The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Peer feedback on wikis, for example, was shown to facilitate the improvement of writing essays and peer feedback content quality (Al Abri etal., 2021; Gielen & De Wever, 2015; Xiao & Lucking, 2008).”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Gielen & De Wever, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The selected studies on online peer feedback have identified comprehension outcomes such as conceptual understanding, elaboration (Gielen & De Wever, 2015), and ability to justify (Zhan, 2020).”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Gielen & De Wever, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Peer feedback activities in asynchronous discussion environments were found to promote students' conceptual understanding, while structured peer assessment was shown to improve the quality and focus of peer feedback elaborations (Gielen”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Gielen & De Wever, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Peer feedback activities in asynchronous discussion environments were found to promote students' conceptual understanding, while structured peer assessment was shown to improve the quality and focus of peer feedback elaborations (Gielen”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Gielen & De Wever, 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Gielen and De Wever (2015) contend that peer assessment becomes significantly more effective when peer feedback is scripted.”
From The Exam Autopsy: An Integrated Post-Exam Assessment Model (2019) · cites this paper as Gielen and De Wever (2015)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“They collected data from 168 first-year undergraduate students who completed a wiki assignment in three cycles of three weeks each.”
From The Exam Autopsy: An Integrated Post-Exam Assessment Model (2019) · cites this paper as Gielen & De Wever, 2015
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“This study also confirms earlier findings that practice is an important component in peer assessment implementations (Gielen and De Wever 2015; Liu and Carless 2006).”
From Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills (2018) · cites this paper as Gielen and De Wever 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905
Hapeman, D. E., & Agresti, A. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1991.10484817 · Cited by 9,407
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 4×
“Inspired by a large body of research (Shute, 2008; Strijbos, et al., 2012; Kulhavy & Wager, 1993; Van den Berg, et al., 2003; Cho & McArthur, 2010; Black & William, 1998; Kluger & Denisi, 1996), this study opted to distinguish elaborations between using informative and suggestive elaborations to…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialKluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285
Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment
Biggs, J. (1996) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf00138871 · Cited by 4,084
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology
(2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410609519 · Cited by 2,744
Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory
Rogers, C. R. (1951) · Cited by 2,416
Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. A. (2013) · Cited by 2,402
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Sluijsmans, D. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: The training of peer assessment skills, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen (unpublished doctoral dissertation).
- Strijbos, J. W., Van Goozen, B., & Prins, F. (2012, August). Developing a coding scheme for analysing peer feedback messages. In Paper presented at the EARLI-SIG 1 assessment and evaluation conference, Brussels, Belgium.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–119 of 119
Dmoshinskaia, N. (2020) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036551175
Sarfraz, F., Razaq, N., Sarfraz, F., Ikram, S., Khan, S. R., & Ullah, M. S. (2021) · Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences · doi:10.53350/pjmhs2115123545
Peer Feedback Activities in Smart Education
(2020) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-4183-8.ch005
Prilop, C. N. (2019) · American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting (AERA) · doi:10.3102/1435387
Wang, A. (2019) · American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting (AERA) · doi:10.3102/1437547
พรหมแก้วงาม, ณ., ภาษีผล, โ., & กาญจนวาส, ศ. (2022) · doi:10.58837/chula.the.2022.505
How to Use Theory to Implement Natural Language Processing for Peer-Feedback
Greisel, M., Bauer, E., Kuznetsov, I., Berndt, M., Dresel, M., Fischer, M. R., Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2023) · Computer-supported collaborative learning/The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference · doi:10.22318/cscl2023.108887
Enhancing the structure of feedback forms increases trustworthiness and usefulness of peer feedback
Quinton, J. M., Nesbitt, L., & Bock, J. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2468848 · Cited by 3
Enhancing Academic Feedback Systems with Deep Learning and Ensemble Methods
Sharma, H., & Joshi, H. (2025) · International Conference on Advances in Computer Science, Electrical, Electronics, and Communication Technologies (CE2CT) · doi:10.1109/ce2ct64011.2025.10939665
Designing Online Tools for Collaborative Knowledge Integration
Kidron, A. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15101276
Ballantyne, A. G., Høvring, C. M., Hansen, R. R., & Nielsen, T. A. (2025) · Journal of Communication Management · doi:10.1108/jcom-12-2024-0260 · Cited by 1
iRULER: Intelligible Rubric-Based User-Defined LLM Evaluation for Revision
Bai, J., Cheong, W. S., Müller, P., & Lim, B. Y. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790539 · Cited by 4
Hoe, A. V., Wiebe, J. P., Slotta, J., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2026) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1002/jcal.70261 · Cited by 1
Tong, Y., Schunn, C. D., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, X. (2026) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-026-09487-6
Peer feedback quality matters for post-feedback outcomes: A meta-analysis
Alemdağ, E., Lipnevich, A. A., Bardach, L., & Lindner, M. A. (2026) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100848
Giacchi, I., Saija, E., Lonigro, A., Cacciamani, S., Zava, F., & Vecchio, G. M. (2026) · Technology Knowledge and Learning · doi:10.1007/s10758-026-10037-0
Metadata
- Authors
- Gielen, M., & De Wever, B.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Gielen, Mario
- ORCID
- De Wever, Bram
- Venue
- Computers in Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-11
- Volume
- 52
- Pages
- 315-325
- ISSN
- 0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W564614949
- Semantic Scholar
- 2b3df5d809754895451651688f22d4faf40099f0
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 80
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 24.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Ghent University (BOF11/STA/026)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- peer assessment, peer feedback, wiki-based learning, higher education, elaboration, verification
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
