The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 the citing paper
“This is consistent with the research of Nelson and Schunn (2009); Henderson et al. (2019), who found that feedback quality is strongly associated with specificity.”
From Impact of AI assistance on student agency (2024) · cites this paper as Nelson and Schunn (2009)
In the citing paper
“That students used the improvement category kindness to a lesser extent than the improvement suggestions specificity, justification, and constructivity, resonates well with studies that have found that the affective features of feedback has less impact on student improvement than cognitive features (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;Nelson & Schunn, 2009).”
From Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback (2021) · cites this paper as Nelson & Schunn, 2009
In the citing paper
“That student's sensemaking of the feedback correlates with their experience of its usefulness is known from previous studies and relates to the problem of the feedback gap (Jonsson, 2013;Nelson & Schunn, 2009).”
From Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback (2021) · cites this paper as Nelson & Schunn, 2009
In the citing paper
“in a study of peer feedback using 1,073 feedback segments from an online peer review system (SWoRD), Nelson and Schunn (2009) found that student's comprehension of the feedback was the only significant mediator for student implementation.”
From Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback (2021) · cites this paper as Nelson and Schunn (2009)
In the citing paper
“In particular, they found that students were more likely to understand the feedback if it offered concrete solutions, a location of the problem(s), or if the feedback included a summary.”
From Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback (2021) · cites this paper as Nelson and Schunn (2009)
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · cited 2×
“are most important, such as goals (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Hattie & Timperley, 2007 ) and”
Background(1999) · Cited by 12,812
A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.256 · Cited by 9,745
Motivational processes affecting learning.
Dweck, C. S. (1986) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040 · Cited by 6,971
Axten, N., Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2063712 · Cited by 6,886
Newell, A. (1972) · Cited by 6,222
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Schema induction and analogical transfer
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6 · Cited by 3,010 · cited 2×
“For example, feedback without explanations can improve performance, but not learning (Chi et al. 1989) and the use of examples can influence whether feedback affects learning or performance or both (Gick and Holyoak 1980; 1983).”
BackgroundHandbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology
(2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410609519 · Cited by 2,744
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4 · Cited by 2,552 · cited 2×
“For example, feedback without explanations can improve performance, but not learning (Chi et al. 1989) and the use of examples can influence whether feedback affects learning or performance or both (Gick and Holyoak 1980; 1983).”
BackgroundContextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80006-9 · Cited by 2,131
Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349 · Cited by 1,822
Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 · Cited by 1,714
The review of educational research.
(1931) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0066448 · Cited by 1,575
Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420 · Cited by 1,544
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology
(2014) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5 · Cited by 1,475
A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing.
Hayes, J. R. (1996) · Cited by 1,442
The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543061002213 · Cited by 1,313
A cognitive process theory of writing
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.58680/ccc198115885 · Cited by 1,025
Regulatory Focus Theory: Implications for the Study of Emotions at Work
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 · Cited by 964
The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 · Cited by 900
Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge
(2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203063538 · Cited by 811
Research in the Teaching of English
Gunderson, D. V. (1971) · The English Journal · doi:10.2307/812997 · Cited by 769
Thorndike, E. L. (1927) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1415413 · Cited by 659
A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition
McCutchen, D. (1996) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf01464076 · Cited by 654
The influence of teacher commentary on student revision
Ferris, D. R. (1997) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588049 · Cited by 618 · cited 4×
“Receiving summaries has previously been found to benefit performance: when college students received summaries about their writing, they made more substantial revisions (Ferris 1997).”
BackgroundInfluentialFeedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude
Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. (1989) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf01320096 · Cited by 579
Writing research and the writer.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1106 · Cited by 550
Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2005) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004 · Cited by 548
Self-citationA model of working memory in writing.
Kellogg, R. T. (1996) · Cited by 524
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00038-8 · Cited by 521
Mory, E. H. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9781410609519-40 · Cited by 496
The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device
Kieras, D. E., & Bovair, S. (1984) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(84)80003-8 · Cited by 484
Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.2307/357381 · Cited by 450
Mathematical problem solving by analogy.
