Relative second language proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer feedback
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Confidence deficits can significantly hinder students' participation in peer feedback, thereby undermining the overall effectiveness of this pedagogical practice.
“Addressing these confidence deficits is crucial, as they can significantly hinder students’ participation in peer feedback, thereby undermining the overall effectiveness of this pedagogical practice (Allen and Katayama, 2016; Xu and Li, 2018; Xue et al., 2023).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Allen and Katayama, 2016
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Allen, D., & Katayama, A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Tokyo (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Allen, David
- Venue
- System
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 56
- Pages
- 96-106
- ISSN
- 0346-251X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2207275696
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 11.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- System (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- peer feedback, second language proficiency, Japanese learners of English, academic writing, undergraduate writing, written feedback, learner perceptions, English as a second language
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
