CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Student Assessment and FeedbackEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

Students' argumentation performance in online learning environments: Bridging culture and gender

Open access
Ranjbaran, Fatemeh, Babaee, Maryam, Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, Marzieh, Gohari, Mehrnaz, Daneshvar Ghorbani, Babak, Taghizadeh Kerman, Nafiseh, Banihashem, Seyyed Kazem, Noroozi, Omid·2023·International Journal of Technology in Education
DOI 10.46328/ijte.460
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Performing complex tasks such as writing an argumentative essay and providing high-quality argumentative peer feedback are challenging for higher education students. This study aims to explore whether and how students’ argumentation performance during peer feedback activities and essay writing is related to their culture and gender. In this exploratory study, 240 students participated from a Dutch university. Since this study was conducted in a Dutch context, students’ culture was categorized as either Dutch or non-Dutch. Both Dutch and non-Dutch students followed an online module for three consecutive weeks and completed three tasks each week. In week one, students wrote an argumentative essay. In week two, students were invited to provide two sets of feedback on two peers’ essays. In week three, students were requested to revise their essays based on the received feedback from peers. Finally, students’ culture and gender were collected. The results showed that non-Dutch students provide higher-quality feedback than Dutch students in terms of justifying the identified problem in the essays. Similarly, non-Dutch students outperformed Dutch students regarding their essay writing performance by providing deeper arguments against the position, justifications for arguments against the position, and responses to counter-arguments. Although the overall differences between Dutch and non-Dutch students in peer feedback and argumentative essays were not significant between males and females, non-Dutch male students provided more affective feedback than Dutch male students. The results of this study provide insights for teachers regarding how to support international students in performing complex skills such as peer feedback and argumentative essay writing.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This exploratory study examined culture and gender differences in online argumentative peer feedback and essay writing among higher education students at a Dutch university. Non-Dutch students outperformed Dutch students on justifying identified problems in peer feedback and on several counter-argument essay elements, while culture×gender interactions were largely non-significant except for affective feedback.

Key findings

  • Non-Dutch students gave higher-quality peer feedback for justification of the identified problem than Dutch students (M=0.20, SD=0.18 vs. M=0.11, SD=0.13; F(1,106)=8.39, p<0.05, η²=0.07); the overall culture effect on peer feedback was significant (Pillai’s Trace=0.10, F(5,102)=3.07, p<0.05, η²=0.10).
  • Non-Dutch students outperformed Dutch students on post-test argumentative essay writing (Wilks’ λ=0.80, F(8,102)=3.19, p<0.01, η²=0.20), mainly on arguments against the position (M=2.34 vs. 1.73), justifications for arguments against the position (M=1.87 vs. 1.25), and responses to counter-arguments (M=1.87 vs. 1.12).
  • No overall culture×gender interaction was found for peer feedback (Wilks’ λ=0.10, F(5,100)=2.12, p=0.06) or essay writing (Wilks’ λ=0.91, F(8,100)=1.18, p=0.31). However, non-Dutch male students provided more affective feedback than Dutch male students, and Dutch female students provided more affective feedback than Dutch male students (interaction F(1,104)=9.08, p<0.05, η²=0.08; Dutch female M=1.54 vs. Dutch male M=1.35; non-Dutch male M=1.58).

Methods

  • Exploratory study at a Dutch university; 240 higher education students in five life-sciences-focused courses in 2021–2022; final culture analyses included 172 students (110 Dutch, 62 non-Dutch; 68 did not report culture).
  • Three-week online “Argumentative Essay Writing” module: week 1 argumentative essay pretest; week 2 asynchronous peer feedback on two peers’ essays via FeedbackFruits; week 3 revised essay posttest.
  • Essay quality coded on eight elements (0–3 each, summed; Fleiss’ Kappa=0.70); peer feedback coded affective, cognitive (description, identification, justification), and constructive (0–2 each, summed; Kappa=0.60); MANOVA and two-way MANOVA tested culture and culture×gender effects.

