Same assignment—two different feedback contexts: lower secondary students’ experiences with feedback during a three draft writing process
Open accessAbstract
This study explores students’ conceptions and experiences with feedback as integrated parts of a three draft writing process and group discussions in English as a foreign language (EFL) in three schools. The students ( n = 106 , six classes) were following the same draft writing process design during a full school day. The same assignment was given to all participating students, but different feedback contexts were assigned in each school. Half of the students received AI-generated feedback (context 1), while the remaining received peer feedback (context 2). Observations were conducted in all classes during the writing assignment. Individual interviews with students ( n = 22 ) were used to investigate students’ experiences during the draft writing process, and the interviews were thematically analyzed. We find that while AI-generated feedback information supported students dialogic feedback interactions the peer feedback context allowed for students to rehearse their assessment and feedback strategies. The study also reveals that peer feedback for lower secondary school students is challenging, since the students function as both feedback givers, receivers and users during the draft writing process. Key aspects regarding how the students engaged with AI-generated feedback and peer feedback are discussed and we find that both feedback contexts have the potential to develop feedback literacy among lower secondary school students. Our study can contribute to the growing understanding of the relationship between feedback contexts, lower secondary students’ uptake of feedback, and how feedback literacy could be developed.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This qualitative design-based study explored how 106 eighth-grade students in Norway experienced feedback during a three-draft EFL writing process, comparing AI-generated feedback with peer feedback. Students in the AI context generally engaged more with group discussions and acted on feedback, while peer feedback was more challenging but still offered opportunities for rehearsing feedback literacy.
Key findings
- Students across both contexts valued feedback generally and saw the three-draft process as helpful, but students receiving AI-generated feedback (context 1) were more satisfied with the integrated feedback loops and all interviewed students in that context said they tried to act on the feedback.
- Students receiving peer feedback (context 2) often distrusted peer judgments, differentiated among peers by perceived competence, and sometimes did not use the group discussion time; some merely exchanged rubric sheets or read aloud without discussing.
- AI-generated feedback supported dialogic feedback interactions because students received immediate, transformed feedback from EAT before discussing it, though some students also noticed generic or misaligned AI responses, such as flagging “Nelson Mandela” as a repeating word.
- Peer feedback was described as complex for lower secondary students because they had to act as givers, receivers, and users simultaneously; the paper concludes both contexts have potential to develop feedback literacy in different ways.
Methods
- Design-based research study using data from the first iteration of the AI-driven Essay Assessment Technology (EAT), with a qualitative interview study methodology.
- Participants were 106 eighth-grade students (12–13 years old) from six classes at three schools in Eastern Norway; one class per school used AI-generated feedback and another used peer feedback, with 22 students interviewed (11 from each context).
- Students completed the same hero-story assignment over one school day in a 180-minute three-draft process with two feedback loops; interviews were semi-structured and thematically analyzed using inductive and theoretically informed coding.
Limitations
- The paper states that the draft writing process with integrated feedback loops was new for the students and that the study provides descriptive insights but “should not be interpreted as a comparative study.”
- Evident from the text: only 22 of 106 students were interviewed, so findings rely on a subset of participants’ self-reported experiences.
- Evident from the text: the study reports student experiences and perceptions rather than measured writing improvement or feedback uptake outcomes, and it draws on one initial development phase/iteration of the EAT technology.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 79 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
AI-generated feedback information supported students' dialogic feedback interactions.
“We find that while AI-generated feedback information supported students dialogic feedback interactions the peer feedback context allowed for students to rehearse their assessment and feedback strategies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
During the draft writing process, lower secondary students function as both feedback givers, receivers and users.
“The study also reveals that peer feedback for lower secondary school students is challenging, since the students function as both feedback givers, receivers and users during the draft writing process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Peer feedback for lower secondary school students is challenging.
“The study also reveals that peer feedback for lower secondary school students is challenging, since the students function as both feedback givers, receivers and users during the draft writing process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The peer feedback context allowed students to rehearse their assessment and feedback strategies.
“We find that while AI-generated feedback information supported students dialogic feedback interactions the peer feedback context allowed for students to rehearse their assessment and feedback strategies.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
One student in context 2 described how the lack of feedback and feedback interactions made them seek feedback elsewhere.
“One student described how the lack of feedback and feedback interactions made them seek feedback elsewhere:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
By taking part in group discussions, students in context 1 experienced being reminded of what not to do in their further draft-writing process.
“By taking part in group discussions, they experienced being reminded of what not to do in their further draft-writing-process:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
The students linked their conceptions of feedback usefulness to being able to receive and act upon information that could help them uncover blind spots in their work or understanding.
“The students linked their conceptions of feedback usefulness to being able to receive and act upon information that could help them uncover blind spots in their work or understanding:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
The interviewed students in context 2 varied in their description of the feedback they received.
“The interviewed students varied in their description of the feedback they received.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Some students from the peer feedback context also differentiated regarding who they trusted as recipients of their feedback when they were at the giving end of the feedback process.
“Some students from the peer feedback context also differentiated regarding who they trusted as recipients of their feedback when they were at the giving end of the feedback process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Students assigned to the AI-generated feedback context mainly pointed at feedback from both teachers and fellow peers as useful.
“Students assigned to the AI generated-feedback context mainly pointed at feedback from both teachers and fellow peers as useful:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Many students in context 1 described and exemplified how the collaborative discussions supported the process of identifying, interpreting, and making use of the feedback and comparisons.
“Many of the students described and exemplified how the collaborative discussions supported the process of identifying, interpreting, and making use of the feedback and comparisons:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Some students in context 1 experienced confusion when the AI algorithm provided generic and misaligned feedback information.
“Some students also experienced confusion when the AI-algorithm provided some generic and misaligned feedback information.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Students from the peer feedback context explicitly addressed feedback from peers as less useful despite being asked about general experiences of receiving feedback.
“As opposed to students from context 1 (AI-feedback), students from context 2 (peer feedback) explicitly addressed feedback from peers as less useful despite being asked about general experiences of receiving feedback.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Some students from the peer feedback context explicitly linked their view of peer feedback as less useful to the formal education of a teacher.
“Some explicitly linked their view to the formal education of a teacher:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Across both contexts, the students were positive about receiving feedback on their schoolwork in general.
