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
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
Figures
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“However, little research has been conducted to examine whether e-PF can be incorporated in Confucian heritage culture (CHC) contexts.”
From Electronic Peer Feedback, EFL Academic Writing and Reflective Thinking: Evidence From a Confucian Context (2020) · cites this paper as Wakabayashi, 2013
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.
Citations
Cites
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
Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”
Bruffee, K. A. (1984) · College English · doi:10.2307/376924 · Cited by 1,016
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
The Composing Processes of Advanced ESL Students: Six Case Studies
Zamel, V. (1983) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586647 · Cited by 712
Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9 · Cited by 648 · cited 3×
“…Paulus, 1999; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1998), the behavior of incorporating peer comments in revision (Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1993), and the enhanced sense of audience and ownership of text (Carson & Nelson, 1994; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Tsui & Ng, 2000).”
BackgroundThe effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing
Paulus, T. M. (1999) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(99)80117-9 · Cited by 522
Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(96)90012-0 · Cited by 351
Research works printed but not linked: 34
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- DiCamilla, F., & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 609-633.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Nakanishi, C. (2008). The effects of trained self-feedback on revision. JACET Journal, 47, 35-49.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. (R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
- 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
- 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
- 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
Pham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020914554 · Cited by 68
“Recent studies have highlighted a dearth of empirical evidence about the impacts of e-PF in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing performance with the Confucian cultural influences and called upon more attention for further investigations (Sawaya & Yokoyama, 2013; Wakabayashi, 2013).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Wakabayashi, R.
- Venue
- English Language Teaching
- Published
- 2013-08-14
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 1916-4750
- 1916-4742
- 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
