Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Learners’ Interpersonal Beliefs and Generated Feedback in an Online Role-Playing Peer- Feedback Activity: An Exploratory Study

Ching, Yu-Hui, Hsu, Yu-Chang·2016·The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
DOI 10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2221
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Peer feedback affords interaction and critical thinking opportunities for learners in online courses. However, various factors prevent learners from taking advantage of these promising benefits. This study explored learners’ perceptions of the interpersonal factors in a role-playing peer-feedback activity, and examined the types of peer feedback that learners generated when playing a role. Participants were 16 graduate students engaged in an online role-playing peer-feedback activity. The results from survey responses revealed learners’ positive interpersonal beliefs, including psychological safety and trust, toward the role-playing peer-feedback activity. In addition, more than sixty percent of the participants reported being more comfortable critiquing peers’ work when playing a role. The content analysis of the peer-feedback entries indicated that learners were able to generate highly constructive feedback entries. In addition to adding supportive comments, those feedback entries identified problems, asked questions, and provided suggestions. The results show that role-play strategy has great potential to enhance learners’ interpersonal beliefs in peer-feedback activity and their feedback quality.

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 · 10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2221

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Yu-Hui Ching and Yu-Chang Hsu Boise State University, USA
Yu-Hui Ching and Yu-Chang Hsu Boise State University, USACC-BY · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 1 An example of role-playing peer-feedback activity on VoiceThread.
Figure 1 An example of role-playing peer-feedback activity on VoiceThread.CC-BY · From the PDF

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

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Getchell, K., & Amicucci, A. N. (2014). Responding with the Golden Rule: A cross-institutional peer review experiment. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 42(1), 55-64.

Cited by

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C.
Venue
The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Publisher
Athabasca University Press
Published
2016-03-01
Volume
17
Issue
2
ISSN
1492-3831
DOI
10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2221
Cited by
16
References
54

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.