Cited by 470Social Robot Interaction and HRIEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Chatbot learning partners: connecting learning experiences, interest and competence

Fryer, Luke K., Nakao, Kaori, Thompson, Andrew·2019·Computers in Human Behavior

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.023

Cites

53 of 53 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fryer, L. K., Nakao, K., & Thompson, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Seinan Gakuin University (JP)
  • Kyushu Sangyo University (JP)
Corresponding author
Fryer, Luke K.
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
93
Pages
279-289
ISSN
0747-5632 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2904976895
Cited by
470
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 89 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 8
FWCI
23.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
chatbots, conversation practice, language learning, task interest, student learning interest, language competence, human-chatbot interaction, speech-to-text, novelty effect, student engagement, chatbot development

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