1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 跨模組視角下中國英語學習者在視訊同儕回饋中意義協商之個案研究
A Case Study of Chinese EFL Learners’ Meaning-making in Videoconferencing Peer Feedback: A Multimodal Perspective
作者 崔麗莉
Tsui, Li-li
貢獻者 劉怡君
Liu, Yi-chun
崔麗莉
Tsui, Li-li
關鍵詞 中國英語學習者
視訊同儕回饋
二語寫作
意義協商
多模態符號
多模態社會符號學
Chinese English as Foreign Language learners (Chinese EFL learners)
Videoconferencing peer feedback
L2 writing
Meaning negotiation
Multimodal resources
Social semiotics of multimodality
日期 2023
上傳時間 2-Aug-2023 14:00:18 (UTC+8)
摘要 視頻同儕回饋指身份、地位相似的回饋者和寫作者借助視頻和網路、針對寫作內容進行遠程和同步的互動交際,從而提升寫作者寫作成果的價值及品質(Topping, 1998, p.270);也通過回饋協商意義的過程,使寫作者具備主體性。本研究以多模態社會符號學(Bezemer & Kress, 2015)為理論框架，探討中國英語學習者借助Microsoft Teams進行英語寫作的視訊同儕回饋時，多模態意義協商的過程和結果。具體研究問題如下：1.中國英語學習者在視訊同儕回饋中如何協作使用多模態符號來協商意義？2.學習者的寫作水準對視訊同儕回饋有何影響？3.這一回饋對中国英语学习者的寫作有何影響？
     本研究借助任意抽樣法選取了來自中國壯族自治區某重點大學的6名大學部學生，參與了為期29周（2021年7月上旬—2022年1月下旬）的寫作專案。問卷調查（共6個）、作文的原稿（共36份）、學生兩兩互評過程的錄影（共18個）、半結構化訪談（共12個）、作文的修改稿（共36份）、寫作前後測等資料被收集和交叉比對，來回答上述研究問題。
     結果表明：1.當透過視訊會議進行批判性回饋時，中國英語學習者採用多模態協商策略。具體來說，他們傾向於直截了當地表達自己的觀點，但較少使用肢體語言，而是主要借助科技模態和符號來實現指示功能。儘管他們的回饋話語缺乏委婉表達，但肢體語言的使用，例如點頭和微笑，有效地降低了批判性回饋話語對於面子的威脅。同時，科技資源的應用則強化了這些批判性回饋話語。2.所有學習者的英語寫作均進步顯著。他們提供了大量關於寫作基礎知識和修辭方面的回饋，並且積極吸收了絕大部分關於寫作基礎知識、修辭、內容和組織的回饋。相較于低水準學生，高水準學生傾向於提供更多關於寫作基礎知識和修辭問題的同伴回饋，但是他們對於寫作基礎知識的回饋採納率要低得多。然而，由於低水準學生的寫作能力有限，他們通常較難提供和接受關於整體性的回饋，尤其是關於統一性的回饋。
     本研究有助於教師瞭解中國學生在同儕回饋中的多模態策略，並為學生在視訊會議同儕回饋中的意義協商提供教學啟示。具體而言，教師應該鼓勵學生運用多模態資源進行同儕回饋的意義協商，幫助學生培養回饋素養，促進學生對特定文化下的跨模組交流的敏感性。
Videoconferencing peer feedback involves the remote and synchronous interaction via videoconferencing technology and the internet between reviewers and writers who hold similar status. The video-mediated feedback might not only enhance “the amount, level, value, worth, quality of success of the products” of writing of peers (Topping, 1998, p. 270), but also empower peers to negotiate meaning, with the purpose of giving them agency. Current studies of writing peer feedback have explored various issues including its effects on text revision and students’ writing development, students’ perceptions and attitudes regarding peer feedback, their incorporation of peer comments into writing, peer feedback literacy, peer feedback training, effects of different types of peer feedback, as well as comparison between peer feedback and other types of writing feedback such as automatic feedback, teacher feedback and so on (Chang, 2015; Diab, 2016; Dong, Gao & Schunn, 2023; Ho & Savignon, 2007; Hu & Lam, 2010; Lee, 2015; Min, 2016; Nelson and Murphy, 1993; Rahimi, 2013; Tian & Zhou, 2020; Zhao, 2010; Zheng, 2012). However, little research has taken the perspective of multimodality to investigate how L2 learners deploy multimodal resources to mediate their meaning negotiation of peer feedback on L2 writing (Chang et al., 2017). Meanwhile, inconsistent findings have emerged regarding the influence of learner proficiency on online peer feedback and effects of peer feedback on L2 writing (Allen & Mills, 2016; Cai, 2011; Gao, Schunn & Yu, 2019; Jin et al., 2022; So & Lee, 2012; Tian & Zhou, 2020; Woo, Chu & Li, 2013).
