Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 521

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system

Cho, Kwangsu, Schunn, Christian D.·2007·Computers & Education
DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Camerer, 1989, The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis, Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1232, 10.1086/261651 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cho, K. (2004). When multi-peers give better advance than an expert: the type and impact of feedback given by students and an expert on student writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
  3. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2003). Validity and reliability of peer assessments with a missing data estimation technique. In Proceedings of ED-Media 2003, Hawaii, USA.
  4. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). Comprehension monitoring and regulation in distance collaboration. In Proceedings of cognitive science conference, George Mason University, Virginia, USA.
  5. Cohen, 1987, Giving and getting feedback on composition: a comparison of teacher and student verbal report, Evaluation and Research in Education: The Durham and Newcastle Research Review, 63–73
  6. Cohen, 1989, The effect of distant audiences on students’ writing, American Educational Research Journal, 26, 143, 10.3102/00028312026002143 · DOI
  7. Flower, 1986, Detection diagnosis and the strategies of revision, College Composition and Communication, 37, 16, 10.2307/357381 · doi:10.2307/357381 · Paper page
  8. Hartman, 1995, Pattern of social interaction and learning to write: some effects of network technologies, Vol. 2
  9. Magin, 2001, Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work, Studies in Higher Education, 26, 53, 10.1080/03075070020030715 · DOI
  10. Markman, 1979, Realizing that you don’t understand: elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies, Child Development, 50, 643, 10.2307/1128929 · doi:10.2307/1128929 · Paper page
  11. McCutchen, 2000, Knowledge processing and working memory: implications for a theory of writing, Educational Psychologist, 35, 13, 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Otero, 1992, Failures to detect contradictions in a text: what readers believe versus what they read, Psychological Science, 3, 229, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00034.x · DOI
  13. Rada, 1994, Collaborative hypermedia in a classroom setting, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 21
  14. Vera, A. H., Kvan, T., West, R. L., & Lai, S. (1998). Expertise, collaboration and bandwidth. In Proceeding of CHI 1998 (pp. 503–510). · doi:10.1145/274644.274712
  15. Webb, 1995, Group collaboration in assessment: multiple objectives, processes, and outcomes, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 239, 10.3102/01623737017002239 · DOI
  16. Wess, R. C. (1980). Publishing student writing: an in-class model. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the conference on college composition and communication, Washington, DC. Eric reproduction services number: ED 185 564.
  17. Zammuner, 1995, Individual and cooperative computer-writing and revising: who gets the best results?, Learning and Instruction, 5, 101, 10.1016/0959-4752(95)00005-N · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D.
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-04
Volume
48
Issue
3
Pages
409-426
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
OpenAlex
W2098992709
Cited by
521
References
2
FWCI
11.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

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.