“Across both contexts, the students were positive about receiving feedback on their schoolwork in general.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Some students in context 2 did not discuss or explore the feedback received at all, and their experiences were limited to merely reading aloud from the assessment rubric sheet without discussing.
“Some of the students didn't discuss or explore the feedback received at all and their experiences were limited to merely reading aloud from the assessment rubric sheet without discussing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
The dialogic feedback intentions of the group discussions were experienced to be far less fruitful by students from the peer feedback context (context 2).
“However, the dialogic feedback intentions of the group discussions were experienced to be far less fruitful by students from the peer feedback context (context 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
By comparing the generated, transformed and conveyed feedback received, students in context 1 were able to detect and reveal generic and misaligned responses from the AI-generated feedback.
“By comparing the generated, transformed and conveyed feedback received, the students were able to detect and reveal generic and misaligned response from the AI-generated feedback.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Others in context 2 simply exchanged assessment rubric sheets.
“Others simply exchanged assessment rubric sheets.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Some students from the peer feedback context expressed doubting feedback given by fellow students because they might be wrong or not taking the feedback process seriously.
“Others expressed doubting feedback given by fellow students since they might be wrong or not taking the feedback process seriously:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
The student further described how their peers emphasized potential grades above providing useful feedback information.
“The student further described how their peers emphasized potential grades above providing useful feedback information:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Some students in context 1 found the discussions useful beyond correcting existing errors.
“Some students found the discussions useful beyond correcting existing errors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
A common pattern among students from the peer-feedback context was that they differentiated between their fellow peers regarding whether they trusted the feedback to be valuable or not.
“A common pattern among students from the peer-feedback context was that they differentiated between their fellow peers regarding whether they trusted the feedback to be valuable or not.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
When exploring student experiences regarding dialogic feedback interactions, the students who received AI-generated feedback (context 1) were generally positive toward the group discussions.
“When exploring student experiences regarding dialogic feedback interactions the students who received AI-generated feedback (context 1) were generally positive toward the group discussions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Some students in context 2 perceived feedback from their peers merely as differences in personal preferences and would not act on the feedback unless feeling sure it could give a higher grade.
“Some of them perceived feedback from their peers merely as differences in personal preferences and would not act on the feedback unless feeling sure it could give a higher grade.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Their arguments for differentiating trust in peer feedback were mainly related to the perceived competence of the peer, the perceived value of the feedback, or both.
“Their arguments were mainly related to the perceived competence of the peer, the perceived value of the feedback, or both.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingcitation
Students assigned to the AI feedback context received generated and transformed feedback information from a software technology they trusted.
“Students assigned to the AI feedback context received generated and transformed feedback information (Huang et al., 2023;Munshi and Deneen, 2018) from a software technology they trusted.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Huang et al., 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Munshi and Deneen, 2018
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data
Students who received peer feedback generally did not make use of the time set aside for group discussions.
“the students who received peer feedback generally did not make use of the time set aside for group discussions”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Some interviewed students explicitly said that the draft writing process felt like a safe way to write.
“some explicitly said that it felt like”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Many of the interviewed students said that the draft writing process with integrated feedback loops helped them to identify and correct mistakes.
“Many of the students said that the draft writing process with integrated feedback loops helped them to identify and correct mistakes”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Students who received AI-generated feedback expressed being more actively engaged in the group discussions than students who received peer feedback.
“In our findings, we see a clear pattern where students who receive AI-feedback express to be more actively engaged in the group discussions than students who receive peer (generated) feedback.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The study found many examples of students not perceiving themselves to be equal to the other students in their group.
“However, in our study we find many examples of students not perceiving themselves to be equal to the other students in their group.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Some students did not trust the peer feedback they received from fellow students because they did not trust their peers' level of competence.
“Some students note that they do not trust the peer feedback they receive from fellow students because they do not trust their level of competence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among students in the peer feedback context acting as assessors, some were more equipped than others to identify errors and point at potential for improvement in their peers' texts.
“some of them were more equipped to identify errors (and point at potential for improvement) than others”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Both groups of students were eager to get feedback that enabled them to correct their errors and improve their work.
“both groups of students were eager to get feedback which enabled them to correct their errors and improve their work.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
All interviewed students in the peer feedback context (context 2) also described the three-draft writing process as a good way to write.
“All the students who received and gave peer feedback (context 2) also described the three draft writing process as a good way to write.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Students in the peer feedback context did not trust the feedback they received in the same way as students in the AI-generated feedback context did.
“Students from the peer feedback context did not trust the feedback they received in the same way as students from the AIgenerated feedback context did.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Students from the peer feedback context seemed to struggle even more with the assessor role than with interpreting and making use of feedback they had received.
“As previously stated, students from the peer feedback context seemed to struggle even more with the assessor role than with interpreting and making use of feedback they had received.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Findingown data
Students who received AI-generated feedback found the group discussions both useful and educational.
“Students who received AI-generated feedback found the group discussions both useful and educational”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The study found examples of students experiencing that their peers did not take the feedback process seriously.
“We also found examples of students experiencing that their peers did not take the feedback process seriously.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Few of the peer feedback students explicitly pointed at the integrated feedback loops as an important aspect of the writing process.
“However, few of them explicitly pointed at the integrated feedback loops as an important aspect of the writing process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
All interviewed students in the AI-generated feedback context (context 1) said they had tried their best to act on the feedback they received.
“All the interviewed students who got AI-generated feedback (context 1) said that they had tried their best to act on the feedback they received”
- Also stated in: § Acting upon feedback · plain
“All the interviewed students from the AI-generated feedback context agreed that they had acted upon the provided feedback by the best of their ability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Also stated in: § Acting upon feedback · plain
- Interpretationown data
Even if all students said they valued feedback on a general level, patterns regarding their assigned contexts during the three draft writing process seemed to shape parts of their further reasoning.
“However, even if all students said they valued feedback on a general level, patterns regarding their assigned contexts during the three draft writing process seemed to shape parts of their further reasoning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
- Interpretationown data
Feeling like a less competent student in a group of more competent fellow students could be a vulnerable situation.
“Feeling like a less competent student in a group of more competent fellow students could be a vulnerable situation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Students who receive AI-generated feedback information seem to be provided with a starting point for dialogic feedback interactions.
“Students who receive AI-generated feedback information seem to be provided with a starting point for dialogic feedback interactions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
When students are expected to be at both the giving and receiving end of feedback interactions at the same time, the cognitive overload added to the emotional stress could be overwhelming.
