CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 450Writing and Handwriting EducationLinguistics and Education ResearchDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision

Flower, Linda, Hayes, John R., Carey, Linda, Schriver, Karen, Stratman, James·1986·College Composition & Communication
DOI 10.2307/357381
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Linda Flower, John R. Hayes, Linda Carey, Karen Schriver, James Stratman, Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 16-55

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.58680/ccc198611246

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 act of providing peer feedback requires students to actively (re)consider the assignment criteria, which may improve their own subsequent writing performance.

    “The act of providing peer feedback also requires students to actively (re)consider the assignment criteria, which may improve their own subsequent writing performance (Flower et al. 1986; Patchan and Schunn 2015).”

    From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Flower et al. 1986

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J.
Venue
College Composition & Communication
Publisher
National Council of Teachers of English
Published
1986-02-01
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
16-55
ISSN
  • 0010-096X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9006
DOI
10.2307/357381
OpenAlex
W2733560493
Cited by
450
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
FWCI
76.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
College Composition and Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Writing and Handwriting Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Linguistics and Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
writing revision, revision strategies, writing instruction, writing process

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