The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison between Peer Feedback and Automated Feedback in College English Writing: A Case Study
Abstract
As written feedback is an indispensable component of instructing and learning process, the implementation of effective feedback plays a key role in improving non-English majors’ writing skill. Peers and automated writing evaluation systems are new, main sources of feedback providers in college English writing. This paper compares three feedback conditions: individual and group modes in peer feedback and automated feedback. Analysis is made on distribution features from feedback types, dimensions of assessment rubric, aspects of organization and linguistic performance, and reflected attitudes. The findings indicate automated mode and group mode take turns dominating in non-corrective feedback and corrective feedback; group mode takes the lead in both direct and indirect feedback; individual, group and automated modes underemphasize global feedback. Dimensions are found to centre on linguistic performance, followed by organization, content and format, differences and similarities of specific aspects and attitudes are also found in all three modes. Further investigations are undertaken into students’ perceptions towards peer feedback and automated feedback, with their respective merits and demerits summed up. On the basis of all the findings, key elements of sociocultural theory are explored to provide multi-dimensional feedback scaffolding for students of lower-intermediate level in facilitating college English writing.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“This is because they do not consider e-PF providers as 'knowledge authority' (Gielen et al., 2011) and they are influenced by the concept of face (Luo & Liu, 2017; Wang, 2016).”
From Electronic Peer Feedback, EFL Academic Writing and Reflective Thinking: Evidence From a Confucian Context (2020) · cites this paper as Luo & Liu, 2017
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
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488
Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization
Engeström, Y. (2001) · Journal of Education and Work · doi:10.1080/13639080020028747 · Cited by 5,436
Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research
Engeström, Y. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139814744 · Cited by 4,991
Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind
Kozulin, A., & Wertsch, J. V. (1987) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422646 · Cited by 3,341
Developing the theory of formative assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009) · Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 · Cited by 3,301 · cited 1×
“Teacher feedback is a common practice to help students improve their writing skills in English writing class (Black & William, 2009; Wei, 2015), even though its effectiveness still remain debatable (Wei, 2015; Aryadoust & Riazi, 2017).”
BackgroundChandler, J. (2003) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9 · Cited by 1,108
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 · Cited by 706
A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 · Cited by 703
Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class
Rollinson, P. (2005) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/cci003 · Cited by 581
Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation
Keh, C. L. (1990) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/44.4.294 · Cited by 360
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second-Language Students. Mahwah: Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Inc. · DOI · Paper page
- Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and He Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Leggette, H. R., McKim, B. R., & Dunsford, D. (2013). A Case Study of Using Electronic Self-Assessment Rubrics in a Core Curriculum Writing Course. North America Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 6, 2-10.
- Sarie, R. F. (2017). Exploring the Possibility of Using both Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback as Strategy to Improve Students’ Writing Skill in Indonesian Secondary School. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 9, 597-604.
- Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Does Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 147-170. · DOI · Paper page
- Wang, X. L. (2015). A Study on Types and Characteristics of Students’ Written Feedback by Peer-Revision in English Writing. Journal of Beijing City University, 3, 55-59, 65.
- Wei, M. (2015). An Empirical Study into Effects of Feedback on College English Writing. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 22, 43-50.
- Wei, X. Q. (2016). An Investigation into Scaffolding Functions of Learners’ Dictionaries in L2 Writing Teaching. Journal of Lexicography, 3, 1-10.
- Xin, S. (2016). Peer Assessment Accuracy and Self-Revision Differences of English Writing. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 7, 64-70.
- Zhu, Q. J. (2010). Feedback Mechanisms and Teaching of Writing: Implications of Foreign and Domestic Research on College English Writing Teaching. Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology, 3, 160-162.
Cited by
How Teacher and Grammarly Feedback Complement One Another in Myanmar EFL Students’ Writing
Thi, N. K., & Nikolov, M. (2022) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00625-2 · Cited by 77
Pham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020914554 · Cited by 68
Yeung, S. (2025) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2025.101203 · Cited by 70
Wang, D. (2024) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7646 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Luo, Y., & Liu, Y.
- Venue
- Open Journal of Modern Linguistics
- Publisher
- Scientific Research Publishing, Inc.
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 07
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 197-215
- ISSN
- 2164-2818
- 2164-2834
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 27
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.