“And when students are expected to be at both the giving and receiving end of feedback interactions at the same time, the cognitive overload added to the emotional stress could be overwhelming.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Peer feedback is inherently complex for lower secondary school students when they are both feedback givers and receivers during a feedback loop.
“Our study also demonstrate that peer feedback is inherently complex for lower secondary school students, when they are both feedback givers and receivers during a feedback loop.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
One cannot take for granted that collaboration and active engagement will occur among lower secondary students in peer feedback.
“One cannot take for granted that collaboration and active engagement will occur.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Students in the peer feedback context were, in various degrees, cognitively and emotionally challenged in the assessor role before they received feedback on their own texts from their peers.
“Thus, these students were (in various degrees) cognitively and emotionally challenged in the assessorrole before they received feedback on their own texts from their peers (Panadero, 2016;Panadero et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Panadero et al., 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Study design and conductown data
The draft writing process with integrated feedback loops was a new experience for the students in both feedback contexts.
“As noted in the results section the draft writing process with integrated feedback loops (both feedback contexts) was a new experience for the students.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 74
- May combine two claims. 44
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Not yet classified. 1
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe student further described the feedback giving process as vulnerable.
“The student further described the feedback giving process as vulnerable.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe student also experienced difficulties as the giver of feedback to the smart ones.
“On the other hand, the student also experienced difficulties as the giver of feedback to the smart ones:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe students emphasized that receiving feedback helped them improve their work and their texts, and they all appeared to have a formative view of feedback aligned with assessment for learning.
“They emphasized that receiving feedback helped them improve their work and their texts and they all appeared to have a formative view of feedback aligned with assessment for learning.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataStudents assigned to feedback context 2 described process writing with integrated feedback loops during a school day as new to them, and both giving and receiving peer feedback was something they had to get used to throughout the day.
“The students described process writing with integrated feedback loops during a school day as new to them, and both giving and receiving peer feedback was something they had to get used to throughout the day:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataStudents described their perceptions in ways associated with task- or process-level performance, indicating that they find feedback on self-level less useful.
“Students also described their perceptions in ways associated with task-or process level performance, indicating that they find feedback on self-level less useful:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataStudents assigned to feedback context 1 described process writing with integrated feedback loops and writing in the EAT system and receiving AI-generated feedback as new to them.
“The students described process writing with integrated feedback loops and writing in the EAT system and receive AIgenerated as new to them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe student further described how fellow students pointed out errors and then assisted the understanding of how to correct the errors that were identified.
“The student further described how fellow students pointed out errors and that they then assisted the understanding of how to correct the errors that were identified.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe interviewed students in context 1 enjoyed working in the program, and many explicitly explained how they interacted with the technology and engaged in the received feedback to improve their work.
“The interviewed students enjoyed working in the program, and many of them explicitly explained how they interacted with the technology and engaged in the received feedback to improve their work:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingown dataDuring the initial coding, patterns of similarities and differences between how students in the two different contexts experienced the feedback were revealed (saturation).
“During the initial coding, patterns of similarities and differences between how the students in the two different context experienced the feedback were revealed (saturation).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe student said that it was not so difficult to understand the feedback, but at the same time they pointed out that they found it difficult to read and hence interpret and make use of feedback.
“The student said that it was not so difficult to understand the feedback, but at the same time they pointed out that they found it difficult to read and hence interpret and make use of feedback.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataAnother student from the peer feedback context used the inherent spelling tool in Microsoft Word to describe their difficulties verbalizing peer feedback information.
“Another student from the peer feedback context used the inherent spelling tool in Microsoft Word to describe their difficulties verbalizing peer feedback information:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
May combine two claims.
FindingcitationDespite some examples of generic or misaligned responses in the AI-generated feedback, the students in context 1 trusted the feedback they received.
“Despite some examples of generic or misaligned responses (Barrot, 2023) in the AI-generated feedback, the students from context 1 trusted the feedback they received.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Barrot, 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
The quote only partly states this claim.
FindingreasoningThe group of students who received AI-generated feedback seemed far more satisfied with the integrated feedback loops overall than the peer feedback group.
“the group of students who received AI-generated feedback seemed far more satisfied with the integrated feedback loops overall”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataStudents expressed uncertainty about what aspects to provide feedback on and how to use feedback to improve their texts.
“They express uncertainty about what aspects to provide feedback on and how to use feedback to improve their texts, making the situation challenging for them.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSome peer feedback students talked about peer feedback merely as differences in individual opinions and would only use the received feedback if they believed it would influence their grade.
“Some of them talked about peer feedback merely as differences in individual opinions, emphasizing that they would only use the received feedback if they believed it would somehow influence their grade.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAll interviewed students across both feedback contexts agreed that writing a text through a three-draft writing process with integrated feedback loops was helpful and offered a structured approach to writing.
“All student informants across the two contexts agreed that writing a text through a three draft writing process (with integrated feedback loops) was helpful and offered a structured approach to writing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSome students experienced good support from what they call the brightest students in class as receivers of feedback, while simultaneously not feeling able to contribute as feedback givers.
“We also see examples of some students having experienced good support from what they call”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationEngaging with feedback for knowing is more challenging than feedback on knowing because it can require students to change their mode of knowing the world and themselves.
“But engaging with FfK seems to be more challenging than FoK since it can require students to “change their mode of knowing the world and themselves” (Sutton, 2012, p. 35).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sutton, 2012
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationYang et al. found that teacher feedback led to greater performance improvements.
“However, Yang et al. (2006) found that teacher feedback led to greater performance improvements, indicating that the effectiveness of feedback methods may vary depending on the nature of the task and the students involved.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Yang et al., 2006 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationInvolving teachers and students in feedback loops, individually and collectively, increases the quality of learning.
“involving teachers and students in feedback loops, individually and collectively, is perceived to increase the quality of learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998b;Hattie and Timperley, 2007;Pedder and James, 2012).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Black and Wiliam, 1998b
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Hattie and Timperley, 2007 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Pedder and James, 2012
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPeer assessment activates motivational, cognitive and emotional processes with a potential to enhance the learning of the assessor and the assessee.