Limitations

  • Paper-stated: did not account for macro/micro cultural backgrounds (e.g., original language, English level); grouped diverse non-Dutch nationalities into one non-Dutch category, limiting external validity/generalizability; did not assess prior knowledge/experience in argumentative essays and peer feedback; conducted before ChatGPT; notes heterogeneity (unequal gender representation, domain/general knowledge, feedback perceptions) and task/course differences, so findings should be interpreted cautiously.
  • Text-evident: 68 of 240 students (28%) did not report culture, reducing the analyzable sample; gender distribution was uneven across courses (e.g., Course D: 36 female, 9 male; Course E: 34 female, 18 male), which may limit gender comparisons.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.46328/ijte.460

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

20 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 18 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Non-Dutch students provided higher quality constructive feedback and feedback-feedforward than Dutch students in an online setting.

    “Also, we found that non-Dutch students provided higher quality constructive feedback and feedback-feedforward than Dutch students in an online setting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There is no interaction effect between culture and gender in mean quality scores of provided argumentative peer feedback performance.

    “The results showed no interaction effect between culture and gender in terms of mean quality scores of their provided argumentative peer feedback performance (Wilks' λ = 0.10, F(5, 100) = 2.12, p = 0.06).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Dutch and non-Dutch students significantly differ in mean quality scores of their provided argumentative peer feedback performance.

    “The results showed that Dutch and non-Dutch students significantly differ in terms of mean quality scores of their provided argumentative peer feedback performance (Pillai's Trace = 0.10, F(5, 102) = 3.07, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Non-Dutch students performed better than Dutch students on arguments against the position.

    “This difference was mainly due to the quality scores of arguments against the position, justifications for arguments against the position, and responses to counter-arguments in which non-Dutch students performed better than Dutch students (see Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Non-Dutch students produced higher-quality online argumentative essays than Dutch students.

    “The results indicated that non-Dutch students produced higher-quality online argumentative essays than Dutch essays.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • May combine two claims. 12
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Non-Dutch students scored significantly higher than Dutch students on the justification dimension of argumentative peer feedback performance (F(1,106)=8.39, p<0.05, η2=0.07; Dutch M=0.11, SD=0.13; non-Dutch M=0.20, SD=0.18).

    “| Justification | Dutch | 0.11 | 0.13 | F (1, 106) = 8.39, p <0.05, η2 = 0.07* |”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research · plain
      “| | Non-Dutch | 0.20 | 0.18 | |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In online learning environment non-Dutch students not only gave more feedback but also provided more feedforward than Dutch students.

    “This shows that in online learning environment non-Dutch students not only gave more feedback but also provided more feedforward than Dutch students.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    There are no differences in mean quality scores of online peer feedback and argumentative essay writing performance between Dutch/non-Dutch and female/male students in an online setting.

    “This means that there are no differences in the mean quality scores of online peer feedback and argumentative essay writing performance between Dutch/non-Dutch and female/male students in an online setting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Non-Dutch students compared to Dutch students suggested more points for improvements and provided clear justification and good structure on how to implement the suggested recommendations.

    “This finding implies that non-Dutch students compared to Dutch students suggested more points for improvements and they provided a clear justification and good structure on how to implement the suggested recommendations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Non-Dutch students were more thoughtful and demonstrated a more advanced level of argumentation in their essays.

    “This suggests that non-Dutch students were more thoughtful and demonstrated a more advanced level of argumentation in their essays, as they put more effort into explaining opposing viewpoints and addressing counter-arguments in a clear and comprehensive manner to their essay readers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Noroozi et al. (2020) found that in online learning settings, female students provide more in-depth argumentative feedback compared to male counterparts, while no significant gender differences were found in argumentative essay writing.

    “Results from Noroozi et al.'s (2020) study revealed that in online learning settings, female students provide more in-depth argumentative feedback compared to male counterparts, while no significant gender differences were found in argumentative essay writing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Noroozi et al., 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Hamer et al. (2015) observed male students give more specific and thorough feedback compared to female students.