     The study thus aims to explore the process and the product of multimodal meaning negotiation in video peer feedback of L2 writing among Chinese EFL learners who used Microsoft Teams. Under the theoretical framework of social semiotics of multimodality (Bezemer & Kress, 2015), the study seeks to answer three research questions:1. How do students optimize their use of multimodal resources for meaning negotiation during videoconferencing peer feedback? 2. How does learner proficiency impact on videoconferencing feedback? 3. How does videoconferencing feedback affect the Chinese EFL learners’ L2 writing?
     This mixed study employed a convenience sampling method to recruit 6 undergraduate participants from a prominent university in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The participants engaged in a 29-week writing program consisting of 7 video-mediated writing classes as well as 6 rounds of composition writing, videoconferencing peer feedback, and composition revision. To answer the three research questions, a variety of data sources were collected and triangulated, including 6 surveys, 36 composition drafts, 18 videoconferencing peer reviews, 36 revisions, and 12 semi-structured interviews.
     The findings are as follows. Firstly, when providing critical feedback through videoconferencing, the Chinese English learners employed multimodal negotiation strategies. Specifically, they tended to express their views directly, but used minimum body language, and relied on technology mode and symbols for referential purposes. Although their feedback discourse lacked euphemism expressions, their use of body language, such as nodding and smiling, effectively reduced the threat of the critical feedback. At the same time, their employment of technological resources has strengthened the critical feedback. Secondly, significant progress has been observed among all learners in English writing. They provided a large number of peer reviews on writing mechanics and rhetoric issues, and accepted most reviews on writing mechanics, rhetoric, content and organization. Compared with the lower proficient students, the higher proficient students tended to offer more peer reviews on writing mechanics and rhetoric issues, but incorporated a smaller percentage of reviews especially on mechanics. However, the lower proficient students, due to their limited writing competence, were usually unable to provide and incorporate global reviews such as unity.
     The study has the potential to assist teachers in understanding Chinese students’ multimodal strategies of peer feedback, and offers teaching implications on the students’ orchestrating multimodality during videoconferencing feedback for meaning making. To be specific, teachers should a) encourage the students to deploy multimodal resources for the meaning negotiation of peer feedback, b) assist students in developing their feedback literacy, c) foster students` sensitivity to particular cultural multimodal communication.
參考文獻 Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119.
     Akarasriworn, C., & Ku, H. (2013). Graduate students’knowledge construction and attitudes toward online synchronous videoconferencing collaborative learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 35–48.
     Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498-513.
     Andersen, P. A. (1998) Nonverbal Communication: Forms and Functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfifield Publishing.
     Andersen, P. A. (2008) Nonverbal Communication Forms and Functions (2nd ed.). Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
     Arellano-Soto, G., & Parks, S. (2021). The Role of Multimodality during the Negotiation of Meaning in an English/Spanish eTandem Video-Conferencing Exchange. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 77(2), 129-153.
     Austin, N., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Video conferencing and multimodal expression of voice: Children`s conversations using Skype for second language development in a telecollaborative setting. System, 64, 87-103.
     Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and Learning Revisited, Making Meaning Through Talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers Heinemann.
     Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (2021). Communication and Learning Revisited: Making Meaning Through Talk. Taylor & Francis.
     Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
     Berglund, T. (2009). Multimodal student interaction online: an ecological perspective. ReCALL (Cambridge, England), 21(2), 186–205.
     Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2015). Multimodality, Learning and Communication: A Social Semiotic Frame. Routledge.
     Cai, J. (2011). A Comparative Study of Online Peer Feedback and Teacher Feedback on English Writing among Chinese College Students. Foreign Language World, (2), 65-72.
     Canagarajah, S. (2016). Translingual writing and teacher development in composition. College English, 78(3), 265-273.
     Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1). 31-54.
     Cappellini, A. (2017). Sequences of normative evaluation in two telecollaboration projects: A comparative study of multimodal feedback through desktop videoconference. Language Learning in Higher Education (Berlin, Germany), 7(1), 55–80.