“Peer assessment activates several motivational, cognitive and emotional processes with a potential to enhance the learning of the assessor and the assessee, and it thereby involves multiple social and human factors, since peer assessment does not happen in a vacuum (Panadero, 2016;Panadero et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Panadero et al., 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPeer feedback can substitute teacher feedback without a considerable loss of effectiveness in the long run.
“Gielen et al. (2010) found that peer feedback can substitute teacher feedback without a considerable loss of effectiveness in the long run.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gielen et al., 2010
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPeer assessment can be perceived as a learning tool for developing students' judgment and ability to recognize quality work.
“Peer assessment could be perceived as a learning tool for developing students' judgment and ability to recognize quality work, and according to Nicol (2021) feedback designs could benefit from turning natural comparisons (that students are making anyway) into formal and explicit comparisons potential for learners.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Nicol, 2021 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationLearners cannot be assumed to possess the skills needed to act on feedback.
“It is argued that learners cannot be assumed to possess skills needed to act on feedback.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sutton, 2012
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationDouble et al. concluded that there are positive effects of peer assessment compared to teacher assessment.
“For instance, Double et al. (2020) concluded that there are positive effects of peer assessment compared to teacher assessment.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Double et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationHelping students develop self-generated feedback by providing concrete strategies for monitoring progress is crucial for fostering feedback literacy.
“Helping students develop self-generated feedback by providing concrete strategies for monitoring progress is crucial for fostering feedback literacy, as it creates opportunities for internal and external feedback to converge when the writer engages in text review (Fiskerstrand and Gamlem, 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Fiskerstrand and Gamlem, 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationStudents' peer assessment skills can be trained so that their feedback becomes as effective as teacher feedback in the end.
“Gielen et al. (2010, p. 144) argue that students “peer assessment skills can be trained so that their feedback becomes as effective as teacher feedback in the end.””
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gielen et al., 2010
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationCho and Schunn reported no significant difference in student performance between single peer feedback and teacher feedback.
“Cho and Schunn (2007) reported no significant difference in student performance between single peer feedback and teacher feedback, suggesting that peer assessment may be equally valid in certain contexts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Cho and Schunn, 2007
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationFeedback has a powerful influence on student learning and achievement.
“Feedback has a powerful influence on student learning and achievement (Hattie and Timperley, 2007;Lipnevich and Panadero, 2021)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Hattie and Timperley, 2007 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Lipnevich and Panadero, 2021
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationWhen grading is incorporated in peer feedback, it is only beneficial for tertiary students but not primary or secondary school students.
“But the study also pointed out that when grading is incorporated in peer feedback on students' learning it is only beneficial for tertiary students but not primary or secondary school students.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Double et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSummative assessment can enhance student learning if the embedded information is used formatively.
“summative assessment can enhance student learning if the embedded information is used formatively (Black et al., 2011;Gamlem et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Black et al., 2011 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Gamlem et al., 2024
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationProviding feedback on techniques and language can build writing confidence for the student.
“Graham (2018) emphasizes the potential to build writing confidence for the student, by providing feedback on techniques and language to develop their writing.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Graham, 2018
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAssessment for learning and formative feedback are particularly effective in promoting learning.
“assessment for learning and formative feedback are found to be particularly effective in promoting learning (Black and Wiliam, 2009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Black and Wiliam, 2009 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationExplicit guidance concerning how to act and feed forward may be needed to various degrees.
“Therefore, explicit guidance concerning how to act and feed forward may be needed to various degrees.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sutton, 2012
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationA well-developed feedback literacy is a precondition for the sense-making process through which learners use information from various sources to enhance their work or learning strategies.
“According to Carless and Boud (2018) a well-developed feedback literacy is a precondition for such a sense-making process to occur.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Carless and Boud, 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPeer assessment is advocated as a central part of formative assessment and assessment for learning practices, and peer feedback has been recognized as a meaningful approach to enhance student engagement.
“Peer assessment is alongside self-assessment by many advocated as a central part of formative assessment and assessment for learning practices, and peer feedback has been recognized as a meaningful approach to enhance student engagement (Andrade et al., 2021;Panadero, 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Andrade et al., 2021
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisereasoningInteractive dialogues between the teacher and students or among students can be powerful for students' learning.
“Interactive dialogues between the teacher and the students or among the students can thus be seen as powerful for students' learning.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationDialogic feedback interactions might help students construct a path forward but are seldom employed in the classroom setting.
“Dialogic feedback interactions might help students construct a path forward but is seldom employed in the classroom setting (Gamlem and Smith, 2013).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gamlem and Smith, 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataBoth AI-generated feedback and peer feedback contexts have the potential to develop feedback literacy among lower secondary school students.
“Key aspects regarding how the students engaged with AI-generated feedback and peer feedback are discussed and we find that both feedback contexts have the potential to develop feedback literacy among lower secondary school students.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationClassroom feedback practices have historically resisted change due to a focus on one-way information delivery to learners and students.
“However, classroom feedback practices have historically resisted change due to a focus on one-way information delivery to learners and students (Boud and Molloy, 2013).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Boud and Molloy, 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationWhen feedback is used in a formative process, students often become more active and engaged in regulating their learning.
“When feedback is used in a formative process, students often become more active and engaged in regulating their learning (Andrade, 2010;Brandmo et al., 2020)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Andrade, 2010
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Brandmo et al., 2020
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe effectiveness of feedback methods may vary depending on the nature of the task and the students involved.
“However, Yang et al. (2006) found that teacher feedback led to greater performance improvements, indicating that the effectiveness of feedback methods may vary depending on the nature of the task and the students involved.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Yang et al., 2006 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationLanguage barriers could influence learners' capacity to understand, interpret and act upon feedback.
“Sutton (2009Sutton ( , 2012) ) also highlight the need to address and overcome language barriers which could influence learners' capacity to understand, interpret and act upon feedback.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Sutton, 2009
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Sutton, 2012
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Premisenone givenStudies investigating the efficiency and usefulness of peer feedback vary in their findings.
“However, despite being optimistic around the use of peer assessment in classroom practices, studies investigating the efficiency and usefulness of peer feedback vary in their findings.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe participating students were part of their normal classes, which made the classroom environment similar to their everyday learning context.
“The participating students were part of their normal classes which made the classroom environment similar to their everyday learning context.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI tools can support formative assessment, offering immediate feedback that fosters self-directed learning and helps students independently address their errors.
