Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 453

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Student revision with peer and expert reviewing

Cho, Kwangsu, MacArthur, Charles·2010·Learning and Instruction
DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
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.learninstruc.2009.08.006

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Beach, 1979, The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on high school students' revising of rough drafts, Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 111, 10.58680/rte197917848 · DOI
  2. Beason, 1993, Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes, Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 395, 10.58680/rte199315397 · DOI
  3. Berg, 1999, The effect of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215, 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Besnard, 1999, Expert error in trouble-shooting: an exploratory study in electronics, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 50, 391, 10.1006/ijhc.1999.0251 · DOI
  5. Boscolo, 2004, Effects of collaborative revision on children's ability to write understandable narrative texts, Vol. 13, 157
  6. Camerer, 1989, The curse of knowledge in economic settings: an experimental analysis, The Journal of Political Economy, 97, 1232, 10.1086/261651 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Carifio, 2001, Effects of diagnostic and prescriptive comments on the revising behaviors of community college students, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 109, 10.1080/10668920150218498 · doi:10.1080/10668920150218498
  8. Chi, 1981, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cognitive Science, 5, 121, 10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cho, K., Cho, M., & Hacker, D. (in press). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments.
  10. Cho, 2008, Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: an empirical investigation, Communications of the ACM, 51, 83, 10.1145/1325555.1325571 · DOI
  11. Cho, 2007, Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline, Computers and Education, 48, 409, 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Cho, 2006, Commenting on writing: typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts, Written Communication, 23, 260, 10.1177/0741088306289261 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Cho, 2006, Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives, Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 891, 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cohen, 1989, The effect of distant audience on students' writing, American Educational Research Journal, 26, 143, 10.3102/00028312026002143 · DOI
  15. Cole, 1986, Towards good teaching by correspondence, Open Learning, 1, 16, 10.1080/0268051860010105 · doi:10.1080/0268051860010105
  16. Couzijn, 1999, Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: effects on learning and transfer, Learning and Instruction, 9, 109, 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00040-1 · DOI
  17. DiPardo, 1988, Peer response groups in the writing classroom: theoretic foundations and new directions, Review of Educational Research, 58, 119, 10.3102/00346543058002119 · doi:10.3102/00346543058002119 · Paper page
  18. Faigley, 1981, Analyzing revision, College Composition and Communication, 32, 400, 10.58680/ccc198115887 · doi:10.58680/ccc198115887 · Paper page
  19. Fitzgerald, 1987, Research on revision in writing, Review of Educational Research, 57, 481, 10.3102/00346543057004481 · doi:10.3102/00346543057004481 · Paper page
  20. Fitzgerald, 1987, Teaching children about revision in writing, Cognition and Instruction, 4, 3, 10.1207/s1532690xci0401_1 · DOI
  21. Haswell, 2005, NCTE/CCCC's recent war on scholarship, Written Communication, 22, 198, 10.1177/0741088305275367 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hayes, 1987, Cognitive processes in revision, Vol. 2, 176
  23. Hillocks, 1982, The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision: teaching the composing process, Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 261, 10.58680/rte198215736 · DOI
  24. Kali, 2008, Assessing the assessors: added value in web-based multi-cycle peer assessment in higher education, Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3, 3, 10.1142/S1793206808000434 · DOI
  25. Karabenick, 1996, Social influences on metacognition: effects of colearner questioning on comprehension monitoring, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 689, 10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.689 · DOI
  26. Karegianes, 1980, The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students, Journal of Educational Research, 73, 203, 10.1080/00220671.1980.10885236 · DOI
  27. Kelley, 1996, Adult egocentrism: subjective experience versus analytic bases for judgment, Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 157, 10.1006/jmla.1996.0009 · DOI · Paper page
  28. MacArthur, 1991, Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities, Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 61, 10.2307/1510373 · DOI
  29. MacArthur, 1991, Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 201, 10.1177/093889829100600403 · DOI · Paper page
  30. McCutchen, 1987, Editing strategies and error correction in basic writing, Written Communication, 4, 139, 10.1177/0741088387004002002 · DOI
  31. Marsh, 1989, The peer review process used to evaluate manuscripts submitted to academic journals: interjudgmental reliability, Journal of Experimental Education, 57, 151, 10.1080/00220973.1989.10806503 · DOI
  32. Miyake, 1986, Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding, Cognitive Science, 10, 151, 10.1207/s15516709cog1002_2 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Mumford, 1983, Social comparison theory and the evaluation of peer evaluations: a review and some applied implications, Personnel Psychology, 36, 867, 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1983.tb00516.x · DOI
  34. Rucker, 2003, Assessing student learning outcomes: an investigation of the relationship among feedback measures, College Student Journal, 37, 400
  35. Smith, 1997, The genre of the end comment: conventions in teacher responses to student writing, College Composition and Communication, 48, 249, 10.58680/ccc19973145 · doi:10.58680/ccc19973145
  36. Strijbos, 2010, Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?, Learning and Instruction, 20, 291, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Topping, 1998, Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities, Review of Educational Research, 68, 249, 10.3102/00346543068003249 · doi:10.3102/00346543068003249 · Paper page
  38. Zhu, 1995, Effects of training for peer response on students' comments and interaction, Written Communication, 12, 492, 10.1177/0741088395012004004 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C.
Venue
Learning and Instruction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
328-338
ISSN
0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
OpenAlex
W2083188089
Cited by
453
References
9
FWCI
45.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
  • Korea Science and Engineering Foundation
  • Ministry of Education, Science and Technology

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.