    “On the contrary, Hamer et al. (2015) observed male students give more specific and thorough feedback compared to female students.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hamer et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both culture and gender play a significant role in students' argumentative peer review and argumentative essay writing performance.

    “The findings support the growing body of evidence indicating that both culture and gender play a significant role in students' argumentative peer review and argumentative essay writing performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    There were no significant baseline differences between groups on age, gender, educational background, and pretest essay scores.

    “We found no significant differences between groups on any of these variables, suggesting that there were no major baseline differences that could have introduced bias into the study results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The decision to consolidate students with various non-Dutch nationalities into a single non-Dutch group had effects on both the external validity of the group and the generalizability of the findings to the non-Dutch population.

    “Moreover, the decision to consolidate students with various non-Dutch nationalities into a single non-Dutch group in this study had effects on both the external validity of the group and the generalizability of the findings to the non-Dutch population.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Students in each course were from the same level of education, but information to specify whether they were juniors or seniors was not available.

    “Students in each course were from the same level of education, however, we did not have the information to specify whether students were juniors or seniors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Wu and Schunn (2020) found that female students are more willing to implement argumentative feedback than male students in an online peer review process.

    “In another study on peer review, it was found that female students are more willing to implement argumentative feedback than male students in an online peer review process (Wu & Schunn, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wu & Schunn, 2020

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rompay-Bartels and Geessink (2021) found that cultural background is a critical factor in how students provide and perceive argumentative peer feedback, with students from high-context cultures struggling with providing direct feedback compared with low-context cultures.

    “Furthermore, Rompay-Bartels and Geessink (2021) found that cultural background is a critical factor in how students provide and perceive argumentative peer feedback, whereas students from high-context cultures struggled with providing direct feedback compared with low-context cultures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rompay-Bartels and Geessink, 2021

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tavoletti et al. (2022) found that the culture of a team member is related to his/her peer evaluation, whereas prestige and level of economic development of the country are better predictors of their performance compared to students' skills and competencies.

    “In a recent study by Tavoletti et al. (2022), culture biases were evaluated in peer evaluations by testing the countryof-origin effect in peer evaluations.Their findings indicated that the culture of a team member is related to his/her peer evaluation, whereas prestige and level of economic development of the country are better predictors of their performance compared to students' skills and”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tavoletti et al., 2022

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is unclear how students' prior knowledge and experience may have influenced the study's results.

    “As a result, it is unclear how these factors may have influenced the results of the study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The culture of the male and female students performing in the course can have different effects on their argumentation performance.
    • Rests on an assumption: The difficulty of the tasks can have different effects on students' argumentation performance.
    • Rests on an assumption: The variety of subjects offered in each course can have different effects on students' argumentation performance.
    • Rests on an assumption: Prior knowledge of the students related to the subjects can have different effects on their argumentation performance.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was conducted before the emergence of ChatGPT.

    “this study was conducted before the emergence of ChatGPT”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    There are cultural and gender differences in peer feedback and argumentative essay writing.

    “By understanding the cultural and gender differences in peer feedback and argumentative essay writing, educators can tailor their teaching strategies to support students from diverse backgrounds”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study's ability to provide comprehensive insights into the non-Dutch group as a whole is limited.

    “the study's ability to provide comprehensive insights into the non-Dutch group as a whole.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    ChatGPT has shown significant potential to influence feedback and learning complex skills such as argumentation.

    “ChatGPT which has shown significant potential to influence feedback and learning complex skills such as argumentation (Farrokhnia et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Farrokhnia et al., 2023

      Not checked in the free run.

19 of 19

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The literature lacks evidence on the role of culture in students' argumentation performance when dealing with controversial issues.

    “However, the literature lacks evidence when it comes to the role of culture in students' argumentation performance when dealing with controversial issues.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The picture is even more incomplete when combining the role of culture with gender characteristics of students for performing argumentation tasks.