Novick, L. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.17.3.398 · Cited by 412
The role of a mental model in learning to operate a device
Kieras, D. E., & Bovair, S. (1984) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0803_3 · Cited by 340
NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship
Haswell, R. H. (2005) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088305275367 · Cited by 336
Expectancy × value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction.
Shah, J. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.73.3.447 · Cited by 335
Web‐based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking‐styles
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. (2001) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x · Cited by 305
On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course
Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007 · Cited by 293
Expectancy × value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction.
Shah, J. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.447 · Cited by 245
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088306289261 · Cited by 235
Self-citationInteractive Instruction and Feedback
Dempsey, J. V., & Sales, G. C. (1993) · Educational Technology Publications eBooks · Cited by 229
Summary Street: Interactive Computer Support for Writing
Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2203_3 · Cited by 203
Improving student peer feedback
Nilson, L. B. (2003) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567550309596408 · Cited by 172
Matsumura, L. C., Patthey‐Chavez, G. G., Valdés, R., & Garnier, H. (2002) · The Elementary School Journal · doi:10.1086/499713 · Cited by 147
360-Degree Assessment: Time for Reinvention
Toegel, G., & Conger, J. A. (2003) · Academy of Management Learning and Education · doi:10.5465/amle.2003.10932156 · Cited by 136
The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and Self-assessment
Miller, P. J. (2003) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293032000066218 · Cited by 131
A machine for automatic teaching of drill material.
Pressey, S. L. (1927) · School and Society · Cited by 107
Jackson, M. M. (2008) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) · Cited by 84
Redefining Revision for Freshmen
Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315044620-37 · Cited by 83
The impact of teachers' comment types on students' revision
Sugita, Y. (2006) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/cci079 · Cited by 66
Distributed collaborative writing
Neuwirth, C. M., Chandhok, R., Charney, D., Wojahn, P. G., & Kim, L. (1994) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/191666.191693 · Cited by 62
Redefining Revision for Freshmen
Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991) · Research in the Teaching of English · doi:10.58680/rte199115475 · Cited by 58
Saddler, B., & Andrade, H. (2004) · Educational leadership · Cited by 50
Review of Thorndike's Fundamentals of Learning.
Hull, C. L. (1935) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0050330 · Cited by 43
Symonds, P. M., & Chase, D. H. (1992) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.282 · Cited by 34
THE EFFECTS OF WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE QUALITY OF STUDENT COMPOSITIONS AND THE LEARNING OF CONTENT
Olson, M. W., & Raffeld, P. C. (1987) · Reading Psychology · doi:10.1080/0270271870080404 · Cited by 34
Knowledge of results as an incentive in school room practice.
Brown, F. J. (1932) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0074392 · Cited by 29
An experimental analysis of the law of effect.
Wallach, H., & Henle, M. (1941) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0053822 · Cited by 24
Improving Students' Responses to their Peers' Essays
Grimm, N. M. (1986) · College Composition and Communication · doi:10.2307/357386 · Cited by 22
Symonds, P. M., & Chase, D. H. (1929) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0069958 · Cited by 16
Sternberg, R. J. (2002) · APS observer · Cited by 12
Roediger, H. L., III (2007) · APS observer · Cited by 10
Expanding Horizons: Research on Underrepresented Groups
Wang, S. (2007) · APS observer · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Volume II: Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176–240). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Pressey, S. L. (1926). A simple device which gives tests and scores—and teaches. School and Society, 23, 373–376.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education
Evans, C. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654312474350 · Cited by 1,143
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884
Impact of AI assistance on student agency
Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967 · Cited by 548
“Research has shown that being specific and detailed in feedback increases implementation and is more valuable than generic praises or criticisms (Henderson et al., 2019; Nelson & Schunn, 2009).”
BackgroundResultGuo, K., & Wang, D. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12146-0 · Cited by 449
Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6 · Cited by 335
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nelson, Melissa M.
- ORCID
- Schunn, Christian D.
- Venue
- Instructional Science
- Published
- 2008-04-04
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 375-401
- ISSN
- 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1952
- OpenAlex
- W2075371609
- Cited by
- 602
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 46.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Instructional Science (publishedVersion)
- D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- peer feedback, writing performance, feedback implementation, problem understanding, peer review, swords
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