“Additionally, AI tools can support formative assessment, offering immediate feedback that fosters self-directed learning and helps students independently address their errors (Shadiev and Feng, 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Shadiev and Feng, 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAutomated and AI applications perform assessment at a high accuracy and efficiency level as long as large and relevant datasets are available for training the systems.
“When studied, automated-and AI applications are found to perform assessment at a high accuracy and efficiency level as long as large and relevant datasets are available for training the systems (machine learning) (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI systems process large volumes of writing quickly, making them scalable for educational settings.
“These systems also process large volumes of writing quickly, making them scalable for educational settings (Giannakos et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Giannakos et al., 2024
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationMost students have positive attitudes toward peer assessment and often report learning gains.
“Peer assessment is an opportunity to learn more, and most students have positive attitudes toward peer assessment and often report to have learning gains (Panadero, 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe individual learner often must shift between roles during the feedback process.
“In addition, another layer of complexity is added, since the individual learner often must shift between roles during the feedback process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Panadero et al., 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThere is a risk of students becoming overly reliant on AI corrections, potentially weakening their self-editing and critical thinking skills.
“There is also a risk of students becoming overly reliant on AI corrections, potentially weakening their selfediting and critical thinking skills (Giannakos et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Giannakos et al., 2024
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI-generated feedback may struggle with understanding the context and nuances of student writing, leading to generic or misaligned responses.
“For example, it may struggle with understanding the context and nuances of student writing, leading to generic or misaligned responses (Barrot, 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Barrot, 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI tools adapt feedback to each student's needs, providing targeted support that addresses specific areas of improvement.
“According to Barrot (2023), Engeness and Mørch (2016), AI tools adapt feedback to each student's needs, providing targeted support that addresses specific areas of improvement.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Barrot, 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Engeness and Mørch, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe physical classroom setup was pre-arranged in the same way for both feedback contexts and across all three schools.
“The physical classroom setup was pre-arranged in the same way for context one (AI-generated feedback) and context two (peer feedback) and across all three schools.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe initial coding prioritized inductive coding over theoretical coding and lifeworld experiences over theoretical coding categories to reflect students' own perspectives and voices.
“Reflecting the students' own perspectives and voices was an important part of the study, and the initial coding of the transcripts therefore prioritized inductive coding over theoretical coding and lifeworld experiences over theoretical coding categories”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Braun and Clarke, 2006 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Rapley in Silverman (2021, p. 341-356)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI-generated feedback offers diverse benefits in language learning, primarily through personalized and efficient responses.
“AI-generated feedback have been found to offer diverse benefits in language learning, primarily through personalized and efficient responses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Barrot, 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Engeness and Mørch, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPeer assessment enhances learning and performance in two distinct ways: the assessee receives direct feedback on how to improve and the assessor becomes more aware of their own strengths and weaknesses.
“Despite adding another layer on complexity, an important argument for the use of peer assessment is that it enhances both learning and performance in two distinct ways: The assessee receives direct feedback on how to improve and the assessor become more aware of their own strengths and weaknesses (Panadero, 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPeer assessment enhances self-assessment capability and students' self-regulated learning where peers act as co-regulators of assessee peers.
“Peer assessment therefore enhance self-assessment capability, and students self-regulated learning where peers act as co-regulators of assessee peers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationResearch on student uptake of technology-based feedback and the characteristics of quality feedback in technology remains limited.
“However, in their concluding remarks both Munshi and Deneen (2018), Huang et al. (2023) point at important blind spots: Research on student uptake of technology-based feedback and the characteristics of quality feedback in technology remains limited.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Munshi and Deneen, 2018
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Huang et al., 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPeer feedback can sometimes be perceived as damaging due to disrespectful behaviors exhibited by peers during the feedback process.
“Gamlem and Smith (2013) highlighted that peer feedback can sometimes be perceived as damaging due to disrespectful behaviors exhibited by peers during the feedback process.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gamlem and Smith, 2013 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationLittle research has distinguished between and explored the contrasts between the assessor and assessee roles.
“However, little research has distinguished between-and explored the contrasts between these two roles (Panadero, 2016).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe researchers manually corrected poor-quality AI-generated transcripts by comparing raw sound files with the transcripts, resulting in semi-automated transcripts.
“However, the quality of some of the transcripts were quite poor and the researchers therefore had to thoroughly compare the raw data sound files with the transcripts and manually correct them, resulting in what Da Silva (2021) describe as semi-automated transcripts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Da Silva (2021)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationEthical concerns, including data privacy, need careful consideration in AI-generated feedback.
“Furthermore, ethical concerns, including data privacy, need careful consideration (Giannakos et al., 2024).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Giannakos et al., 2024
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAutomated feedback and scoring systems are expected to improve assessment practices by speeding up marking time, reducing or removing human bias, and increasing the accuracy and reliability of assessment.
“The functionalities of automated feedback-and scoring systems (including artificial intelligence technologies) are expected to serve as means to improve assessment practices as it speeds up marking time, reduces or removes human bias and increase the accuracy and reliability of assessment (Richardson and Clesham, 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Richardson and Clesham, 2021
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningConducting the interviews at the end of the process minimizes variations from differing circumstances, thereby enhancing the reliability of the findings.
“This approach minimizes variations that may arise from differing circumstances, thereby enhancing the reliability of the findings.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationUtilization of automated and artificial intelligence technologies in assessment practices has been perceived as an important contribution to increase reliability and reduce human bias and the risk of making mistakes.
“Despite challenges to provide formative feedback in educational settings, utilization of automated-and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in assessment practices has been perceived an important contribution to increase reliability and reduce human bias and the risk of making mistakes (Chen et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chen et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe project was approved by SIKT and informed consent was provided by all participating students and their legal guardians.
“The project was approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (SIKT) and informed consent was provided by all participating students and their legal guardians.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningConducting the interviews at the end of the process allows for a more coherent comparison of responses.
“Conducting the interviews at the end of the process allows for a more coherent comparison of responses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe rubric for peer feedback was designed to ensure that the feedback would address the same language categories as EAT (spelling, punctuation, and grammar).
“The rubric was designed to ensure that the feedback would address the same language categories as EAT (thus focusing on spelling, punctuation, and grammar).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe student interviews were conducted at the end of the day, after finishing the writing process, to ensure consistency in the context and environment in which the data were collected.
