The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision
Abstract
Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development and its related scaffolding metaphor serve as the theoretical basis for the study of peer collaboration in the English as a Second Language (ESL) writing classroom. The purpose of the study was to observe the mechanisms by which strategies of revision take shape and develop in the interpsychological space created when 2 learners are working in their respective ZPDs. A microgenetic approach was adopted to analyze the interaction produced by 2 intermediate ESL college students (a “reader” and a “writer”) as they worked collaboratively in revising a narrative text written by one of them. Although in the first half of the revision session the reader played a crucial role as mediator, both reader and writer became active partners in the revision task with guided support moving reciprocally between each other. In general, results showed that in second language (L2) peer revision scaffolding may be mutual rather than unidirectional.
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
Cites
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964) · Bulletin of the Orton Society · doi:10.1007/bf02928399 · Cited by 20,704
THE ROLE OF TUTORING IN PROBLEM SOLVING *
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x · Cited by 8,851
Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction
Mendonça, C. O., Johnson, K. E., & Mendonca, C. O. (1994) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3587558 · Cited by 446
Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class
Zhang, S. (1995) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1 · Cited by 405
ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90010-8 · Cited by 298
Cited by
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
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
“What Do You Want to Say?” How Adolescents Use Translanguaging to Expand Learning Opportunities
Martin-Beltrán, M. (2014) · International Multilingual Research Journal · doi:10.1080/19313152.2014.914372 · Cited by 186
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1 · Cited by 182
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
Metadata
- Authors
- De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S.
- Venue
- The Modern Language Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-68
- ISSN
- 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-4781
- OpenAlex
- W2120238058
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 32.60
- 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: Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
- The paper
- De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
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.
