CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 14

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse

Liang, Mei-Ya·2010·Language Learning & Technology
DOI 10.64152/10125/44202
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 · 10.64152/10125/44202

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

  • 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 1×

    “L2 research has shown that peer response can increase chances for meaning negotiation and language practice (Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994), encourage collaborative reading and writing ( Tsui & Ng, 2000 ), and promote writing revisions (Berg, 1999; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Min, 2006, 2008; Stanley, 19…”
    Background

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.
  2. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
  3. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer network to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
  4. Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249-277.
  5. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173-193).
  6. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27-50). Oxford University Press.
  7. 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.
  8. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-272.
  9. Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/fitze/default.html
  10. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  11. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
  12. Hewett, B. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23, 4-31.
  13. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
  14. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to- face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 1-23.
  16. Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232-244.
  17. Liang, M. Y. (2008). SCMC interaction and EFL writing revision: Facilitative or futile? Proceedings of E-learn 2008 (pp. 2886-2892). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  18. Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227.
  19. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 1-51.
  20. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
  21. Min, H-T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
  22. Min, H-T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285-305.
  23. Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K.E.(1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28, 745-769.
  24. Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 75-87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti/index.html
  25. Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 1-19.
  26. Roever, C., & Pan, Y-C. (2008). GEPT: General English Proficiency Test. Language Testing, 25(3), 403- 418.
  27. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 5(1), 23-30.
  28. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.
  29. Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
  30. Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
  31. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  32. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90.
  34. 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), 51-75.
  35. Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451-468.
  36. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
  37. Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45-58.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 14

Metadata

Authors
Liang, M.-Y.
Venue
Language Learning & Technology
Publisher
National Foreign Language Resource Center
Published
2010-02-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
45-64
ISSN
1094-3501
DOI
10.64152/10125/44202
Cited by
14
References
1
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (unspecified)

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: Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.64152/10125/44202
The paper
Liang, M.-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/44202