CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Tracing the path toward self-regulated revision: An interplay of instructor feedback, peer feedback, and revision goals

Open access
Li, Wentao, Zhang, Fuhui·2021·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612088PMC PMC7892436
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Building upon Zimmerman’s socio-cognitive view of self-regulation, we explored EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students’ revision and the likely contribution to revision from three salient self-regulating sources: peer feedback, instructor feedback, and revision goals. Data was obtained from 70 Chinese EFL students in a writing class through a 300-word online writing assignment involving online instructor and peer feedback, free-response revision goals, and a required revision. We closely coded students’ revision and then used the same coding scheme to analyze the relative levels of association of revision changes with peer comments, instructor comments and revision goals. We found that: (a) the majority of revision changes have been triggered by three mediating sources, with revision goals as the most significant contributing source. Additionally, most revision changes come from a combination of two or three sources, with the overlap of peer feedback and revision goals accounting for the biggest overlapping contribution for both high and low-level revisions; (b) as for the relationship among the three sources, no significant difference was found between revision goals’ overlap rate with peer feedback and their overlap rate with instructor feedback. Instructor feedback and peer feedback did not overlap very much. Findings suggest that students could revise beyond instructor and peer feedback in their revision efforts guided by their own reflective goals, and peer feedback could function as a more productive and multiple-reader source of revision in comparison with instructor feedback. This study also provided evidence for students’ self-regulated learning of writing through the use of self-regulating resources and charted a route for how writing could be improved.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612088

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Li and Zhang (2021) showed that students often use feedback less to overhaul high-quality drafts and more to validate their revision goals and ensure alignment with academic expectations.

    “As Li and Zhang (2021) showed, students often use feedback less to overhaul high-quality drafts and more to validate their revision goals and ensure alignment with academic expectations.”

    From Directive, metacognitive, or a blend of both? A comparison of AI-generated feedback types on student engagement, confidence, and outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as Li and Zhang, 2021

    The General Discussion reports that revision goals often coincided with feedback when students made revisions, supporting a link between feedback and goals. But the Results and Discussion report substantial targeted revisions and improved draft ratings; they do not show that students primarily used feedback to validate goals rather than revise high-quality drafts, or to check alignment with academic expectations. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 127 · Cited by 26