    “The picture is even more incomplete when we combine the role of culture with gender characteristics of students for performing argumentation tasks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Students' cultural learning experiences can be related to their experience with peer feedback.

    “Since students' cultural learning experiences can be related to their experience with peer feedback”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The culture of the male and female students performing in the course can have different effects on their argumentation performance.

    “the culture of the male and female students performing in the course, the difficulty of the tasks, the variety of subjects offered in each course, and prior knowledge of the students related to the subjects can have different effects on their argumentation performance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The difficulty of the tasks can have different effects on students' argumentation performance.

    “the culture of the male and female students performing in the course, the difficulty of the tasks, the variety of subjects offered in each course, and prior knowledge of the students related to the subjects can have different effects on their argumentation performance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The variety of subjects offered in each course can have different effects on students' argumentation performance.

    “the culture of the male and female students performing in the course, the difficulty of the tasks, the variety of subjects offered in each course, and prior knowledge of the students related to the subjects can have different effects on their argumentation performance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prior knowledge of the students related to the subjects can have different effects on their argumentation performance.

    “the culture of the male and female students performing in the course, the difficulty of the tasks, the variety of subjects offered in each course, and prior knowledge of the students related to the subjects can have different effects on their argumentation performance.”
7 of 7

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?

  • Students' epistemic beliefs can shape their receptiveness to feedback, their confidence in their own assessments, and their willingness to adapt based on peer input.

    “Similarly, students ' epistemic beliefs can shape their receptiveness to feedback, their confidence in their own assessments, and their willingness to adapt based on peer input (Banihashem et al., 2023; Panadero et al., 2023; Ranjbaran et al., 2023).”

    From A systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education (2024) · cites this paper as Ranjbaran et al., 2023

    The paper's introductory discussion says epistemic beliefs are among the characteristics associated with students' argumentation performance. Its discussion of peer feedback addresses cultural differences, not whether epistemic beliefs shape receptiveness to feedback, confidence in one's assessments, or willingness to adapt to peer input. Searches for the claim's phrasing and for “epistemic beliefs” found no passage connecting those beliefs to the three claimed responses. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F (1, 107) = 0.18, p = .66

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .66 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .672. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .66 · recomputed p = .672

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(8, 100) = 1.18, p = .31

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .31 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .319. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .31 · recomputed p = .319

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(5, 100) = 2.12, p = .06

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .06 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .069. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .069

  • Inconsistent p-value: F (1, 107) = 3.14, p = .07

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .07 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .079. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .079

  • Inconsistent p-value: F (1, 107) = 1.74, p = .18

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .18 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .190. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .18 · recomputed p = .190

5 of 5

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(5, 100) = 2.12reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .069

    “F(5, 100) = 2.12, p = .06”

  • Doesn’t add upF(8, 100) = 1.18reported p = .31 · recomputed p = .319

    “F(8, 100) = 1.18, p = .31”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 107) = 3.14reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .079

    “F (1, 107) = 3.14, p = .07”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 107) = 1.74reported p = .18 · recomputed p = .190

    “F (1, 107) = 1.74, p = .18”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 107) = 0.18reported p = .66 · recomputed p = .672

    “F (1, 107) = 0.18, p = .66”

  • Doesn’t add upF(8, 100) = 1.18reported p = .31 · recomputed p = .319

    “F (8, 100) = 1.18, p = .31”

  • Not confirmedF(1, 106) = 1.67reported p = .19 · recomputed p = .199

    “F (1, 106) = 1.67, p = .19”

  • Not confirmedF(1, 103) = 0.89reported p = .34 · recomputed p = .348

    “F (1, 103) = 0.89, p = .34”

  • Not confirmedF(1, 107) = 0.31reported p = .57 · recomputed p = .579

    “F (1, 107) = 0.31, p = .57”

  • ConsistentF(5, 102) = 3.07reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .013

