CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers’ Own Writing

Wakabayashi, Reina·2013·English Language Teaching
DOI 10.5539/elt.v6n9p177
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5539/elt.v6n9p177

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Writing process of a paragraph in class 1
Figure 1 Writing process of a paragraph in class 1CC-BY · From the PDF

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.

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?

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

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Sociocognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 54, 314-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.54.3.314 · DOI
  2. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5 · DOI
  3. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 17-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90003-5 · DOI
  4. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90019-1 · DOI
  5. De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interactions in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/328586 · DOI
  6. De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052 · DOI
  7. Diab, N. M. (2010a). Effects of peer versus self-editing on students' revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38, 85-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.008 · DOI
  8. Diab, N. M. (2010b). Peer-editing versus self-editing in the ESL classroom. Proceedings from ISPR 2010: The 2nd International Symposium on Peer Reviewing. Retrieved from http://www.iiis.org/CDs2010/CD2010SCI/ISPR_2010/PapersPdf/VA909UP.pdf
  9. Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16, 274-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
  10. DiCamilla, F., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 609-633.
  11. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf, & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  12. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B Hogue, A. (2008). First Steps in Academic Writing Level 2. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman. · DOI
  13. Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 23, 12-39.
  14. Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294 · DOI
  15. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
  16. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995a). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995b). Student stances during peer response in writing. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Reading and writing: Theory into practice (pp. 118-132). SEAMEO Regional Language Centre: RELC.
  18. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.3.274 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. L. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90005-A · DOI
  20. Mendonça, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587558 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 · DOI
  22. Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Min, H. (2008). Reviewers' stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002 · DOI
  24. Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students' communicative power. In D. M. Johnson, & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
  25. Nakanishi, C. (2008). The effects of trained self-feedback on revision. JACET Journal, 47, 35-49.
  26. Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586965 · DOI
  27. Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586828 · DOI
  28. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  30. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  31. Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. (R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
  32. Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M., (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6 · DOI
  33. Villamil, O. A., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 Writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.491 · DOI
  34. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586773 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Wakabayashi, R.
Venue
English Language Teaching
Publisher
Canadian Center of Science and Education
Published
2013-08-14
Volume
6
Issue
9
ISSN
  • 1916-4750
  • 1916-4742
DOI
10.5539/elt.v6n9p177
Cited by
14
References
7

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: The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers’ Own Writing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5539/elt.v6n9p177
The paper
Wakabayashi, R. (2013). The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers’ Own Writing. English Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n9p177