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
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