    “F(5, 102) = 3.07, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(8, 102) = 3.19reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(8, 102) = 3.19, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 106) = 0reported p = .94 · recomputed p = 1.000

    “F (1, 106) = 0.00, p = .94”

  • ConsistentF(1, 106) = 0.25reported p = .61 · recomputed p = .618

    “F (1, 106) = 0.25, p = .61”

  • ConsistentF(1, 106) = 8.39reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .005

    “F (1, 106) = 8.39, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 106) = 0.59reported p = .44 · recomputed p = .444

    “F (1, 106) = 0.59, p = .44”

  • ConsistentF(1, 103) = 3.32reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .071

    “F (1, 103) = 3.32, p = .07”

  • ConsistentF(1, 107) = 0.19reported p = .66 · recomputed p = .664

    “F (1, 107) = 0.19, p = .66”

  • ConsistentF(1, 107) = 1.37reported p = .24 · recomputed p = .244

    “F (1, 107) = 1.37, p = .24”

  • ConsistentF(1, 107) = 2.88reported p = .09 · recomputed p = .093

    “F (1, 107) = 2.88, p = .09”

  • ConsistentF(1, 107) = 0.02reported p = .87 · recomputed p = .888

    “F (1, 107) = 0.02, p = .87”

20 of 20

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Constructive-feedback claim reverses the table's means

    Major

    The discussion says non-Dutch students provided higher-quality constructive feedback, but Table 1 gives Dutch students the higher mean (0.83 versus 0.77).

  • Weekly task count changes from three to one

    Minor

    The abstract says students completed three tasks each week, while the study procedure says they completed one task each week over the same three-week module.

  • Discussion denies a reported culture difference

    Minor

    The discussion states there are no differences between Dutch and non-Dutch students in essay-writing quality, whereas the results report a significant culture difference in post-test essay-writing performance. A nonsignificant culture-by-gender interaction does not negate that reported culture difference.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Akhteh, M. P., Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S., & Noroozi, O. (2022). The Relationship between Students' Ranjbaran, Babaee, Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, Gohari, Daneshvar Ghorbani, Taghizadeh Kerman, Banihashem, & Noroozi 448 Satisfaction and Motivation and their Perceived Learning Outcome in an Online Peer Feedback Module. In Studies on Education, Science, and Technology (pp. 297-310), Antalya, Turkey. https://research.ou.nl/files/54269479/21a9eab1fcf62a84962844dbe1990a4c.pdf
  2. Chen, W.-F., Chen, M.-h., Mudgal, G., & Wachsmuth, H. (2022). Analyzing Culture-Specific Argument Structures in Learner Essays. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Argument Mining.
  3. Eckes, T. (2008). The impact of proficiency on academic writing tasks: An investigation of university-level L2 learners of German. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 119- 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.01.002 · DOI
  4. v14n6p96 · DOI
  5. Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Banihashem, S. K., & Noroozi, O. (2022b). The Role of students' attitude towards online peer feedback in successful uptake of feedback in argumentative essay writing. In Studies on Social and Education Sciences (pp. 264-274). International Society for Technology, Education, and Science (ISTES).
  6. Wolfersberger, M. (2003). The effects of explicit instruction on the use of argumentative devices in L2 academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 139-164.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ranjbaran, F., Babaee, M., Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, M., Gohari, M., Daneshvar Ghorbani, B., Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Banihashem, S. K., & Noroozi, O.
Affiliations
  • Tarbiat Modares University (IR)
  • Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Technology in Education
Publisher
ISTES Organization
Published
2023-08-12
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
434-454
ISSN
2689-2758 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.46328/ijte.460
OpenAlex
W4386246751
Semantic Scholar
3b81ad85f3f27cb0af46814da14623f558ab9fdf
Cited by
8
References
80
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Technology in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
peer feedback, argumentative essay writing, online learning, culture, gender differences, international students, Dutch students, emotional feedback, university students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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