Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study tests the effect of ability pairing in two instructional methods in L2 collaborative revision. Two continuous indices determine a pair: individual proficiency level, distance in proficiency between pair members (heterogeneity), and the interaction between both indices. Instructional methods tested are modelling and practising. Results show that the effect of pair composition depends on instructional strategies. In the Practising condition less proficient learners profit most from a heterogeneous ability pair, whereas more proficient learners are best paired homogeneously. In the Modelling condition no effect of pair composition factors was observed. This result illustrates that Modelling is a powerful instructional method for complex learning tasks like collaborative revision in L2 as it overrides some of the grouping effects which can be found in more traditional learning conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allal, L., & Chanquoy, L. (2004). Introduction: Revision revisited. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 1–7). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.

  • Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), What writers know: The language, process, and structure of of written discourse (pp. 345–363). New York: Academic Press.

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modification of the Hayes and Flower model to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. Butterfield (Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice. Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of development of skilled writing (Vol. 2, pp. 57–82). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braaksma, M. (2002). Observational learning in argumentative writing (Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands).

  • Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model–observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaksma, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & Hout Wolters, B. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of the writing process. Cognition & Instruction, 22, 1–36. doi:10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanquoy, L. (2008). Revision processes. In R. Beard, D. Myhill, J. Riley, & M. Nystrand (Eds.), The Sage handbook of writing development (pp. 80–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing. Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. doi:10.1037/a0021950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev ed.). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Strasbourg: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9, 109–142. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00040-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods. A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C., & Dalton, B. (1993). Collaboration between children learning to write: Can novices be masters? Cognition and Instruction, 10(4), 281–333.

  • Daneman, M., & Stainton, M. (1993). The generation effect in reading and proofreading. Reading and writing, 5(3), 297–313. doi:10.1007/BF01027393.

  • De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lisi, R., & Golbeck, S. L. (1999). Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 3–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analysing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 37(5), 481–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Knowledge in writing. Illustration from revision studies. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, M., & McCutchen, D. (1994, April 4–8). Strategy differences in revising between skilled and less-skilled writers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students’ interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 227–267. doi:10.3102/00028312035002227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Association, 34, 174–206. doi:10.3102/00028312034001174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, D. (1992). Conditions for discovery through writing. Instructional Science, 21, 45–73. doi:10.1007/BF00119655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 612–634. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revision across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Research on the rating process. Rating nonnative writing: the trouble with holistic scoring. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 759–762. doi:10.2307/3588173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 9–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics. Reading, writing, and language processing (Vol. 2, pp. 176–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills.

  • Hogan, D. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (1999). Implications of Vygotsky’s theory for peer learning. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 39–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Holliway, D. R., & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising. Reading as the reader. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 87–101). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4(4), 413–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1991). The effects of group composition on achievement, interaction, and learning efficiency during computer-based cooperative instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 27–40. doi:10.1007/BF02296436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). An aptitude-treatment interaction approach to writing-to-learn. Learning and Instruction, 18(4), 379–390. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitsantas, A., Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. (2000). The role of observation and emulation in the development of athletic self-regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 811–817. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.92.4.811Development.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, J. (2001). How group composition influenced the achievement of sixth-grade mathematics students. Mathematical Thinking and Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 175–200. doi:10.1080/10986065.2001.9679972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, E., Spelman Miller, K., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2008). Development of fluency and revision in L1 and L2 writing in Swedish high school years eight and nine. ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 133–151. doi:10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd-Jones, R. (1977). Primary-trait scoring. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing, measuring, judging (pp. 33–68). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(4), 201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing processes. Implications for theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts. Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. M. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. R. Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing: Points of departure (pp. 85–103). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • New, E. (1999). Computer-aided writing in French as a foreign language: A qualitative and quantitative look at the process of revision. The Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 80–97. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxford University Press. (2001). Oxford computer-based Quick Placement Test (QPT). Oxford, UK: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3801_8.

  • Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41(2), 381–405. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9236-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1932). The language and thought of the child (2nd ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumb, C., Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Error correction in text. Testing the processing deficit and knowledge deficit hypotheses. Reading and Writing, An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6(4), 347–360. doi:10.1007/BF01028848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quené, H., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multilevel modeling of data from repeated measures: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43, 103–121. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2004.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2009). MLwiN (Version 2.10). [Computer software]. Bristol, UK: Centre for Multilevel Modelling.