“The student interviews were conducted in the end of the day, after finishing the writing process, this to ensure consistency in the context and environment in which the data were collected.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAI feedback may not address more complex aspects of writing, like creativity and argumentation.
“While effective for surface-level errors, AI feedback may not address more complex aspects of writing, like creativity and argumentation (Hopfenbeck et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hopfenbeck et al., 2023
Not checked in the free run.
Not yet classified.
Study design and conductThe design of the writing trajectory was the same in both feedback contexts.
“The design of the writing trajectory was the same in both contexts, but in one context the students received feedback information from an AI-driven computer-based system, and in the other the students received peer feedback.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classifiedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningConducting the interviews at the end of the process ensures that the experiences discussed remain fresh in the students' memories, providing a clearer understanding of the students' experiences as opposed to delayed interviews.
“This ensures that the experiences discussed remain fresh in the students' memories providing a clearer understanding of the students' experiences as opposed to delayed interviews.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAutomated and AI technologies have the potential to increase reliability and validity of assessment and could assist both student learning trajectories and teachers' overall assessment practices.
“In addition, automated-and AI technologies have the potential to increase reliability and validity of assessment and could thus assist both student learning trajectories and teachers' overall assessment practices (Chen et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Chen et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationDifferent role characteristics as assessor and assessee have different psychological and interpersonal consequences and activate different emotions and strategies.
“The different role characteristics as assessor and an assessee have different psychological and interpersonal consequences and activates different emotions and strategies (Panadero, 2016;Panadero et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Panadero, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Panadero et al., 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningPeer feedback was grounded in the same predetermined assessment criteria that EAT utilized in its automated feedback, ensuring consistency in the study design.
“Peer feedback was grounded in same predetermined assessment criteria that EAT utilize in its automated feedback.This ensured consistency in the study design.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningA group of three researchers was present alongside the teacher in all classes to observe during the students' writing process, ensuring comparable consistency.
“To ensure comparable consistency a group of three researchers from the research team was present alongside the teacher in all classes (at all three schools), to observe during the students' writing process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningBy rehearsing the processes of giving and receiving feedback as provided in the peer feedback context, students must actively involve their judgment and practice how to manage affect.
“by rehearsing the processes of giving and receiving feedback -as provided in the peer feedback context, students must actively involve their judgment and practice how to manage”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe AI-generated feedback information is easy to understand and could easily be compared.
“The feedback information is easy to understand and could easily be compared.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataPeer feedback processes and engaging in feedback through dialogic feedback interactions require a certain level of feedback literacy, or at least supplementary support.
“By comparing the two feedback contexts in our study, we have demonstrated that peer feedback processes and engaging in feedback through dialogic feedback interactions require a certain level of feedback literacy or at least supplementary support.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The differences between the two contexts in how students experienced and acted on feedback are attributable to the feedback context (AI-generated vs peer feedback) rather than to other differences between the classes, teachers or schools.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe intention of AI-generated and automated feedback technology is its ability to offer feedback that is both immediate and personalized, adapted to each student's needs, providing targeted support that addresses specific areas of improvement.
“The very intention of AI-generated and automated feedback technology is its ability to offer feedback that is both immediate and personalized, adapted to each student's needs, providing targeted support that addresses specific areas of improvement (Barrot, 2023;Engeness and Mørch, 2016).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Barrot, 2023 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Engeness and Mørch, 2016
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataUnderstanding and realizing the inherent potential for engagement, and acquiring tacit knowledge through modeling and comparisons, can be demanding for 12-13-year-old lower secondary students.
“Understanding and realizing the inherent potential for engagement, and acquisition of tacit knowledge through modeling and comparisons can be demanding for 12-13 years old lower secondary students.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe study provides descriptive insights into how students experienced the feedback process in the two contexts and should not be interpreted as a comparative study.
“The study provides descriptive insights regarding how the students experienced the feedback process in the two contexts but should not be interpreted as a comparative study.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAdding another layer of feedback mode (group discussions) during a three-draft writing process seems to overwhelm the students, and especially students with limited feedback literacy.
“Adding another layer of feedback mode (group discussions) during a three draft writing process seems to overwhelm the students, and especially students with limited feedback literacy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAI-generated and automated feedback systems have the potential to increase reliability and validity of feedback, reduce the risk of bias and human mistakes, and could thus assist both student learning trajectories and teachers' overall assessment practices.
“This aligns with the view that AIgenerated and automated feedback systems have the potential to increase reliability and validity of feedback, reduce the risk of bias and human mistakes, and that they could thus assist both student learning trajectories and teachers' overall”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Chen et al., 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Richardson and Clesham, 2021
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
PremisecitationTacit feedback knowledge and feedback literacy might in some contexts be acquired and emerge through observation, imitation, participation and dialogue.
“This argument rests on the premise that tacit feedback knowledge and feedback literacy might in some contexts be acquired and emerge through observation, imitation, participation and dialogue (Carless and Boud, 2018;Sutton, 2012).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Carless and Boud, 2018 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Sutton, 2012
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationDeveloping feedback literacy involves appreciating feedback processes, making judgments, managing affect and taking action, and maximizing the mutual interplay of the first three features maximizes the potential for students to act on feedback provided.
“According to Carless and Boud (2018) developing feedback literacy involves appreciating feedback processes, making judgments, managing affect and taking action (acting), and their framework further supposes that maximizing the mutual interplay of first three features will maximize the potential for students to act on feedback provided.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Carless and Boud (2018) source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationMany inter- and intrapersonal factors could influence peer feedback processes.
“Panadero (2016) and Panadero et al. (2023) describe many inter-and intrapersonal factors that could influence peer feedback processes”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Panadero (2016)
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Panadero et al. (2023) source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAI-generated feedback and peer assessment could support lower secondary students' development of feedback literacy in different ways.
“Our study indicate that that AI-generated feedback and peer assessment could support lower secondary students' development of feedback literacy in different ways”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The differences between the two contexts in how students experienced and acted on feedback are attributable to the feedback context (AI-generated vs peer feedback) rather than to other differences between the classes, teachers or schools.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationActive participation in feedback processes could model feedback literacy for learners and thereby support students' development of self-regulated learning.
