Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:12:08.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2016

Shulin Yu  and
Icy Lee
Shulin Yu
Affiliation:
University of Macau, Macau SAR, [email protected]
Icy Lee
Affiliation:
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reviews research on peer feedback in second language (L2) writing published in the last decade (i.e. 2005–2014). We analyse first the theoretical underpinnings that have informed both peer feedback research and the pedagogical use of peer feedback in L2 writing instruction. We also provide a critical interpretation of existing peer feedback research and discuss seven important themes emerging from the literature, that is, (1) effectiveness of peer feedback compared with teacher and self-feedback; (2) benefits of peer feedback for feedback-givers; (3) computer-mediated peer feedback; (4) peer feedback training; (5) student stances and motives; (6) peer interaction and group dynamics; and (7) cultural issues in peer feedback. Next, we examine the contextual and methodological issues in peer feedback research and then conclude the article with implications for future research.

Type
State-of-the-Art Article
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2016 , pp. 461 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2006). The use of word processor for teaching writing to EFL learners in King Saud University. Journal of King Saud University 19.2, 1–15.Google Scholar
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29.4, 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AbuSeileek, A. & Abualsha'r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology 18.1, 76–95.Google Scholar
Alhaisoni, E. & Alzuoud, K. (2012). The effects of using peer and teacher feedback in the Saudi writing context. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 38.2, 147–159.Google Scholar
Allaei, S. & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration. The Writing Instructor 10.1, 19–28.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly 33.4, 625–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baleghizadeh, S. & Arab, F. (2011). Comparing native models and peer feedback in promoting noticing through written output. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5.1, 63–79.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berggren, J. (2015). Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal 69, 58–70.Google Scholar
Birjandi, P., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37.5, 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Basturkmen, H. (2010). The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students. International Journal of English Studies 10.2, 79–97.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, L. (2012). Peer-reviewing in an intercultural wiki environment-student interaction and reflections. Computers and Composition 34, 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local area network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and Composition 18, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, G. (2004). Teaching second and foreign language writing on local area networks (LANs). In Fotos, S. & Browne, C. M. (eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 93–108.Google Scholar
Breuch, L. K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of ‘mankind’. College English 46, 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carson, J. G. & Nelson, G. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing 3, 17–30.Google Scholar
Carson, J. G. & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing 5, 1–19.Google Scholar
Chan, W. M. (2013). Combining electronic commenting and face-to-face interaction in peer review: A case study of the ESL writing classroom in Hong Kong. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Chang, C. F. (2009). Peer review through synchronous and asynchronous CMC models: A case study in a Taiwanese college English writing course. The JALT CALL Journal 5.1, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, C. F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition 29.1, 63–78.Google Scholar
Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D. & Hsu, C. K. (2011). Providing adequate interactions in online discussion forums using few teaching assistants. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 10.3, 193–202.Google Scholar
Chen, C. W. (2010). Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Education Review 11, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, K. T. C. (2012). Blog-based peer reviewing in EFL writing classrooms for Chinese speakers. Computers and Composition 29.4, 280–291.Google Scholar
Cheng, P. C. (2009). Integrating online peer reviews into a college writing class in Taiwan. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A. & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication 18, 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, J. W. C. (2007). The role of online collaboration in promoting ESL writing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leicester.Google Scholar
Ciftci, H. & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research 46.1, 61–84.Google Scholar
Cimasko, T. & Reichelt, M. (2011). Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Connor, U. & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing 3, 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cote, R. A. (2013). The role of student attitude towards peer review in anonymous electronic peer review in an EFL writing classroom. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crinon, J. (2012). The dynamics of writing and peer review at primary school. Journal of Writing Research 4.2, 121–154.Google Scholar
Crossman, J. M. & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education 13.3, 219–229.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (2009). The contribution of studies of foreign language writing to research, theory, and policies. In Manchón, R. (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and researching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 209–231.Google Scholar
Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research 13, 9–19.Google Scholar
Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer-versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System 38, 85–95.Google Scholar
Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing 16.4, 274–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCamilla, F. J. & Antón, M. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22.2, 166–188.Google Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M. B. & Pérez-Paredes, P. (2012). The types and effects of peer native speakers' feedback on CMC. Language Learning & Technology 16.1, 62–90.Google Scholar
Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing 21.1, 40–58.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work 14.1, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32.2, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching 45.4, 446–459.Google Scholar
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology 10.1, 67–86.Google Scholar
Flower, L. S. & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32, 365–387.Google Scholar
Gabarre, C. & Gabarre, S. (2012). Criteria for successfully recruiting online peer-tutors in foreign languages. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 32.2, 197–223.Google Scholar
Goldberg, M. E. (2012). ESL students’ perceptions of their English writing proficiency and the effects of peer review training among three types of students in a community college ESL composition course. Ph.D. dissertation, Alliant International University.Google Scholar
Goldin, I., Ashley, K. D. & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Redesigning educational peer review interactions using computer tools: An introduction. Journal of Writing Research 4.2, 111–119.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing 13.1, 63–80.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, L. M. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 185–205.Google Scholar
Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist 35.1, 3–12.Google Scholar
Grami, G. M. A. (2010). The effects of integrating peer feedback into the university-level ESL writing curriculum: A comparative study in a Saudi context. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Google Scholar
Guardado, M. & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition 24.4, 443–461.Google Scholar
Guerrero, M. C. M. de & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal 84, 51–68.Google Scholar
Hansen, J. G. & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal 59.1, 31–38.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication 29.3, 369–388.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 31–50.Google Scholar
Ho, M. & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal 24.2, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication 18, 26–60.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15.2, 93–105.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research 9, 321–342.Google Scholar
Hu, G. (2006). Training Chinese ESL students for effective peer review. Asian Englishes 8.2, 64–77.Google Scholar
Hu, G. & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science 38, 371–394.Google Scholar
Hu, G. & Ren, H. W. (2012). The impact of experience and beliefs on Chinese EFL student writers’ feedback preferences. In Tang, R. (ed.), Academic writing in a second or foreign language: Issues and challenges facing ESL/EFL academic writers in higher education contexts. London: Continuum, 67–87.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research 4.1, 33–54.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2014). Written academic English. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.) (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, L. (2007). Computer-mediated peer response in a level-IV ESL academic writing class: A cultural historical activity theoretical perspective. Ph. D. dissertation, University of South Florida.Google Scholar
Jin, L. & Zhu, W. (2010). Dynamic motives in ESL computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition 27, 284–303.Google Scholar
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Johnson, K. G. (2012). Peer and self-review: A holistic examination of EFL learners' writing and review process. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 15.1, 1–23.Google Scholar
Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal 23.2, 12–39.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research 12, 211–234.Google Scholar
Kong, Y. Y. (2013). Peer review: Exploring training and socio-cultural influences on activity theory. Ph.D. dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Kumar, V. & Stracke, E. (2011). Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment? Journal of English for Specific Purposes 10.4, 211–222.Google Scholar
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In Nardi, B. A. (ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 17–44.Google Scholar
Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal 27.2, 114.Google Scholar
Lam, R. (2013). The relationship between assessment types and text revision. ELT Journal, 1–13.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching 33, 79–96.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17.2, 69–85.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (in press). EFL writing in schools. In Manchón, R. M. & Matsuda, P. K. (eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing. De Gruyter, Mouton.Google Scholar
Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 217–236.Google Scholar
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 37–70.Google Scholar
Liang, M. Y. (2008). SCMC interaction and EFL writing revision: Facilitative or futile? Proceedings of E-learn 2008. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2886–2892.Google Scholar
Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology 14.1, 45–64.Google Scholar
Lin, J. Y. (2005). Synchronous and asynchronous conferencing: A comparison of two modes of online ESL peer response and their effects on student talk and subsequent text revision. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Lin, Y. C. A. (2009). An examination of teacher feedback, face-to-face peer feedback, and Google Documents peer feedback in Taiwanese EFL college students' writing. Ph.D. dissertation, Alliant International University.Google Scholar
Lin, W. & Yang, S. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique 10, 88–103.Google Scholar
Liou, H. C. & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System 37, 514–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J. (2012). Peer response in second language writing. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley, Blackwell, 2012.Google Scholar
Liu, J. & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Liu, J. & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2, 193–227.Google Scholar