     Cappellini, M., & Mompean, A. (2015). Role taking for teletandem pairs involved in multimodal online conversation: Some proposals for counseling practice. Language Learning in Higher Education (Berlin, Germany), 5(1), 243–264.
     Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students` perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
     Chang, C. (2014). Writer’s decision-making process and revision behaviors in L2 peer review. In R. C. Tsai & G. Redmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Information Technology (pp. 165-192). Taipei, Taiwan: Bookman.
     Chang, C., Kelly, J. C., Satar, H. M., & Strobl, C. (2017). Electronic feedback on second language writing: A retrospective and prospective essay on multimodality. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(3), 405-428.
     Chang, C. Y. H. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 25, 2-21.
     Debras, H. (2015). The Multimodality of Corrective Feedback in Tandem Interactions. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212(2), 16–22.
     Diab, N. M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55-65.
     Dizon, G. (2016). A comparative study of Facebook vs. paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1249-1258.
     Dong, Z., Gao, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2023). Assessing students’ peer feedback literacy in writing: scale development and validation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 53, 1-16.
     Duff, K., Beglinger, L. J., Schultz, S. K., Moser, D. J., McCaffrey, R. J., Haase, R. F., ... & Huntington`s Study Group. (2007). Practice effects in the prediction of long-term cognitive outcome in three patient samples: A novel prognostic index. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(1), 15-24.
     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.
     Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74.
     Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50(4), 100775.
     Freschi, A., & Cavalari, S. (2020). Corrective Feedback and Multimodality: Rethinking Categories in Telecollaborative Learning. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 154-180.
     Gao, Y., Schunn, C. D. D., & Yu, Q. (2019). The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 294-308.
     Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP
     Gumperz, J. (2003). Response essay. Language and Interaction: Discussions With John J. Gumperz, 105-126.
     Guichon, N., Bétrancourt, M., & Prié, Y. (2012). Managing written and oral negative
     feedback in a synchronous online teaching situation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 181-197.
     Halliday, M. A. K. (1969). A brief sketch of systemic grammar. La Grammatica: La Lessicologia. Bulzoni Editore.
     Halliday, M.A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London, UK, NY: Houghton Mifflin Hartcourt.
     Halliday, M. A. (1985). Systemic background. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, 1, 1-15.
     Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2), 116-137.
     Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO journal, 24(2), 269-290.
     Hodge, B., Hodge, R. I. V., Hodge, R., & Kress, G. R. (1988). Social Semiotics. Cornell University Press.
     Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
     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(4), 371-394.
     Hung, S. T. A., & Huang, H. T. D. (2015). Video blogging and English presentation performance: A pilot study. Psychological Reports, 117(2), 614-630.
     Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language (pp. 350-377). MA: MIT Press.
     Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H., & Kriz, M. (2012). Native-nonnative speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing motivation? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 1-19.
     Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 191, 222.
     Jewitt, C. (2009). Introduction: Handbook rationale, scope and structure. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 1-7.
     Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O`Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing Multimodality. Routledge.
     Jiang, L., & Yu, S. (2020). Appropriating automated feedback in L2 writing: experiences of Chinese EFL student writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–25.
     Jin, Jiang, Q., Xiong, W., Feng, Y., & Zhao, W. (2022). Effects of student engagement in peer feedback on writing performance in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–16.
     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.
     Kim, B. R. (2009). Examining the effects of trained peer feedback on EFL students` writing. English Language & Literature Teaching, 15(2), 151-168.
     Korhonen, V. (2010). Chapter 10 - Dialogic literacy: A sociocultural literacy learning approach. In Practising Information Literacy (pp. 211–226). Elsevier Ltd.
     Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Taylor & Francis.
     Kress, & Leeuwen, T. van. (2001). Multimodal Discourse : the Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication / Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. Arnold.
     Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J., & Cullum‐Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 295-314.
     Lee, I. (2017). Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Springer Singapore Pte. Limited.
     Lee, M. K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary students` perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1-10.
     Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
     Liu, X., & Yang, G. (2008). A web-based peer writing assessment approach. Foreign Languages in China, 2, 54-58.
     Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
     Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
     Ma, M., Wang, C., & Teng, M. F. (2021). Using learning-oriented online assessment to foster students’ feedback literacy in L2 writing during COVID-19 pandemic: A case of misalignment between micro-and macro-contexts. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30, 597-609.
     McNeill D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
     Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
     Min, H. T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 43-57.
