Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 456

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality

Open access
Berg, E.Cathrine·1999·Journal of Second Language Writing
DOI 10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80115-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Since the late 1980s, peer response to writing has gained increasing attention in the English as Second Language (ESL) field. Whereas affective benefits have been reported in the literature, little is known about the effects of peer response on ESL students' revision and writing outcomes. This study investigates these effects and also considers an often-cited suggestion for successful peer response, that is, training students to effectively participate in the peer response activity. The principal question addressed by the study is whether trained peer response shapes ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Effects of trained peer response were investigated through a comparison of 46 ESL students divided into two groups, one trained in how to participate in peer response to writing and the other not trained. Revision types were identified based on a taxonomy that discriminates between two types of changes: those that affect text meaning and those that do not (Faigley & Witte, 1981). Writing quality was determined by a holistic rating procedure of first versus revised drafts. Results of the investigation indicate that trained peer response positively affected ESL students' revision types and quality of texts.

Overview

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/s1060-3743(99)80115-5

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Bamberg, 1978, Composition instruction does make a difference: a comparison of college freshman in regular and remedial English courses, Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 47, 10.58680/rte197817883 · doi:10.58680/rte197817883
  2. Benesch, 1984, Improving peer response: collaboration between teachers and students, Urbana, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service #ED 243 113
  3. Berg, 1999, Preparing ESL students for peer response, TESOL Journal, 8, 20, 10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00171.x · doi:10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00171.x
  4. Bracewell, 1978, The development of audience awareness in writing, Urbana, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service #ED 154 433
  5. Bridwell, 1980, Revising strategies in twelfth grade students' transactional writing, Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197, 10.58680/rte198015795 · DOI
  6. Carson, 1994, Writing groups: cross-cultural issues, Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17, 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90003-5 · DOI
  7. Chenoweth, 1987, The need to teach rewriting, ELT Journal, 41, 25, 10.1093/elt/41.1.25 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Connor, 1994, Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much impact on revision?, Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257, 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90019-1 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Gumming, 1996, Tutoring second language text revision: does the approach to instruction or language of communication make a difference?, Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 197, 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90002-8 · DOI
  10. Faigley, 1981, Analyzing revision, College Composition and Communication, 32, 400, 10.58680/ccc198115887 · doi:10.58680/ccc198115887 · Paper page
  11. Flower, 1981, A cognitive process theory of writing, College Composition and Communication, 32, 365, 10.58680/ccc198115885 · DOI · Paper page
  12. George, 1984, Working with peer groups in the composition classroom, College Composition and Communication, 35, 320, 10.58680/ccc198414871 · doi:10.58680/ccc198414871
  13. Hafernik, 1983, The how and why of peer editing in the ESL writing class, Urbana, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service #ED 253 064
  14. Hawisher, 1987, The effects of word processing on the revision strategies of college freshmen, Research in the Teaching of English, 21, 145, 10.58680/rte198715583 · DOI
  15. Leki, 1990, Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes, CATESOL Journal, 3, 5, 10.5070/B5.36653 · DOI
  16. Mangelsdorf, 1992, ESL student response stances in a peer review task, Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235, 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90005-A · DOI
  17. Mittan, 1989, The peer review process: harnessing students' communicative power, 207
  18. Moore, 1986, Teaching students how to evaluate writing, TESOL Newsletter, 20, 23
  19. Nelson, 1992, An L2 writing group: task and social dimension, Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171, 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90002-7 · DOI
  20. Nelson, 1993, Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student, TESOL Journal, 2, 23
  21. Nystrand, 1984, Learning to write by talking about writing: a summary of research on intensive peer review in expository writing instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Urbana, IL. ERIC Document Reproduction Service #ED 255 914
  22. Nystrand, 1989, A social-interactive model of writing, Written Communication, 6, 66, 10.1177/0741088389006001005 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Perl, 1979, The composing process of unskilled college writers, Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317, 10.58680/rte201117867 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Reither, 1989, Writing as collaboration, College English, 51, 855, 10.58680/ce198911257 · doi:10.58680/ce198911257
  25. Schumaker, 1982, Error monitoring: a learning strategy for improving adolescent performance, Vol. 3, 170
  26. Stanley, 1992, Coaching student writers to become effective peer evaluators, Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217, 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90004-9 · DOI
  27. Witbeck, 1976, Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL composition lessons, TESOL Quarterly, 10, 321, 10.2307/3585709 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Berg, E. C.
Venue
Journal of Second Language Writing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-09
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
215-241
ISSN
1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80115-5
OpenAlex
W2008461429
Cited by
456
References
5
FWCI
17.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.