Lockhart, C. & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning 45, 605–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4.2, 126–141.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds.), Input and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 268–286.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, R. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Edward Arnold, 413–468.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 19.2, 207–227.Google Scholar
Lundstrom, K. & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 30–43.Google Scholar
Ma, J. (2010). Chinese EFL learners’ decision-making while evaluating peers’ texts. International Journal of English Studies 10.2, 99–120.Google Scholar
Ma, J. (2012). Chinese EFL university students’ decision-making in peer review of second language writing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Mangelsdorf, K. & Schlumberger, A. L. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing 1, 235–254.Google Scholar
Matsuno, S. (2007). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessment in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University.Google Scholar
McGarrell, H. (2010). Native and non-native English speaking student teachers engage in peer feedback. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée 13.1, 71–90.Google Scholar
Memari Hanjani, A. (2013). Peer review, collaborative revision, and genre in L2 writing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Exeter.Google Scholar
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System 33.2, 293–308.Google Scholar
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of training peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing 15.2, 118–141.Google Scholar
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes 27, 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1997). How cultural differences affect written and oral communication: The case of peer response groups. In Sigsbee, D., Speck, B. & Maylath, B. (eds.), Approaches to teaching non-native English speakers across the curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 77–84.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. & Carson, J. G. (1995). Social dimensions of second-language writing instruction: Peer response groups as cultural context. In Rubin, D. (ed.), Composing social identity in written communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 89–109.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing 7, 113–131.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J. G. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting ‘culture’. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 42–59.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimension. Journal of Second Language Writing 1, 171–192.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly 27.1, 135–141.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008a). Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics 5, 41–66.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. T. M. (2008b). Modifying L2 criticisms: How learners do it. Journal of Pragmatics 40, 768–791.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, M. E. (2014). Peer response with process-oriented, standards-based writing for beginning-level, second language learners of Spanish. Hispania 97.3, 413–429.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In Lantolf, J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 51–78.Google Scholar
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 8.3, 265–289.Google Scholar
Poverjuc, O., Brooks, V. & Wray, D. (2012). Using peer feedback in a master's programme: A multiple case study. Teaching in Higher Education 17.4, 465–477.Google Scholar
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training students’ reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research 17, 67–89.Google Scholar
Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In Manchón, R. (ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and researching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 183–206.Google Scholar
Ren, H. & Hu, G. (2012). Peer review and Chinese EFL/ESL student writers. English Australia Journal 27.2, 3–16.Google Scholar
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal 59, 23–30.Google Scholar
Rosalia, C. (2010). EFL students as peer advisors in an online writing center. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Rourke, A. J., Mendelssohn, J. C., Coleman, K. & Allen, B. (2008). Did I mention it’s anonymous? The triumphs and pitfalls of online peer review. ASCILITE. 2008 Melbourne: Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology?, 30 November – 3 December 2008.Google Scholar
Ruecker, T. (2011). The potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review. ELT Journal 65.4, 398–407.Google Scholar
Ruegg, R. (2014). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal. Available at www.tandfonline.com/, 1–18.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. J. & Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Texts and strategies. CALICO Journal 21.2, 265–290.Google Scholar
Séror, J. (2011). Alternative sources of feedback and second language writing development in university content courses. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée 14.1, 118–143.Google Scholar
Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 27.5, 829–845.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research 5, 29–53.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 52.1, 119–158.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review 60.4, 457–480.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research 11, 143–159.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research 14.4, 355–375.Google Scholar
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self revisions and peer revisions of their written compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly 42.2, 209–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, M. (2009). The compatibility of L2 learners’ assessment of self-and peer revisions of writing with teachers' assessment. TESOL Quarterly 43.1, 137–148.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Byrnes, H. (ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. New York: Continuum, 95–108.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal 82, 320–337.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research 37, 285–304.Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first and second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 227–242.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2004). Cultural historical activity theory and the object of innovation. In John, O. St., van Esch, K. & Schalkwijk, E. (eds.), New insights into foreign language learning and teaching, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 51–70.Google Scholar
