Cited by 79Student Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Collaborative writing at work: peer feedback in a blended learning environment

López-Pellisa, Teresa, Rotger, Neus, Rodríguez-Gallego, Fernando·2021·Education and Information Technologies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-020-10312-2

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In López-Pellisa et al. (2021), a majority of participants reported an improvement in their academic writing proficiency after peer feedback activity.

    “The results of their study indicate that a majority of the participants reported an improvement in their academic writing proficiency subsequent to peer feedback activity.”
  • Peer feedback was noted to be insufficient, over-generalized, brief, superficial, and neglecting intricate issues.

    “Specifically, feedback was noted to be either insufficient (López-Pellisa et al., 2021; Xu and Zhang, 2023), or characterized by over-generalization, brevity, and superficiality (Cheong et al., 2023; Weaver et al., 2014), neglecting the intricate issues that truly require attention (Gao et al., 2019).”
  • Prior research underscores the positive impact of rubrics in this regard.

    “Prior research underscores the positive impact of rubrics in this regard (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Greenberg, 2015; López-Pellisa et al., 2021; Yu, 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
López-Pellisa, T., Rotger, N., & Rodríguez-Gallego, F.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (ES)
  • Universitat de les Illes Balears (ES)
Corresponding author
Rodríguez-Gallego, Fernando
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2020-08-25
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
1293-1310
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W3080279794
Cited by
79
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
16.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
Funders
Institut de Recerca i Innovació Educativa (PID 181960)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
collaborative writing, peer feedback, blended learning, academic writing, textual revision, co-evaluation, technology-supported collaboration, reflective writing, university students, graduate courses

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