“A common argument for implementing peer feedback and dialogic feedback interactions in classroom practices is that active participation in feedback processes could model feedback literacy for learners and thereby support students' development of selfregulated learning (Andrade, 2010;Andrade et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Andrade, 2010
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Andrade et al., 2021
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPeer feedback is an assessment form performed by equal status learners.
“According to Gielen et al. (2010) peer feedback is an assessment form performed by equal status learners.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Gielen et al. (2010)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationTechnology-enhanced feedback should be easy to act on.
“This means that technology enhanced feedback should be easy to act on Huang et al. (2023), Munshi and Deneen (2018).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Huang et al. (2023) source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Munshi and Deneen (2018)
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningThese elements could be key factors in strengthening students' feedback literacy.
“These elements could be key factors in strengthening students' feedback literacy.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The feedback literacy framework developed in higher education is applicable to lower secondary school contexts.
“For this reason, we use this framework as a starting point to investigate feedback literacy in other contexts (e.g., lower secondary school).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The same assignment given to all participating students provides a comparable writing task across the different feedback contexts.
“The same assignment was given to all participating students, but different feedback contexts were assigned in each school.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Students' interview accounts accurately reflect their experiences during the draft writing process.
“Individual interviews with students (n = 22) were used to investigate students' experiences during the draft writing process, and the interviews were thematically analyzed.”
The paper relies on this without support.
More knowledge is needed on how students perceive and engage with diverse types of feedback, particularly in the complex context of digital learning environments.
“While previous research has offered useful and detailed conceptualizations of feedback, more knowledge is needed on how students perceive and engage with diverse types of feedback, particularly in the complex context of digital learning environments.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Understanding how students view and experience both peer feedback and automated feedback during a writing process is essential for identifying strategies that might enhance their learning experiences and foster engagement in an increasingly digital and collaborative educational environment.
“Understanding how students view and experience both peer feedback and automated feedback during a writing process is essential for identifying strategies that might enhance their learning experiences and foster engagement in an increasingly digital and collaborative educational environment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The EAT offers developmental feedback that encourages reflection and learning about the reasoning behind errors, promoting a deeper understanding of the writing process.
“In contrast, the EAT moves beyond static corrections by offering developmental feedback designed to encourage reflection and learning about the reasoning behind the errors.This approach promotes a deeper understanding of the writing process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Students' interview responses accurately reflect their experiences with feedback during the writing process.
“The experiences of the students, as captured through interviews conducted immediately following their writing and feedback interactions, were subjected to rigorous coding and thematic analysis.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The two feedback contexts (AI-generated feedback and peer feedback) are sufficiently distinct and comparable to allow meaningful comparison of student experiences.
“The group of participating classes were split in two, and two different feedback contexts were investigated.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The differences between the two contexts in how students experienced and acted on feedback are attributable to the feedback context (AI-generated vs peer feedback) rather than to other differences between the classes, teachers or schools.
“However, they expressed their viewpoints differently, likely influenced by the feedback context they were assigned.”
“Factors embedded in the two feedback contexts could assist our understanding of this finding;”
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?
Studies used AI interventions to address common barriers such as limited teacher feedback, low student motivation for revision, or insufficient opportunities for creative expression.
“These studies used AI interventions to address common barriers such as limited teacher feedback, low student motivation for revision, or insufficient opportunities for creative expression [81-87].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [83]
The Methodology describes an AI tool that gives students feedback to guide revisions, and Acting upon feedback reports that students used it and were satisfied with the feedback loops. The paper does not establish that the intervention addressed limited teacher feedback or insufficient opportunities for creative expression; Technology enhanced assessment and feedback instead notes that AI feedback may not address creativity. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA large subset of studies casts GenAI as a grader in writing and reading assessments, delivering analytic diagnoses and scores across dimensions such as grammar, structure, and argumentation.
“A large subset of studies casts GenAI as a grader. During writing and reading assessments, AI delivers analytic diagnoses and scores across dimensions such as grammar, structure, and argumentation; teachers then prune or augment these prompts before returning them to students, who revise line-by-line, after which AI re-checks the latest draft [77,83,110,124,130].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [83]
The Methodology and Assignment sections describe an AI-driven tool that identifies language errors in students’ writing and provides feedback across successive drafts. They do not establish a large subset of GenAI grading studies, reading assessments, or scores across grammar, structure, and argumentation. The Technology enhanced assessment and feedback section instead cautions that AI feedback may not address complex aspects such as argumentation; the described feedback is delivered directly to students, not pruned by teachers first. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAcross writing, reading, and mathematics tasks, students repeatedly submit work to AI systems, receive concrete suggestions, and resubmit revised work, creating a cycle of practice, feedback, and renewed practice.
“Across writing, reading, and mathematics tasks, students repeatedly submit texts, assignments, or answers to AI systems, receive concrete suggestions on error correction, structure, and language use, and then resubmit revised work, creating a cycle of practice, feedback, and renewed practice [75,77,82,83,87,90,110].”