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Kieft, M., Broekkamp, H., et al. (2005). Psychology and the teaching of writing in 60 minutes. In P. Tomlinson, J. Dockrell, & P. Winne (Eds.), BJEP Monograph Series II, No. 3: Pedagogy—Teaching for Learning (pp. 127–153). Leicester: The British Psychological Society. doi:10.1348/000709905X62156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., & Couzijn, M. (2000). Writing and learning-to-write. A double challenge. In R. Simons, J. Van der Linden, & T. Duffy (Eds.), New learning (pp. 157–190). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & Van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a writing process and as a learning-to-write process. Two prospective research agendas. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (Vol. 13, pp. 189–207). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saddler, B., & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonen, R. (2012). The validity and generalizability of writing scores: The effect of rater, task and language. In E. Van Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam, & H. Van den Bergh (Eds.), Measuring Writing: Recent insights into Theory, Methodology and Practices (Vol. 27, pp. 1–22). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

  • Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281–303). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32, 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657–677. doi:10.2307/3587400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & De Glopper, K. (2006). Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 201–233. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pairwork activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(31), 31–48. doi:10.1177/1362168812457530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, J. A., & Topping, K. J. (1999). Collaborative creative writing in eight-year olds: Comparing cross-ability, fixed and same-ability reciprocal role pairing. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(2), 154–179. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00080.

  • Thorson, H. (2000). Using the computer to compare foreign and native language writing processes: A statistical and case study approach. Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 155–170.

  • Tobias, S. (2010a). The expertise reversal effect and aptitude treatment interaction research (Commentary). Instructional Science, 38, 309–314. doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9103-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (2010b). Aptitudes and instructional methods. In K. L. Rasmussen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 38–40). New York: Sage Publications. doi:10.4135/9781412961288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K., Nixon, J., Sutherland, J., & Yarrow, F. (2000). Paired writing: A framework for effective collaboration. Reading (UKRA), 34(2), 79–89. doi:10.1111/1467-9345.00139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh, H. (1990). On the construct validity of multiple choice items for reading comprehension. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(1), 1–12. doi:10.1177/014662169001400101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316–327. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51–75. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(1), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, D. L., Hayes, J., Hatch, J., Miller, W., Moser, G., & Silk, C. (1996). Better revision in eight minutes? Prompting first-year college writers to revise globally. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 682–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15, 69–83. doi:10.1080/00461528009529217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(5), 642–655. doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651. doi:10.3102/00028312035004607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., & Zuniga, S. (2002). Short circuits or superconductors? Effects of group composition on high-achieving students’ science assessment performance. American Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 943–989. doi:10.3102/00028312039004943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381–418. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00447.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann, M., Leach, R. C., Rummer, N., & Wiley, J. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention? Instructional Science, 40, 711–730. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winters, F. I., & Alexander, P. A. (2011). Peer collaboration: The relation of regulatory behaviors to learning with hypermedia. Instructional Science, 39, 407–427. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9134-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.

  • Yarrow, F., & Topping, K. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261–282. doi:10.1348/000709901158514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 165–187. doi:10.2307/3586647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660–668. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Elke Van Steendam

    Present address: Faculty of Arts, KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Campus Brussels, Warmoesberg 26, 1000, Brussels, Belgium

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Applied Economic Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Elke Van Steendam

  2. Faculty of Arts , KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Elke Van Steendam

  3. Research Institute on Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, 1018 VZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    G. C. W. Rijlaarsdam

  4. Faculty of Arts, University of Antwerp, Rodestraat 14, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium

    G. C. W. Rijlaarsdam

  5. Faculty of Humanities, Department of Languages, Literature and Communication, University of Utrecht, Trans 10, 3512JK, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    H. H. Van den Bergh

  6. Faculty of Arts, Department of Language and Education, KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Blijde Inkomststraat 23, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    L. Sercu

Authors
  1. Elke Van Steendam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. C. W. Rijlaarsdam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. H. Van den Bergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Sercu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elke Van Steendam.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G.C.W., Van den Bergh, H.H. et al. The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing. Instr Sci 42, 905–927 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation