Our mission is to simplify English writing for non-native speakers.
Let's delve into Diglot's mission's essence, which transcends the ordinary. Our mission is to sculpt a world where communication is not just transactional; it's an art form. With the alchemy of artificial intelligence, we breathe life into this mission, sculpting a bespoke solution for each individual's unique writing style.
The story of Diglot originates from the trials and triumphs of our founder, Alex Zhovnir. With a rich background working in international companies and navigating the intricacies of English studies, he faced a persistent challenge — a lack of effective tools to elevate his English writing.
In the heartbeat of Diglot's history lies a commitment to not merely exist in the tech realm, but to lead a revolution. A revolution that dances on the intersection of creativity, technology, and linguistic finesse. Join us as we script a tale where language is not just a tool but a palette; your voice is the masterpiece we co-create.
Strategic planning, collaboration, and relentless innovation—Diglot's journey simplifying English writing for non-native speakers
Passion-Driven Collaboration
Elevate Your Expression: Uncover Insights, Tips, and Transformative Tales on Diglot's Blog.
At Diglot, we take pride in witnessing our users' journeys in mastering English writing. Here are some inspiring success stories that showcase the real impact of Diglot on users' experiences.
Improve your writing with our free online grammar checker tool. Correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors instantly. Try now! Our free grammar checker is your go-to grammar corrector online.
In the fast-paced writing world, efficiency is critical, and Diglot stands as your ally in streamlining the writing process. Here are time-saving tips to optimize your writing workflow and enhance overall productivity:
Move from rough bilingual drafts to clearer English in one connected writing workflow.
According to empirical literature, peer feedback is demonstrably effective for improving second language (L2) composition, particularly for structural content revisions.
Según las fuentes presentadas, la retroalimentación entre pares es eficaz para mejorar la escritura en una segunda lengua (L2), especialmente para la revisión del contenido del texto y no para la corrección de errores lingüísticos específicos. Un metaanálisis de 2023 demostró que la retroalimentación tiene un mayor impacto en las revisiones que en las nuevas composiciones [2, 3] . La eficacia de la retroalimentación entre pares también aumenta cuando los estudiantes disponen de más tiempo para escribir y cuando las actividades de retroalimentación se desarrollan durante un período más prolongado [3] . Además de las mejoras inmediatas en el texto, esta práctica también puede fomentar el desarrollo de la autonomía, la motivación y la autoeficacia de los estudiantes [1] .
A 2023 meta-analysis published in TESOL Quarterly found that peer feedback was more effective for improving the content of a student's writing than for correcting language-specific elements like lexis and grammar [2, 3] . The analysis also showed that peer feedback resulted in greater effects on revisions of existing drafts compared to its effect on entirely new compositions [2, 3] . This suggests that peer feedback is a valuable tool for the revision stage of the writing process, especially for developing ideas and structure.
The same 2023 meta-analysis identified conditions that increase the positive impact of peer feedback. Moderator analyses revealed that there were larger effect sizes, indicating greater effectiveness, when students were given more time for writing . The effectiveness also increased when the “treatments,” or periods of implementing peer feedback, were longer [3] .
Peer feedback may contribute to L2 writing improvement indirectly by fostering positive learner attributes. The process of having learners critique their peers’ writing gives them agency, which can enhance their autonomy, self-efficacy, and motivation. These psychological and motivational factors may, in turn, have a positive effect on their L2 writing and overall learning [1] .
The topic of peer feedback in L2 writing has been a subject of considerable research. A 2016 meta-analysis of peer review in academic contexts examined 24 empirical cohorts to assess longitudinal gains and structural retention.
Translate selection or the whole document.
Show popups while typing and hovering. Right-click translation is always available.
According to the sources presented, peer feedback is effective for improving second language (L2) writing, especially for revising text content rather than correcting specific linguistic errors. A 2023 meta-analysis showed that feedback has a greater impact on revisions than on new compositions [2, 3]. The effectiveness of peer feedback also increases when students have more time for writing and when feedback activities occur over a longer period [3]. In addition to immediate text improvements, this practice can also foster students' autonomy, motivation, and self-efficacy [1].
Select from 50 built-in skills or give custom instructions.
I evaluated the meta-analysis section. I sharpened the claims comparing revisions to new compositions, removed two passive hedges, and strengthened the evidence synthesis.
Maintains parallel gerund construction with subsequent review clause.
Removes filler phrase to improve academic authority and pace.
Specifies academic domain to align with psycholinguistics literature.
Cryptographically signed evidence of writing process, telemetry and research grounding.
A 2023 meta-analysis published in TESOL Quarterly determined that peer feedback yielded greater improvements in the content of student writing than in language-specific elements such as lexis and grammar [2, 3].
According to a 2023 meta-analysis in TESOL Quarterly, peer feedback proved more efficacious for enhancing substantive writing content than for correcting linguistic features [2, 3].
Jump-start your draft with structured, proven outlines.
Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion structure with citation placeholders.
Thematic matrix comparing conflicting studies, methodology, and theoretical frameworks.
