Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback

Li, Lan, Liu, Xiongyi, Steckelberg, Allen L.·2010·British Journal of Educational Technology
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between the quality of peer assessment and the quality of student projects in a technology application course for teacher education students. Forty‐three undergraduate student participants completed the assigned projects. During the peer assessment process, students first anonymously rated and commented on two randomly assigned peers' projects, and they were then asked to improve their projects based on the feedback they received. Two independent raters blindly evaluated student initial and final projects. Data analysis indicated that when controlling for the quality of the initial projects, there was a significant relationship between the quality of peer feedback students provided for others and the quality of the students' own final projects. However, no significant relationship was found between the quality of peer feedback students received and the quality of their own final projects. This finding supported a prior research claim that active engagement in reviewing peers' projects may facilitate student 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x

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.

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04-15
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
525-536
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x
OpenAlex
W2043311266
Cited by
374
References
0
FWCI
54.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.