Tian, J. (2012). The effects of peer editing versus co-writing on writing in Chinese-as-a-foreign language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction 20, 339–343.Google Scholar
Trautmann, N. M. (2006). Is it better to give or to receive?: Insights into collaborative learning through web-mediated peer review. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Trotman, W. (2010). Teacher oral feedback on student writing: An action research approach towards teacher-student conferences. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Warwick.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. & Ng, M. M. Y. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing 9, 147–170.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. & Ng, M. M. Y. (2010). Cultural contexts and situated possibilities in the teaching of second language writing. Journal of Teacher Education 61.4, 364–375.Google Scholar
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition 21, 217–235.Google Scholar
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L. & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction 20.4, 316–327.Google Scholar
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing 5, 51–75.Google Scholar
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 19, 491–514.Google Scholar
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Socio-cultural theory: A framework for understanding the socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 23–42.Google Scholar
Vorobel, O. (2013). A case study of peer review practices of four adolescent English language learners in face-to-face and online contexts. Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Florida.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In Rieber, R. W. & Carton, A. S. (eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum, 39–285.Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, R. (2013). Learners’ roles in a peer feedback task: Do they view themselves as writers or reviewers? The Journal of Asia TEFL 10.3, 31–57.Google Scholar
Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing 19, 80–96.Google Scholar
Ware, P. D. & O'Dowd, R. (2008). External links valid at time of publication peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 12.1, 43–63.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review 64.4, 605–635.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woo, M., Chu, S. & Li, X. (2013). Peer feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing. Educational Technology Research and Development 61.2, 279–309.Google Scholar
Wu, W. C. V., Petit, E. & Chen, C. H. (2015). EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum. Computer Assisted Language Learning 28.1, 58–80.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. & Liu, J. (2010). An investigation into anonymous peer feedback. Foreign Language Teaching and Practice 3, 44–49.Google Scholar
Yang, M., Badger, R. & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15.3, 179–200.Google Scholar
Yang, S. H. (2011). Exploring the effectiveness of using peer evaluation and teacher feedback in college students’ writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 20.1, 144–150.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. (2010). Cognitive conflicts and resolutions in online text revisions: Three profiles. Educational Technology & Society 13.4, 202–214.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students' writing. British Journal of Educational Technology 42.4, 687–700.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. & Meng, W. T. (2013). The effects of online feedback training on students’ text revision. Language Learning & Technology 17.2, 220–238.Google Scholar
Yang, Y. F. & Wu, S. P. (2011). A collective case study of online interaction patterns in text revisions. Educational Technology & Society 14.2, 1–15.Google Scholar
Yeh, S. W., Lo, J. J. & Chu, H. M. (2014). Application of online annotations to develop a web-based Error Correction Practice System for English writing instruction. System 47, 39–52.Google Scholar
Yu, S. (2014). Understanding Chinese EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A sociocultural and activity theory perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Yu, S. & Lee, I. (2013). Understanding supervisors’ commentary practices in doctoral research proposal writing: A Hong Kong study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 22.4, 473–483.Google Scholar
Yu, S. & Lee, I. (2014). An analysis of EFL students’ use of first language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System 47, 28–38.Google Scholar
Yu, S. & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research 19, 572–593.Google Scholar
Yu, S., Lee, I. & Mak, P. (2016). Revisiting Chinese cultural issues in peer feedback in EFL writing: Insights from a multiple case study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 25, 295–304.Google Scholar
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 209–222.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Song, W., Shen, S. & Huang, R. (2014).The effects of blog-mediated peer feedback on learners’ motivation, collaboration, and course satisfaction in a second language writing course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 30.6, 670–685.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2008). Who takes the floor: Peer assessment or teacher assessment? A longitudinal comparative study of peer- and teacher-assessment in a Chinese university EFL writing class. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing 15, 3–17.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal 68.2, 155–168.Google Scholar
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research 16.1, 109–126.Google Scholar
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 251–276.Google Scholar
Zhu, W. & Mitchell, D. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly 46.2, 362–386.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. & Martínez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in selfregulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 51–59.Google Scholar