為了澄清、擴展及更新前人三方面的研究 (1)兩階段的同儕反饋 (2)同儕反饋訓練的重要性，以及(3) 科技介導的異步同儕閲審，本研究旨在比較【兩階段混合模式】(階段一：文書處理軟體；階段二：面對面討論)與【兩階段電腦媒介溝通模式】(階段一：文書處理軟體；階段二：透過Cisco WebEx進行視訊會議) ，在以英語為外語的 學術寫作環境中各別運作之情形。本研究始於2021年秋季，研究環境為台灣南部一所大學三年級的進階寫作課程中

本研究採用重複且相互抵銷的設計方法，以(1)分析學生在【兩階段混合模式】及【兩階段電腦媒介溝通模式】下，對於同儕間口頭討論的應答成效；以及(2)探討在各模式第二階段(意即【混合模式】中【面對面討論】以及【電腦媒介溝通模式】中透過【Cisco Webex進行視訊會議討論】)，哪種模式會影響(A)同儕的反饋、(B)修訂的採納程度，和(C)是否成功修訂。分析的數據包含同儕反饋的文件、修訂的草稿、反饋性質、語言功能、反饋焦點，也包括PFOS (Kasch et al., 2021)、UTAUT問卷(Venkatesh et al., 2003)，和來自反思日記、修訂日誌，和焦點小組式討論的定性數據

在反饋的品質上，研究結果顯示：學生有更多的修訂導向反饋，以及相對均衡地針對寫作高層問題及語言問題提出反饋，原因可能是兩階段的設計和嚴謹的同儕反饋訓練，這些反饋和大多數研究一樣，被視為是正向的反應。兩種不同模式的效果差異性不大，(A)修訂及非修訂導向反饋和(B)大多數對話功能中並無統計上的差異，主要具有顯著性差異的部分為理解及說明的確認。學生在視訊會議中，相較於面對面口頭討論，顯著地使用了更多此類確認行為。

在修訂的品質上，修訂導向評論有著更高的接受度和成功修訂的比例。回饋焦點方面，在寫作高層問題及語言問題反饋兩方面皆有成效，達到高反饋接收度及成功修訂的頻率。不同模式的反饋影響不大，在反饋接受率和成功修訂或非修訂的平均數中，並無統計的差異，在基於寫作高層問題及語言問題導向的反饋中，反饋接受率、成功修訂，或非修訂的平均數並無顯著差異。唯一有顯著差異的語言功能為理解性確認，在使用【電腦媒介溝通模式】之視訊會議軟體時，修訂、非修訂，及成功修訂的比率數據達到幾近顯著。可以合理地推測學生由於不熟悉視訊會議軟體或是連線問題導致了學生提出更多闡述性的問題，因而在【電腦媒介溝通】的同儕口頭討論中，達到更高的接受率和成功修訂率。

在大多數學生偏好混合模式下時(換句話說，在使用文書處理軟體進行異步同儕閱審以建構反饋後，進行面對面口頭討論)，多數學生認為使用視訊會議具有成效，並認為他們仍然皆能夠在三種模式下完成目標。

整體結論為：(A)兩階段的同儕反饋，包含【混合模式】及【電腦媒介溝通模式】皆取得成功、(B)不同模式在給予反饋及做出修訂的口頭討論中並無太大差異、 (C)訓練的成效似乎能夠平均地應用在不同模式。當其他情況相同時，利用思科網迅(Cisco WebEx)進行【電腦媒介溝通】所產出的反饋與【面對面討論】的反饋十分相似。此外，在使用過這三種模式後，(D)學生們認為他們皆能夠在三種模式下完成目標。最後，這篇文章探討了這些研究成果的理論意義和教學涵義，並能作為未來的研究草稿上的輔助資料。

In order to clarify, update, and extend past findings on (1) two-stage peer feedback (PF) designs, (2) the importance of PF training, and (3) the current state of technology-mediated peer feedback (TmPF), the current study investigates the use of TmPF in an L2 writing context by comparing both mixed and CMC TmPF design modes in an EFL English academic writing context, specifically, a third-year advanced writing course at a national university located in the south of Taiwan in the Fall of 2021.

