Cited by 36EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEnglish Language Learning and TeachingStudent Assessment and Feedback

A review of research on technology-enhanced peer feedback for second language writing based on the activity theory framework

Zhang, Ruofei, Zou, Di·2023·Education and Information Technologies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-022-11469-8

Cites

5 of 5 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Zhang, R., & Zou, D.
Affiliations
Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Zou, Di
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Published
2022-11-23
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
6727-6753
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
OpenAlex
W4309865496
Cited by
36
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5
FWCI
22.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
second language writing, activity theory, peer interaction, affective learning, English as a second language, online writing instruction, collaborative writing, error identification, peer trust, active learning

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