Cited by 116Student Assessment and FeedbackEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy: An empirical study in a Chinese college English writing class

Shen, Bin, Bai, Barry, Xue, Weihe·2020·Studies in Educational Evaluation

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100821

Cites

64 of 64 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

4 of the 68 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shen, B., Bai, B., & Xue, W.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Jinshan College of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (CN)
Corresponding author
Bai, Barry
Venue
Studies in Educational Evaluation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
64
Pages
100821
ISSN
0191-491X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2981452895
Cited by
108
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 3
FWCI
33.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2020-03-01)
Open access
closed
Locations
Studies In Educational Evaluation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
peer assessment, learner autonomy, English writing instruction, teacher feedback, college English, learner confidence, writing instruction

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