From A Systematic Review of Generative AI in K–12: Mapping Goals, Activities, Roles, and Outcomes via the 3P Model (2025) · cites this paper as [83]
The Discussion (page not provided) describes AI-generated language feedback after the first and second drafts of a writing task, followed by revision and a final draft. The Methodology describes suggestions about spelling, punctuation, and other writing mechanics. The paper does not establish the same cycle for reading or mathematics tasks, so the claim extends beyond what this source supports. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers
Lungu, M. (2022) · American Journal of Qualitative Research · doi:10.29333/ajqr/12085 · Cited by 10,887 · see citing works
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · see citing works
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0 · Cited by 7,242 · see citing works
Interviews – Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing
Vaivio, J. (2012) · European Accounting Review · doi:10.1080/09638180.2012.675165 · Cited by 4,545 · see citing works
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285 · see citing works
Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172171009200119 · Cited by 4,231 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence in Education: A Review
Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2988510 · Cited by 4,133 · see citing works
Brown, A. L. (1992) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · Cited by 4,000 · see citing works
Developing the theory of formative assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009) · Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5 · Cited by 3,301 · see citing works
Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry
(2003) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x032001005 · Cited by 2,813 · see citing works
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · see citing works
Anderson, T. D., & Shattuck, J. (2012) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x11428813 · Cited by 2,368 · see citing works
Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2 · Cited by 1,946 · see citing works
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · see citing works
Fletcher, E. (2015) · International Journal of Research & Method in Education · doi:10.1080/1743727x.2015.1066173 · Cited by 1,618 · see citing works
Using ChatGPT for second language writing: pitfalls and potentials
Barrot, J. S. (2023) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745 · Cited by 770 · see citing works
A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 · Cited by 703 · see citing works
The promise and challenges of generative AI in education
Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., Järvelä, S., Mavrikis, M., & Rienties, B. (2025) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2394886 · Cited by 543 · see citing works
(2008) · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2005) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3 · Cited by 446 · see citing works
Stupid tutoring systems, intelligent humans
Baker, R. S. (2016) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-016-0105-0 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes
Nicol, D. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314 · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Conceptualizing feedback literacy: knowing, being, and acting
Sutton, P. (2012) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2012.647781 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
A Review of Feedback Models and Theories: Descriptions, Definitions, and Conclusions
Lipnevich, A. A., & Panadero, E. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.720195 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
Gifts, ping-pong and loops – linking feedback and learning
Askew, S., & Lodge, C. (2004) · doi:10.4324/9780203017678-4 · Cited by 201 · see citing works
Student perceptions of classroom feedback
Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2012.749212 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Self-citationGielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/01411920902894070 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
A meta-review of the student role in feedback
der Kleij, F. M. V., Adie, L. E., & Cumming, J. (2019) · International Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.005 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Challenges and opportunities for classroom-based formative assessment and AI: a perspective article
Hopfenbeck, T. N., Zhang, Z., Sun, S. Z., Robertson, P., & McGrane, J. A. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1270700 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
(2016) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Can teachers’ summative assessments produce dependable results and also enhance classroom learning?
Black, P., Harrison, C., Hodgen, J., Marshall, B., & Serret, N. (2011) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2011.557020 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Professional Learning as a Condition for Assessment for Learning
Pedder, D., & James, M. (2012) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446250808.n3 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Knight, S., & Shum, S. B. (2017) · Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR) eBooks · doi:10.18608/hla17.001 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
A systematic review on peer assessment: intrapersonal and interpersonal factors
Panadero, E., Alqassab, M., Fernández Ruiz, J., & Ocampo, J. C. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2164884 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Bridging classroom assessment and self-regulated learning
Brandmo, C., Panadero, E., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2020.1803589 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Lui, A. M., & Andrade, H. L. (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.751548 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Using automated corrective feedback tools in language learning: a review study
Shadiev, R., & Feng, Y. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2022.2153145 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Bager‐Charleson, S. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-55127-8_2 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Classroom Assessment as Co-Regulated Learning: A Systematic Review
Andrade, H., Brookhart, S. M., & Yu, E. C. (2021) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.751168 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Instructional Feedback in Writing
Graham, S. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316832134.009 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Rise of the Machines? The Evolving Role of AI Technologies in High-Stakes Assessment
Richardson, M., & Clesham, R. (2021) · London Review of Education · doi:10.14324/lre.19.1.09 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Understanding Motivation in Education: Theoretical and Practical Considerations
Liu, W. C., Wang, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2015) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_1 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Sutton, P. (2009) · Plymouth Marjon University Repository (Plymouth Marjon University) · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Provision of Data-Driven Student Feedback in LA & EDM
Pardo, A., Poquet, O., Martínez‐Maldonado, R., & Dawson, S. (2017) · Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR) eBooks · doi:10.18608/hla17.014 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Instructional feedback to support self-regulated writing in primary school
Fiskerstrand, P., & Gamlem, S. M. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1232529 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationSilva, J. D. (2021) · Methodological Innovations · doi:10.1177/2059799120987766 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Engeness, I., & Mørch, A. I. (2016) · Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy · doi:10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2016-02-03 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationMunshi, C., & Deneen, C. C. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316832134.017 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
How Technology Assists the Feedback Process in a Learning Environment: A Review
Huang, W., Brown, G. T. L., & Stephens, J. M. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt58122.2023.00101 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Gamlem, S. M., Segaran, M. K., & Moltudal, S. H. (2024) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2024.2325365 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Andrade, 2010, Students as the definitive source of formative assessment, Handbook of Formative Assessment, 90
- Gehrke, 2018, Ecological validity, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, 563
- William, 2007, A theoretical foundation for formative assessment, Formative Classroom Assessment. Theory into Practice, 29
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Engeness, I., & Gamlem, S. M. (2025) · Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1007/s12124-025-09894-8 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citationLin, X., & Tan, H. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13100840 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Segaran, M. K., Engeness, I., & Gamlem, S. M. (2025) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2025.2539154 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationLi, X. J., Wang, T., Wang, W., & Liu, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1848701 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Norwegian secondary teachers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence in summative assessments
ERIKSEN, H. M., & Elstad, E. (2026) · International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education · doi:10.21449/ijate.1791004
Understanding Student’S Feedback Literacy in Online Peer Assessment
Song, A., Sha, Y., Zhang, J., Mamattursun, B., & Wu, X. (2025) · International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET) · doi:10.1109/icet67421.2025.11380426
Li, R., & Qing, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2025.1715381
From essay to AI-augmented writing: reframing pedagogy and feedback through the AAWP model
Askari, M., & Rahim, A. S. (2026) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2026.2638914
Wang, S., & Tan, L. (2026) · Psicología Educativa · doi:10.22201/fpsic.24486957e.2026.14.181
Using generative AI for formative feedback on student writing drafts
Davies, R. S. (2026) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-026-10652-9 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Kristianto, V. A., Sucipto, Sumbodo, W., Handayani, S., & Kalisa, P. (2026) · MATEC Web of Conferences · doi:10.1051/matecconf/202642303004
Zhang, Y., Chen, L., & Chen, X. (2026) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102338
- Authors
- Moltudal, S. H., Gamlem, S. M., Segaran, M., & Engeness, I.
- Affiliations
- Volda University College (NO)
- University of South-Eastern Norway (NO)
- Østfold University of Applied Sciences (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Moltudal, Synnøve Heggedal
- Venue
- Frontiers in Education
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2025-03-31
- Volume
- 10
- ISSN
- 2504-284X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4409061597
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 37.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Norges Forskningsråd (2022-2025, 326607)
- Høgskulen i Volda
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational and Psychological Assessments
- Keywords
- feedback literacy, peer feedback, AI-generated feedback, junior high school students, English as a foreign language, feedback uptake, group discussion
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.
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