     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.
     Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
     Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. Routledge.
     Pham, V., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748.
     Pham, V. P. H., Huyen, L. H., & Nguyen, M. T. (2020). The incorporation of qualified peer feedback into writing revision. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 45-59.
     Pham, H. T. P. (2022). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112-2147.
     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.
     Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
     Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 75-99.
     Saeed, M. A., Ghazali, K., Sahuri, S. S., & Abdulrab, M. (2018). Engaging EFL learners in online peer feedback on writing: What does it tell us?. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 39-61.
     Sacks, H. (1992 [1964–72]). Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell
     Satar, H. (2016). Meaning-making in online language learner interactions via desktop videoconferencing. ReCALL (Cambridge, England), 28(3), 305–325.
     Satar, M. (2020). L1 for social presence in videoconferencing: A social semiotic account. Language Learning and Teaching, 24(1), 129-153.
     Savignon, S. J., & Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Texts and strategies. Calico Journal, 21(2), 265-290.
     Schegloff, E. (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1): 1–63.
     Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.
     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.
     Shang, H. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 1–13.
     So, & Lee, C. H. L. (2012). Peer Feedback Using Blended Learning in L2 Writing at the University Level. English Teaching, 67(3), 307–337.
     Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
     Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63.
     Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. New York: Oxford University Press.
     Tannen, D. (2012) Turn-taking and intercultural discourse and communication. In C. Paulston, S. Kiesling and E. Rangel (eds.), The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication,( p.135-157). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
     Tian, & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91. 102247-14.
     Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3), 249-276.
     Tsui, & Ng, M. (2000). Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.
     Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2019). The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 390-398.
     Van der Zwaard, B. (2020). Negotiation of Meaning in Digital L2 Learning Interaction: Task Design Versus Task Performance. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 56–89.
     van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
     Vuogan, A., & Li, S. (2022). Examining the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing: A Meta‐Analysis. TESOL Quarterly.
     Vurdien, R. (2019). Videoconferencing: Developing students’ communicative competence. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 4(2), 269-298.
     Wang, L. (2010). The Impact of Synchronous Online Peer Assessment on English Majors` Writing Motivation and Writing Performance. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, (11), 52-56.
     Wang, S., & Usaha, S. (2009). How EFL university students use electronic peer response into revisions. Suranaree J. Sci. Technol., 16(3), 263-275.
     Wang, W. (2014). Students’perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96.
     Wang, Y. (2007). Task design in videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. Calico Journal, 24(3), 591-630.
     Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.
     Williams, M., & Tang, K. S. (2020). The implications of the non-linguistic modes of meaning for language learners in science: a review. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1041-1067.
     Woo, Chu, S. K. W., & Li, X. (2013). Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 279–309.
     Xu, J. (2021). Chinese university students’ L2 writing feedback orientation and self-regulated learning writing strategies in online teaching during COVID-19. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 563-574.
     Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297.
     Yeh, C. C. (2018). L1 versus L2 use in peer review of L2 writing in English. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 20(9.1), 124.
     Yeh, H. C., Tseng, S. S., & Chen, Y. S. (2019). Using online peer feedback through Blogs to promote speaking performance. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(1), 1-14.
     Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2014). An analysis of Chinese EFL students’ use of first and second language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System, 47, 28-38.
     Yu, L. (2015). What Factors Shape the Collaborative Pattern of Group Interaction during Peer Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom? Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 28(2), 618–640.
     Yu, Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2016). Revisiting Chinese Cultural Issues in Peer Feedback in EFL Writing: Insights from a Multiple Case Study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(2), 295–304.
     Yu, S. (2016). An exploratory study on the role of L1 use in peer written feedback of L2 writing, Porta Linguarum, 25, 135-146.
     Yu, S. (2019). Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices from Master`s students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing, 40, 42-52.
     Yu, S. (2021). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 36–53.
     Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Can higher-proficiency L2 learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback?. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 178-192.
     Yu, S., Zhang, D., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53, 1-13.
     Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 50-65.
     Zeng, & Liang. (2017). An Empirical Study on the Impact of Different Types of Peer Assessment on College Students` English Writing. Foreign Language Education, 41(6), 67-71. 34(4), 53-57.
     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(1), 3-17.
     Zhao, H., Sullivan, K. P., & Mellenius, I. (2014). Participation, interaction and social presence: An exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 807-819.
     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 and Development, 37(4), 883–897.
