The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students’ argumentation skills and task motivation
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
“The University of Toronto, for example, has developed a model in which GenAI is used as a support in evaluation, but without replacing human judgment (Guo et al., 2023).”
From Ethical and regulatory challenges of Generative AI in education: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“In a different approach, the University of Toronto has focused its implementation of GenAI on learning assessment, especially automated feedback on essays and written assignments.”
From Ethical and regulatory challenges of Generative AI in education: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“This framework regulates the use of GenAI in exams and academic papers, ensuring that final decisions remain in the hands of human professors and evaluators.”
From Ethical and regulatory challenges of Generative AI in education: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“In addition, Toronto has implemented an auditing system in which teachers and students can review the AI's recommendations to verify their validity.”
From Ethical and regulatory challenges of Generative AI in education: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2023
In the citing paper
“To ensure fairness and mitigate algorithmic biases, the university has developed a governance framework in which generative AI can only be used as a Support Tool and not as a substitute for human judgment (Guo et al., 2023).”
From Ethical and regulatory challenges of Generative AI in education: a systematic review (2025) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2023
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification
Kim, Y. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1181 · Cited by 14,831
SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS
(2013) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/1753-6405.12166 · Cited by 2,739
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20035 · Cited by 1,596
Teaching and Researching Motivation
Busse, V. (2011) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.010 · Cited by 1,402
A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 · Cited by 1,384
Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective
Wigfield, A. (1994) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/bf02209024 · Cited by 1,305
Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse
Osborne, J. F. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1183944 · Cited by 951
Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. F. (2005) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690500336957 · Cited by 806
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Boekaerts, 2002, The on-line motivation questionnaire: A self-report instrument to assess students' context sensitivity, Vol. 12, 77
- el Majidi, 2018, Perceived effect of in-class debates in second language learning, The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 7, 35
- Venkovits, 2018, Debating in and outside the classroom: Key benefits, challenges, and how we may help, Werkstattstechnik, 13, 44
- Wu, 2023, Do AI chatbots improve students learning outcomes? Evidence from a meta‐analysis, British Journal of Educational Technology, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Law, L. (2024) · Computers and Education Open · doi:10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100174 · Cited by 689
Fathi, J., Rahimi, M., & Derakhshan, A. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103254 · Cited by 557
ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study
Urban, M., Děchtěrenko, F., Lukavský, J., Hrabalová, V., Svacha, F., Brom, C., & Urban, K. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031 · Cited by 396
Tai, T., & Chen, H. H.-J. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105112 · Cited by 308
Bernabei, M., Colabianchi, S., Falegnami, A., & Costantino, F. (2023) · Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100172 · Cited by 218
Metadata
- Authors
- Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Li, D., & Chu, S. K. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Danling
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-10
- Volume
- 203
- Pages
- 104862
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4379619507
- Cited by
- 188
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 17.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- chatbots, argumentation skills, task motivation, argumentative dialogue, AI-assisted learning, undergraduate students, argument structure
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