Research works printed but not linked: 102

  1. Alitto J. Malecki C. K. Coyle S. Santuzzi A. (2016). Examining the effects of adult and peer mediated goal setting and feedback interventions for writing: two studies. J. Sch. Psychol. 56 89– 109. 10.1016/j.jsp.2016.03.002 27268571 · DOI
  2. Altstaedter J. (2018). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 12 137– 151. 10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052 · DOI
  3. Berg E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. J. Second Lang. Writ. 8 215– 241. 10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80115-5 · DOI
  4. Biber D. Nekrasova T. Horn B. (2011). The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1-English and L2-Writing Development: A Meta-Analysis, TOEFL iBT RR-11-05. Princeton: Educational Testing Service 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bogolin L. Harris L. Norris L. (2003). Improving Writing Through the Use of Goal Setting. Chicago: Saint Xavier University. Master of Arts thesis.
  6. Boud D. Molloy E. (2013). Feedback in Higher and Professional Education: Understanding it Anddoing it Well. London: Routledge 10.4324/9780203074336 · DOI
  7. Bown J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language learning: a situated view. Modern Lang. J. 93 570– 583. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00965.x · DOI
  8. Butler D. L. Winne P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Rev. Educ. Res. 65 245– 274. 10.3102/00346543065003245 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Butler G. Y. (2018). The role of context in young learners’ processes for responding to self-assessment items. Modern Lang. J. 102 242– 261. 10.1111/modl.12459 · DOI
  10. Carless D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assess. Educ. 12 39– 54. 10.1080/0969594042000333904 · DOI
  11. Carless D. (2019). Longitudinal perspectives on students’ experiences of feedback: a need for teacher-student partnerships. Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 39 425– 438. 10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455 · DOI
  12. Caulk N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Q. 28 181– 188. 10.2307/3587209 · DOI
  13. Chang S. C. Hsu T. C. Jong M. S. Y. (2020). Integration of the peer assessment approach with a virtual reality design system for learning earth science. Comp. Educ. 146: 103758 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103758 · DOI
  14. Cho H. (2017). Synchronous web-based collaborative writing: factors mediating interaction among second-language writers. J. Second Lang. Writ. 36 37– 51. 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.05.013 · DOI
  15. Cho K. MacArthur C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learn. Inst. 20 328– 338. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006 · DOI
  16. Cho K. Schunn C. D. Wilson R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of Writing from Instructor and Student Perspectives. J. Educ. Psychol. 98 891– 901. 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Connor U. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9781139524599 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Crews D. Aragon S. (2007). Developmental education writing: persistence and goal attainment among community college students. Commu. Coll. J. Res. Pract. 31 637– 652. 10.1080/10668920600859715 · DOI
  19. Cumming A. (2006). Goals for Academic Writing: ESL Students and Their Instructors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.15 · DOI
  20. DiDonato N. C. (2013). Effective self-and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: an analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instr. Sci. 41 25– 47. 10.1007/s11251-012-9206-9 · DOI
  21. Duijnhouwer H. Prins J. Stokking K. (2010). Progress feedback effects on students’ writing mastery goal, self-efficacy beliefs, and performance. Educ. Res. Eval. 16 53– 74. 10.1080/13803611003711393 · DOI
  22. Ferreti R. MacArthur C. Dowdy N. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. J. Educ. Psychol. 92 694– 702. 10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694 · DOI
  23. Ferretti R. Lewis W. Andrews-Weckerly S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’argumentative writing strategies? J. Educ. Psychol. 101 577– 589. 10.1037/a0014702 · DOI
  24. Ferris D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Q. 29 33– 53. 10.2307/3587804 · DOI
  25. Ferris D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum 10.4324/9781410607201 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Ferris D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 32 181– 201. 10.1017/s0272263109990490 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Ferris D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assess. Writ. 19 6– 23. 10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004 · DOI
  28. Ferris D. R. Pezone S. Tade C. R. Tinti S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: descriptions and implications. J. Second Lang. Writ. 6 155– 182. 10.1016/s1060-3743(97)90032-1 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Flower L. Hayes J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. Coll. Compos. Commun. 32 365– 387. 10.2307/356600 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Gan Z. (2020). How learning motivation influences feedback experience and preference in Chinese university EFL students. Front. Psychol. 11: 496. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00496 32265798 PMC7100336 · DOI
  31. Goldstein L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. J. Second Lang. Writ. 13 63– 80. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.006 · DOI
  32. Graham S. MacArthur C. Schwartz S. Voth T. (1992). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal-setting. Except. Child. 58 322– 334. 10.1177/001440299205800405 1544362 · DOI
  33. Guardado M. Shi L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Comp. Compos. 24 443– 461. 10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002 · DOI
  34. Han Y. Hyland F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. J. Second Lang. Writ. 30 31– 44. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002 · DOI
  35. Han Y. Xu Y. (2019). Student feedback literacy and rngagement with feedback: a case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teach. High. Educ. 10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410 · DOI
  36. Hansen B. Wills H. (2014). The effects of goal setting, contingent reward, and instruction on writing skills. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 47 171– 175. 10.1002/jaba.92 24114533 · DOI
