The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation
Abstract
This paper is written for any teacher who has tried or uses the ‘process approach’ to writing, and for any teacher who knows of the approach in theory only, not from practice. The emphasis of the paper is one feedback in the writing process, as feedback is the drive which steers the writer through the process of writing on to the product. Specifically, three types of options for feedback are described and discussed. These are peer feedback, conferencing, and written comments.
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.
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.
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
Cited by
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
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00038-8 · Cited by 521
The Effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: a meta-analysis.
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x · Cited by 175
Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis
Chen, T. (2016) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.960942 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Keh, C. L.
- Venue
- ELT Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1990-10
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 294-304
- ISSN
- 0951-0893 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4526
- OpenAlex
- W2088388223
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
- The paper
- Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
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.
