The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 70 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Worked example or scripting? Fostering students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning
Open accessAbstract
This study compared the effects of worked example and scripting on students’ argumentative peer feedback, essay and learning qualities. Participants were 80 BSc students who were randomly divided over 40 dyads and assigned to two experimental conditions (worked example and scripting). An online peer feedback environment named EduTech was designed and students were tasked with writing an argumentative essay, engaging in peer feedback, and revising their essay. The results indicate that students in the scripting condition benefited more than students in the worked example condition regarding peer feedback quality. Furthermore, the scores of students in both conditions improved from pre-test to post-test in terms of argumentative essay writing and learning. This difference was significant, however, between the two conditions only with regard to argumentative essay writing favoring the scripting condition. We explain how each of these approaches can be used to improve students’ argumentative peer feedback and essay writing and learning.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · cited 2×
“In other words, peer feedback not only leads to improvement of students’writing proficiency, but also helps them develop discipline-specific knowledge (Liu & Carless, 2006), enhance their understandings on the topic (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Liu & Carless, 2006).”
BackgroundKirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 · Cited by 7,776 · cited 1×
“Scientific research has shown that worked examples can facilitate problem solving processes (Kirschner et al., 2006) and the acquisition of domain-specific knowledge (Kyun et al., 2013) by reducing extraneous cognitive load which in turn lead to better learning outcomes (Sweller et al., 2011).”
BackgroundToulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_446 · Cited by 6,172
Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities
Topping, K. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170598 · Cited by 2,173
Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122 · Cited by 1,198
Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562510600680582 · Cited by 1,034
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 · Cited by 966
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. S. (1979) · Cited by 923
The Evolution of Research on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_1 · Cited by 638
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3102/00346543068003249 · DOI · Paper page
- Wang X.-M., 2017, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20, 58
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exploring Artificial Intelligence in Academic Essay: Higher Education Student's Perspective
Malik, A. R., Pratiwi, Y., Andajani, K., Numertayasa, I. W., Suharti, S., Darwis, A., & Marzuki (2023) · International Journal of Educational Research Open · doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2023.100296 · Cited by 418
Kim, N. J., & Kim, M. K. (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.755914 · Cited by 298
Feedback sources in essay writing: peer-generated or AI-generated feedback?
Banihashem, S. K., Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Moon, J., & Drachsler, H. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00455-4 · Cited by 282
Self-citationEffects of chatbot-assisted in-class debates on students’ argumentation skills and task motivation
Guo, K., Zhong, Y., Li, D., & Chu, S. K. W. (2023) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104862 · Cited by 188
Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing
Kerman, N. T., Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2022) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914 · Cited by 135
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E.
- Affiliations
- Kharazmi University (IR)
- Wageningen University & Research (NL)
- Tarbiat Modares University (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Noroozi, Omid
- Venue
- Interactive Learning Environments
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-08-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 655-669
- ISSN
- 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5191
- OpenAlex
- W3046276216
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 16.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Keywords
- worked examples, scripting, argumentative essay writing, online peer feedback, essay revision, argumentation, university students
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