  37. Hawe E. Dixon H. (2017). Assessment for learning: a catalyst for student self-regulation. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42 1181– 1192. 10.1080/02602938.2016.1236360 · DOI
  38. Heath S. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511841057 · DOI
  39. Hu J. Gao X. (2018). Self-regulated strategic writing for academic studies in an english-medium-instruction context. Lang. Educ. 32, 1– 20. 10.1080/09500782.2017.1373804 · DOI
  40. Hyland K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511667251 · DOI
  41. Hyland K. (2016). Teaching and Researching Writing, 3rd Edn London: Routledge 10.4324/9781315717203 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Hyland K. Hyland F. (eds) (2006a). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9781139524742 · DOI
  43. Hyland K. Hyland F. (2006b). State-of-the-art-article: feedback on second language students’ writing. Lang. Teach. 39 83– 101. 10.1017/s0261444806003399 · DOI
  44. Kluger A. N. Denisi A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: ahistorical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol. Bull. 119 254– 284. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Langan J. (2011). College Writing Skills with Readings. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
  46. Lee I. Coniam D. (2013). Introducing assessment for learning for EFL writing in an assessment of learning examination-driven system in Hong Kong. J. Second Lang. Writ. 22 34– 50. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.11.003 · DOI
  47. Lee M. Evans M. (2019). Investigating the operating mechanisms of the sources of L2 writing self-efficacy at the stages of giving and receiving peer feedback. Modern Lang. J. 103 831– 847. 10.1111/modl.12598 · DOI
  48. Li H. Zhang L. Parr M. (2020). Small-group student talk before individual writing in tertiary English writing classrooms in China: nature and insights. Front. Psychol. 11: 570565. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.570565 33041938 PMC7525068 · DOI
  49. Li W. Zhang F. (2019). “ A study of features and effects of self-regulated revision in literature review writing,” in Proceedings of the Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Atlanta, GA.
  50. Lin C. J. (2019). An online peer assessment approach to supporting mind-mapping flipped learning activities for college English writing courses. J. Comp. Educ. 6 385– 415. 10.1007/s40692-019-00144-6 · DOI
  51. Liu J. Hansen J. G. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.8952 · DOI
  52. Liu N. F. Carless D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teach. High. Educ. 11 279– 290. 10.1080/13562510600680582 · DOI · Paper page
  53. MacArthur C. A. Philippakos Z. A. (2013). Self-regulated strategy instruction in developmental writing: a design research project. Commun. Coll. Rev. 41 176– 195. 10.1177/0091552113484580 · DOI
  54. Manchón R. M. (2011). Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.31 · DOI
  55. Manchón R. M. (2017). The potential impact of multimodal composition on language learning. J. Second Lang. Writ. 38 94– 95. 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.008 · DOI
  56. Matsuda P. K. Xu F. (2019). DD Editors’ introduction: the place of language in second languagewriting. J. Second Lang. Writ. 46: 100674 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100674 · DOI
  57. Middleton M. J. Midgley C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: an underexplored aspect of goal theory. J. Educ. Psychol. 89 710– 718. 10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.710 · DOI
  58. Min H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System 33 293– 308. 10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 · DOI
  59. Min H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. J. Second Lang. Writ. 15 118– 141. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Min H. T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. J. Second Lang. Writ. 31 43– 57. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.004 · DOI
  61. Nicol D. J. Macfarlane-Dick D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ. 31 199– 218. 10.1080/03075070600572090 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Page-Voth V. Graham S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems. J. Educ. Psychol. 91 230– 240. 10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.230 · DOI
  63. Pajares F. Britner S. Valiante G. (2000). Writing and science achievement goals of middle school students. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 406– 422. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1027 11001784 · DOI
  64. Paris S. Byrnes J. Paris H. (2001). “ Constructing theories, identities, and actions of self-regulated learners,” in Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, eds Zimmerman B. Schunk D. (Milton Park: Taylor & Francis).
  65. Pintrich P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. 31 459– 470. 10.1016/s0883-0355(99)00015-4 · DOI
  66. Pintrich P. R. Wolters C. A. Baxter G. P. (2000). “ Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning,” in Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition, eds Schraw G. Impara J. (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska), 43– 97.
  67. Polio C. (2019). Keeping the language in second language writing classes. J. Second Lang. Writ. 46: 100675 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100675 · DOI
  68. Qu W. (2017). For L2 writers, it is always the problem of the language. J. Second Lang. Writ. 38 92– 93. 10.1016/j.jslw.2017.10.007 · DOI
  69. Saito H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: a case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Can. J. 11 46– 70. 10.18806/tesl.v11i2.633 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Schunk D. H. Greene J. A. (2018). Handbook of Self-regulation of Learning and Performance, 2nd Edn New York, NY: Routledge 10.4324/9781315697048 · DOI
  71. Schunk H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. 25 71– 86. 10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6 26627889 · DOI
  72. Schunk H. Swartz C. W. (1993b). Goals and progress feedback: effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18 337– 354. 10.1006/ceps.1993.1024 · DOI
  73. Schunk H. Swartz C. W. (1993a). Writing strategy instruction with gifted students: effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Rev. 15 225– 230. 10.1080/02783199309553512 · DOI