The present study adopts a counter-balanced repeated measures design in order to both (1) analyze the success of the oral peer response (OPRs) discussion used in mixed and CMC two-stage designs; and (2) investigate whether mode of discussion in the second stage (face-to-face/F2F) vs. computer-mediated communication/CMC videoconferencing via Cisco WebEx) affects (A) feedback given as well as (B) revision adoption and (C) revision success. The data that were analyzed include feedback transcripts and draft revisions, frequency counts of the nature, discourse function, and area of comments, as well as data collected from the peer feedback orientation scale (Kasch et al., 2021) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003) questionnaires, qualitative data from reflection reports, revision diaries, and a focus group interview.

As for quality of feedback, results showed a high percentage of revision-oriented comments and a relatively balanced distribution of local and global comments, which is considered positive compared to most studies and is probably due to the use of a two-stage design as well as rigorous peer feedback training. The effect of mode was found to be slight, with no statistical difference in (A) amount of revision and non-revision-oriented comments; and B) most all of the discourse functions. The main difference which reached significance was that of comprehension and clarification checks combined. Students made significantly more checks during videoconferencing compared with F2F oral peer response (OPRs.)

As for quality of revision, revision-oriented comments showed a high rate of revision success. As for area, both local and global feedback were effective, resulting in high adoption and successful adoption rates. The effect of mode on revisions was also slight, with no statistical difference in mean of adoption rate or success of adoption or non-adoption, including both global and local areas. The only discourse function to show significant difference was comprehension checks, which reached near significance in adoption, non-adoption, and rate of successful adoption with CMC videoconferencing. It is possible that asking more clarification questions, perhaps due to unfamiliarity with and/or connection problems with the videoconferencing software, led to the higher rates of adoption and successful revision using CMC OPRs.

While the majority of students preferred the mixed mode (i.e., using Microsoft Word/MW) to compose the feedback, followed by F2F OPRs to discuss the feedback), most students found the experience of using videoconferencing useful and seemed to believe that they could still accomplish their goals in all three PF design modes: F2F, CMC, and mixed.

The overall conclusions are (A) both two-stage PF design modes, mixed and CMC, were successful; (B) mode made very little difference in OPRs discussion in regard to feedback given and revisions made; and (C) the beneficial effects of training seemed to apply across modes. All things being equal, discussion of feedback through CMC videoconferencing via Cisco WebEx was extremely similar to discussion of feedback via F2F. Finally, the theoretical significance of the findings as well as pedagogical implications and limitations of the study are discussed and suggestions for future research sketched.

Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 157-167. Retrieved April 13, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1193031
Ackermans, K, Rusman, E, Nadolski, R, Specht, M, & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2021). Video-enhanced or textual rubrics: Does the viewbrics' formative assessment methodology support the mastery of complex (21st century) skills? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 810– 824. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12525
Akiyama, Y., & Cunningham, D. (2018). Synthesizing the practice of SCMC-based telecollaboration: A scoping review. CALICO Journal, 35, 49-76.
Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. (1990). Using performative assessment instruments with ESL student writers. in L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 227-240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students’ writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n8p106
Al-Samarraie, H. (2019). A scoping review of videoconferencing systems in higher education: Learning paradigms, opportunities, and challenges. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3). Pp?
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2013). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revision processes in Wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.29.3.431-448
Awada, G. M., & Diab, N. W. (2021). Effect of online peer review versus face-to-Face peer review on argumentative writing achievement of EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. (C. Emerson, & M. Holquist, trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44.
Belcher, D. (1999). Authentic interaction in a virtual classroom: Leveling the playing field in a graduate seminar. Computers and Composition, 16, 253-267.
Benson, P (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow, England: Longman.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.
Berlin, J. A. (1982). Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories. College English, 44(8), 765–777. https://doi.org/10.2307/377329
Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: Networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14(1), 45-58. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved September 29, 2021 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/83294/.
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.
Bruffee, K..A. (1996). Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind. In Wiley, M., Gleason, B. & Phelps, L.W. (Eds.), Composition in Four Keys (pp.84-97). California; USA, Mayfield Company Publishing.
Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Bueno Alastuey, M.C. (2011) Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 419-432, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2011.574639
Canham, N. (2018). Comparing Web 2.0 applications for peer feedback in language teaching: Google Docs, the Sakai VLE, and the Sakai Wiki. Writing and Pedagogy, 9(3), 429–456. https://doi-org.er.lib.ncku.edu.tw/10.1558/wap.32352
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19.
Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data Analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382916
Chang, C. -F. (2009). Peer review through synchronous and asynchronous modes: A case study in a Taiwanese college English writing course. JALTCALL Journal, 5(1), 45–64.
Chang, C.-F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EfL writing course. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 63–78. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001
Chaudron, C. (1984). Effects of feedback on revision. RELC Journal, 15, 1-14.
Chun, D. M. (2015) Language and culture learning in higher education via telecollaboration, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 10(1), 5-21, DOI: 10.1080/1554480X.2014.999775
Chwo, G. S. M. (2015). Empowering EIL learning with a Web 2.0 resource: An initial finding from the cross campus Storybird feedback study. Computers & Education, 84, 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.004
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. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. Advances in mixed methods research designs. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. SAGE; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2003. pp. 209–240.
DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to- face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.3.263
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf and G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp.33-56). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787-815, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
Emig, J. (1983). The web of meaning: Essays on writing, teaching, learning, and thinking.
London: Heinemann.
Ferris, D.R., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67–86.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
Foley, J. (1991). A psycholinguistic framework for task-based approaches to language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 62-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.1.62
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher
Education, 2(2-3), 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Second language acquisition research: Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance
language courses. Language Learning and Technology, 8, 66–82.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing, (pp. 31–50). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heift T., Hegelheimer V. (2017). Computer-assisted corrective feedback and language learning. In Nassaji H., Kartchava E. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–140). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-5.
Hew, K.F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C.K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology,
50(3), 956–971. doi:10.1111/bjet.12770
Hewett, B. L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265–288.
Ho, M. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 1-15.
Ho, M., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Peer Review in EFL Writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269−290. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290
Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication,18, 26–60.
Hu, G. (2019). Culture and Peer Feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 45-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108635547.005

Hung, Y.-W. & Higgins, S. (2016). Learners' use of communication strategies in text-based and video-based synchronous computer-mediated communication environments: Opportunities for language learning. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 901-924.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.) (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (check if I use?)
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. H. (1998). Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(3), 307–17.
James, N., & Thériault, V. (2020). Adult education in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: Inequalities, changes, and resilience. Studies in the Education of Adults, 52(2), 129-133, doi: 10.1080/02660830.2020.1811474
Jin, L., & Zhu, W. (2010). Dynamic motives in ESL computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition, 27, 284–303.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations – and negotiated interaction – in text and voice chat rooms.
Language Learning and Technology, 9, 79–98
Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & 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, 1-23.
Kasch, J., Van Rosmalen, P., Henderikx, M., & Kalz, M. (2021) The factor structure of the peer-feedback orientation scale (PFOS): toward a measure for assessing students’ peer-feedback dispositions, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1893650
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated focus to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79-95. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/kessler.pdf
Lakarnchua, O., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2014). l2 student writers’ perceptions of microblogging. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11(2), 327-340.
Lam, R. (2010). A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1052
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, M.-K., & Evans, M. (2019). Investigating the operating mechanisms of the sources of L2 writing self-efficacy at the stages of giving and receiving peer feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 831-847. doi: 10.1111/modl.12598
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3. 5-19.
Lenkaitis, C. A. (2020). Technology as a mediating tool: Videoconferencing, L2 learning, and learner autonomy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5-6), 483-509, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1572018
Liang, M-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45–64. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/liang.pdf
Lin, Y. (2020). Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Peer Review in an EFL Writing Course. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10, 417.
Liu, J. and Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus tra- ditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
Liu, J. & Hansen, J. G. (2018). Peer response in second language classrooms (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers. DOI: 10.3998/mpub.9361097
Liou, H.-C., & Peng, Z.-C. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514–525.
Loncar, M., Schams, W. & Liang, J.-S. (2021). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction and second-language acquisition. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition: Vol. 379. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (pp. 259-278). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437-455
Mangelsdorf, K., 1992. Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274–284.
Matsumura, S., & Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. Modern Language Journal, 88, 403–415.
Mendonca, C.O., Johnson, K.E., 1994. Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–769.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Min, H. T. (2003). Why peer comments fail? English Teaching and Learning, 27(3), 85–103.
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
Min, H.-T. (2006). The effects of trained peer response on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
Min, H. T. (2007). Writer Perceptions of Reviewer Stances: A Qualitative Study. English Teaching & Learning, 31(3), 29-61
Min, H.-T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285–305.
Mohamadi, Z. (2018). Comparative effect of online summative and formative assessment on EFL student writing ability. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 29–40. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.02.003
O’Dowd, R. (2021). Virtual exchange: moving forward into the next decade. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 209-224, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1902201
Pham, H. V. P. (2021). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, doi: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748.
Pham, H. T. P., Luong, P. T. K., Tran, O. T. T., & Nguyen, G. Q. (2020). Should peer e-comments replace traditional peer comments? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 295–314. doi:10.29333/iji.2020.13120a
Pham, H. T. P. (2021). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
Pitcher, N., Davidson, K. & Napier, J. G. (2000). Videoconferencing in Higher Education. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(3), 199-209, DOI: 10.1080/13558000050138434
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151
Reinhardt, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2019). Digital Literacies as Emergent Multifarious Literacies. In N. Arnold & L. Ducate (Eds.), Engaging Language Learners through CALL (pp. 208-239). London, U.K.: Equinox.
Roberson, A. P. (2014) "Patterns of interaction in peer response: the relationship between pair dynamics and revision outcomes." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2014. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/34
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30, https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003

