The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Technoliteracy and learning: An analysis of the quality of knowledge in electronic representations of understanding
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
“Previous research has shown that students' prior experience, educational level, and knowledge are critical factors when implementing online peer feedback activities (Cho & Schunn, 2007; Li etal., 2021).”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Cho & Schunn, 2007
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Due to increasing teaching workload and growing scalable classes in higher education (Shi, 2019), peer feedback is one of the feedback types that are crucial for higher education (Noroozi etal., 2023; Cho & Schunn, 2007).”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Cho & Schunn, 2007
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Cho and Schunn (2007) found that students' prior experience with peer feedback was related to their feedback quality and learning outcomes in an online writing task.”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Cho and Schunn, 2007
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
The citation lists are queued
They are fetched later and appear here then.
References 30 · Cited by 41
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Rye, 1998, An exploration of the concept map as an interview tool to facilitate the externalisation of students’ understandings about global atmospheric change, Journal of Research in Science Education, 35, 521
Metadata
- Authors
- Kimber, K., Pillay, H., & Richards, C.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- The University of Western Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Pillay, Hitendra
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-79
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2024292430
- Semantic Scholar
- 44941a449377889860f66135d65cc65d0c0b2cf4
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 8.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.qut.edu.au
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- Locations
- Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Office of Education Research; Faculty of Education
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Technology in Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Literacy, Media, and Education
- Keywords
- SOLO taxonomy, levels of understanding, cooperative learning, computer-mediated learning, multimodal text production, English as a school subject, high school students, knowledge complexity
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Technoliteracy and learning: An analysis of the quality of knowledge in electronic representations of understanding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.004
- The paper
- Kimber, K., Pillay, H., & Richards, C. (2007). Technoliteracy and learning: An analysis of the quality of knowledge in electronic representations of understanding. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