  74. Schunn C. D. Godley A. DeMartino S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. J. Adolesc. Adult Literacy 60 13– 23. 10.1002/jaal.525 · DOI
  75. Sheen Y. Wright D. Moldawa A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37 556– 569. 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002 · DOI
  76. Silver M. S. (2013). Use of Teacher-Supported Goal Setting to Improve Writing Quality, Quantity and Self-Efficacy in Middle School Writers. Ph.D dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.
  77. Teng L. Zhang L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. Modern Lang. J. 100 674– 701. 10.1111/modl.12339 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Topping K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educ. Psychol. 25 631– 645. 10.1080/01443410500345172 · DOI
  79. Unsworth L. Mills A. K. (2020). English language teaching of attitude and emotion in digital multimodal composition. J. Second Lang. Writ. 47: 100712 10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100712 · DOI
  80. Wu Y. Schunn C. D. (2020). From feedback to revisions: effects of feedback features and perceptions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 60: 101826 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826 · DOI
  81. Yang M. Badger R. Yu Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. J. Second Lang. Writ. 15 179– 200. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 · DOI · Paper page
  82. Yilmaz Soylu M. Zeleny M. G. Zhao R. Bruning R. H. Dempsey M. S. Kauffman D. F. (2017). Secondary students’ writing achievement goals: assessing the mediating effects of mastery and performance goals on writing self-efficacy, affect, and writing achievement. Front. Psychol. 8: 1406. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01406 28878707 PMC5573427 · DOI
  83. Yu S. (2019). Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: voices from Master’s students in the Macau EFL context. Assess. Writ. 40 42– 52. 10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.004 · DOI
  84. Yu S. Hu G. (2017). Understanding university students’ peer feedback practices in EFL writing: insights from a case study. Assess. Writ. 33 25– 35. 10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004 · DOI
  85. Yu S. Lee I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: a case study from an activity theory perspective. Lang. Teach. Res. 19 572– 593. 10.1177/1362168814541714 · DOI
  86. Yu S. Zhang Y. Zheng Y. Yuan K. Zhang L. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: a Macau study. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 44 50– 65. 10.1080/02602938.2018.1467879 · DOI
  87. Zamel V. (1985). Responding to students’ writing. TESOL Q. 19 79– 101. 10.2307/822392 · DOI
  88. Zhang F. (2018). A Study of Students’ Self-Regulated Revision on English Writing from A Socio-Cognitive perspective. Ph.D. thesis, Northeast Normal University, Changchun.
  89. Zhang F. Schunn C. D. Baikadi A. (2017). Charting the routes to revision: an interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews. Instr. Sci. 45 679– 707. 10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6 · DOI
  90. Zhang F. Schunn C. D. Li W. Long M. (2020). Changes in the reliability and validity of peer assessment across the college years. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 45 1073– 1087. 10.1080/02602938.2020.1724260 · DOI
  91. Zhao H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: a comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assess. Writ. 15 3– 17. 10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002 · DOI
  92. Zhou J. Zheng Y. Tai J. H. (2020). Grudges and gratitude: the social-affective impacts of peer assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 45, 345– 358. 10.1080/02602938.2019.1643449 · DOI
  93. Ziegler A. N. (2014). Fostering self-regulated learning through the European language portfolio: an embedded mixed methods study. Modern Lang. J. 98 921– 936. 10.1111/modl.12147 · DOI
  94. Zimmerman B. J. (1989). “ Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement,” in Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice, eds Zimmerman B. J. Schunk D. H. (New York, NY: Springer New York). 10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4 · DOI
  95. Zimmerman B. J. (1995). Self-regulation involves more than metacognition: a social cognitive perspective. Educ. Psychol. 30 217– 221. 10.1207/s15326985ep3004_8 33486653 · DOI
  96. Zimmerman B. J. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: a social cognitive perspective. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 22 73– 101. 10.1006/ceps.1997.0919 · DOI · Paper page
  97. Zimmerman B. J. (2000). “ Attainment of self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Regulation, eds Boekaerts M. Pintrich P. R. Zeidner M. (San Diego: Academic Press).
  98. Zimmerman B. J. (2001). “ Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an overview and analysis,” in Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives, eds Zimmerman B. J. Schunk D. H. (Milton Park: Taylor & Francis).
  99. Zimmerman B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. Am. Educ. Res. J. 45 166– 183. 10.3102/0002831207312909 · DOI · Paper page
  100. Zimmerman B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: a social cognitive career path. Educ. Psychol. 48 135– 147. 10.1080/00461520.2013.794676 · DOI · Paper page
  101. Zimmerman B. J. Kitsantas A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: shifting from process to outcome self-regulatory goals. J. Educ. Psychol. 91 241– 250. 10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.241 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Zimmerman B. J. Risemberg R. (1997). Caveats and recommendations about self-regulation of writing: a social cognitive rejoinder. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 22 115– 122. 10.1006/ceps.1997.0921 · DOI

Authors
Li, W., & Zhang, F.
Affiliations
Northeast Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Fuhui
ORCID
Zhang, Fuhui
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2021-02-05
Volume
11
Pages
612088-612088
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612088
PMC
PMC7892436
OpenAlex
W3128030702
Cited by
26
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3
FWCI
13.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
student self-regulation, writing revision, peer feedback, instructor feedback, EFL writing, online writing, self-regulation, Chinese learners of English

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