Sauro, S. (2012). Computer-mediated communication and second language development. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.) The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sauro, S. (2014). Lessons from the fandom: Task models for technology-enhanced language learning. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks, (pp. 239-262). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schultz, J. M. (2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 121–150). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shang, H.-F. (2017). An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 496–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0
Shang, H.-F. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601
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.
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The Effectiveness of Synchronous and Asynchronous Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy in a Computer-Mediated Environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
Song, W., & Usaha, S. (2009). How EFL university students use electronic peer response into revisions. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 16(3), 263–275.
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500103
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158.
Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative Writing as Peer Feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 143-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108635547.010
Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer Dialogue as a Means of Second Language Learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185. doi:10.1017/S0267190502000090
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tsai, M.-H., & Kinginger, C. (2015). Giving and receiving advice in computer-mediated peer response activities. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 82–112.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
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.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the second language classroom: Social cognitive activities, mediating strategies and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 51–57.
Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 19(4), 491-514.
Villamil, O. S. & M. C. M. De Guerrero (2006). Socio-cultural theory: A framework for understanding the socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press, 23–42.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1997). Educational Psychology. Boca Raton, FL. St. Lucie Press
Walliman, N. (2011). Research methods: The basics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers & Composition, 21, 451–468.
Wong, H. M. H., & Storey, P. (2006). Knowing and doing in the ESL writing class. Language Awareness, 15 (4), 283–300.
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. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.937442
Xu, Q., & Yu, S. (2018). An Action Research on Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Peer Feedback in EFL Writing Context. Asia-Pacific Edu Res., 27(3), 207–216.
Xu, Y. (2007). Re-examining the effects and affects of electronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class. The Reading Matrix, 7(2), 1-20.
Yang, Y.F., & Wu, S. P. (2011). A collective study of online interactions in text revisions. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 1-15.
Yazan, B. (2015). Three Approaches to Case Study Methods in Education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102
Yu, H.-J., & Choe, H. S. (2010). The Effects of Online Peer Feedback with TrackChanges and Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication. English Language and Literature, 23(2), 197−214. https://doi.org/10.35771/engdoi.2010.23.2.010
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.
Yu, S. & I. Lee (2014). An analysis of EFL students’ use of first language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System, 47, 28–38.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461-493. doi:10.1017/S0261444816000161
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL, 19(1), 79-101.
Zeng, G. (2017). Collaborative dialogue in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication. ReCALL, 29(3), 257-275. doi:10.1017/S0958344017000118
Zhang, S. Q. (1995). Reexamining the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
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.
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: an ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 109-126.
Zhu, Q. & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883-897, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417