CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 207EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications

Ferris, Dana R., Pezone, Susan, Tade, Cathy R., Tinti, Sharee·1997·Journal of Second Language Writing
DOI 10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90032-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90032-1

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The usefulness of marking codes has been questioned by Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001), who found that students' performance in error correction based on errors located by teachers was not significantly different when students were provided with codes or symbols.

    “The usefulness of marking codes has, however, been questioned by Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001), who found that students' performance in error correction based on errors located by teachers was not significantly different when students were provided with codes (or symbols).”

    From Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? (2005) · cites this paper as Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S.
Affiliations
  • California State University, Sacramento (US)
  • American River College (US)
  • Sacramento City College (US)
Corresponding author
Ferris, Dana R.
ORCID
Ferris, Dana R.
Venue
Journal of Second Language Writing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-05
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
155-182
ISSN
1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90032-1
OpenAlex
W1981010062
Cited by
207
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 5
FWCI
36.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Second Language 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 › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
teacher commentary, written feedback, ESL writing, teacher response strategies, student ability, L2 writing instruction

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