CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34

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

Mawlawi Diab, Nuwar·2016·System
DOI 10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 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
  2. Berger, 1990, The effects of peer and self-feedback, CATESOL Journal, 3, 21, 10.5070/B5.36654 · DOI
  3. Bitchener, 2009, The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback, ELT Journal, 63, 204, 10.1093/elt/ccn043 · DOI
  4. Bitchener, 2010, The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: a ten month investigation, Applied Linguistics, 31, 193, 10.1093/applin/amp016 · DOI
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Cresswell, 2000, Self-monitoring in student writing, ELT Journal, 54, 235, 10.1093/elt/54.3.235 · DOI
  9. 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
  10. De Guerrero, 2000, Activating the ZPD: mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision, The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51, 10.1111/0026-7902.00052 · DOI
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Ferris, 2013, Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers, Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307, 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 · DOI
  14. 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
  15. Foster, 2005, Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms, Applied Linguistics, 26, 402, 10.1093/applin/ami014 · DOI
  16. Hanaoka, 2006, Exploring the role of models in promoting noticing in L2 writing, JACET Bulletin, 42, 1
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Xiang, 2004, Encouraging self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students, ELT Journal, 58, 238, 10.1093/elt/58.3.238 · DOI
  32. Yang, 2011, Exploring the effectiveness of using peer evaluation and teacher feedback in college students' writing, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20, 144
  33. Zheng, 2007, A study of peer error feedback, US-China Foreign Language, 5, 25

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 34

Metadata

Authors
Mawlawi Diab, N.
Venue
System
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
57
Pages
55-65
ISSN
0346-251X
DOI
10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014
Cited by
34
References
7
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
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