The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Peer Feedback in Chinese College English Writing Class: Using Action Research to Promote Students’ English Writing
Abstract
Peer feedback is an effective method to promote students’ English writing competence and skill according to the literature and my personal experience. But it is not welcomed in my class at first. So I employ action research to motivate them to do peer assessment. My action research undergoes four stages: Ruin of Expectation and Emergence of Research Question, Cycle One, Cycle Two, Reinforcement and Back-proof, including both students’ change and my change in both action and thought. Imperfect as it is, my action research turns out to be a success and students do gain many benefits from the practice of peer feedback.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“This is because they do not consider e-PF providers as 'knowledge authority' (Gielen et al., 2011) and they are influenced by the concept of face (Luo & Liu, 2017; Wang, 2016).”
From Electronic Peer Feedback, EFL Academic Writing and Reflective Thinking: Evidence From a Confucian Context (2020) · cites this paper as Wang, 2016
Citations
Cited by
Pham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020914554 · Cited by 68
“, 2011) and they are influenced by the concept of face (Luo & Liu, 2017; Wang, 2016).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, W.
- Venue
- Journal of Language Teaching and Research
- Publisher
- Academy Publication
- Published
- 2016-09-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 958
- ISSN
- 1798-4769
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
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.
