPD: mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision, The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51, 10.1111/0026-7902.00052 · DOI
- Ellis, 2009, Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function, The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x · DOI
- Ellis, 2008, The effects of focused and unfocused written feedback in an English as a foreign language context, System, 36, 353, 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 · DOI
- Ferris, 2013, Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers, Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307, 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 · DOI
- Ferris, 2001, Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be?, Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161, 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X · DOI · Paper page
- Foster, 2005, Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms, Applied Linguistics, 26, 402, 10.1093/applin/ami014 · DOI
- Hanaoka, 2006, Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing, JACET Bulletin, 42, 1
- Hanaoka, 2012, Noticing and uptake: addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332, 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.008 · DOI
- Lee, 1997, ESL learners' performance in error correction in writing: some implications for teaching, System, 25, 465, 10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00045-6 · DOI
- Mawlawi Diab, 2010, Effects of peer-editing versus self-editing on students' revision of language errors in revised drafts, System, 38, 85, 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.008 · DOI
- Mawlawi Diab, 2011, Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing, Assessing Writing, 16, 274, 10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
- Mawlawi Diab, 2015, Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter?, Assessing Writing, 24, 16, 10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001 · DOI
- Miao, 2006, A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class, Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179, 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 · DOI · Paper page
- Polio, 1998, “If only I had more time:” ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43, 10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 · DOI
- Poverjuc, 2012, Using peer feedback in a master's programme: a multiple case study, Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 465, 10.1080/13562517.2011.641008 · DOI
- Rahimi, 2009, The role of teacher's corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy over time: is learner's mother tongue relevant?, Reading and Writing, 22, 219, 10.1007/s11145-008-9139-5 · DOI
- Riazantseva, 2012, Outcome measure of L2 writing as a mediator of the effects of corrective feedback on students' ability to write accurately, System, 40, 421, 10.1016/j.system.2012.07.005 · DOI
- Sampson, 2012, Coded and uncoded error feedback: effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners' writing, System, 40, 494, 10.1016/j.system.2012.10.001 · DOI
- Sheen, 2007, The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learner's acquisition of articles, TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255, 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x · DOI
- Van Beuningen, 2012, Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing, Language Learning, 62, 1, 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x · DOI
- Van Patten, 2002, Processing instruction, prior awareness and the nature of second language acquisition: a (partial) response to Batstone, Language Awareness, 11, 240, 10.1080/09658410208667059 · DOI
- Xiang, 2004, Encouraging self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students, ELT Journal, 58, 238, 10.1093/elt/58.3.238 · DOI
- Yang, 2011, Exploring the effectiveness of using peer evaluation and teacher feedback in college students' writing, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20, 144
- Zheng, 2007, A study of peer error feedback, US-China Foreign Language, 5, 25
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020914554 · Cited by 68
“The outcomes, therefore, confirm the contention by Li et al. (2010), Ellis (2011), and Diab (2016) that students produce a higher quality of products because a substantial percentage of explicit e-PF contains a wide lexical range and facilitates the grammar acquisition.”
Result
Metadata
- Authors
- Mawlawi Diab, N.
- Venue
- System
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-04
- Volume
- 57
- Pages
- 55-65
- ISSN
- 0346-251X
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 7
- Language
- en
- Funders
- School Research and Development Council (f2014-05)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014
- The paper
- Mawlawi Diab, N. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014