描述 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
104551508
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104551508
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 劉怡君zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Liu, Yi-chunen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 崔麗莉zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tsui, Li-lien_US
dc.creator (作者) 崔麗莉zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Tsui, Li-lien_US
dc.date (日期) 2023en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2-Aug-2023 14:00:18 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 2-Aug-2023 14:00:18 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Aug-2023 14:00:18 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104551508en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146551-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 104551508zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 視頻同儕回饋指身份、地位相似的回饋者和寫作者借助視頻和網路、針對寫作內容進行遠程和同步的互動交際,從而提升寫作者寫作成果的價值及品質(Topping, 1998, p.270);也通過回饋協商意義的過程,使寫作者具備主體性。本研究以多模態社會符號學(Bezemer & Kress, 2015)為理論框架，探討中國英語學習者借助Microsoft Teams進行英語寫作的視訊同儕回饋時，多模態意義協商的過程和結果。具體研究問題如下：1.中國英語學習者在視訊同儕回饋中如何協作使用多模態符號來協商意義？2.學習者的寫作水準對視訊同儕回饋有何影響？3.這一回饋對中国英语学习者的寫作有何影響？
     本研究借助任意抽樣法選取了來自中國壯族自治區某重點大學的6名大學部學生，參與了為期29周（2021年7月上旬—2022年1月下旬）的寫作專案。問卷調查（共6個）、作文的原稿（共36份）、學生兩兩互評過程的錄影（共18個）、半結構化訪談（共12個）、作文的修改稿（共36份）、寫作前後測等資料被收集和交叉比對，來回答上述研究問題。
     結果表明：1.當透過視訊會議進行批判性回饋時，中國英語學習者採用多模態協商策略。具體來說，他們傾向於直截了當地表達自己的觀點，但較少使用肢體語言，而是主要借助科技模態和符號來實現指示功能。儘管他們的回饋話語缺乏委婉表達，但肢體語言的使用，例如點頭和微笑，有效地降低了批判性回饋話語對於面子的威脅。同時，科技資源的應用則強化了這些批判性回饋話語。2.所有學習者的英語寫作均進步顯著。他們提供了大量關於寫作基礎知識和修辭方面的回饋，並且積極吸收了絕大部分關於寫作基礎知識、修辭、內容和組織的回饋。相較于低水準學生，高水準學生傾向於提供更多關於寫作基礎知識和修辭問題的同伴回饋，但是他們對於寫作基礎知識的回饋採納率要低得多。然而，由於低水準學生的寫作能力有限，他們通常較難提供和接受關於整體性的回饋，尤其是關於統一性的回饋。
     本研究有助於教師瞭解中國學生在同儕回饋中的多模態策略，並為學生在視訊會議同儕回饋中的意義協商提供教學啟示。具體而言，教師應該鼓勵學生運用多模態資源進行同儕回饋的意義協商，幫助學生培養回饋素養，促進學生對特定文化下的跨模組交流的敏感性。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Videoconferencing peer feedback involves the remote and synchronous interaction via videoconferencing technology and the internet between reviewers and writers who hold similar status. The video-mediated feedback might not only enhance “the amount, level, value, worth, quality of success of the products” of writing of peers (Topping, 1998, p. 270), but also empower peers to negotiate meaning, with the purpose of giving them agency. Current studies of writing peer feedback have explored various issues including its effects on text revision and students’ writing development, students’ perceptions and attitudes regarding peer feedback, their incorporation of peer comments into writing, peer feedback literacy, peer feedback training, effects of different types of peer feedback, as well as comparison between peer feedback and other types of writing feedback such as automatic feedback, teacher feedback and so on (Chang, 2015; Diab, 2016; Dong, Gao & Schunn, 2023; Ho & Savignon, 2007; Hu & Lam, 2010; Lee, 2015; Min, 2016; Nelson and Murphy, 1993; Rahimi, 2013; Tian & Zhou, 2020; Zhao, 2010; Zheng, 2012). However, little research has taken the perspective of multimodality to investigate how L2 learners deploy multimodal resources to mediate their meaning negotiation of peer feedback on L2 writing (Chang et al., 2017). Meanwhile, inconsistent findings have emerged regarding the influence of learner proficiency on online peer feedback and effects of peer feedback on L2 writing (Allen & Mills, 2016; Cai, 2011; Gao, Schunn & Yu, 2019; Jin et al., 2022; So & Lee, 2012; Tian & Zhou, 2020; Woo, Chu & Li, 2013).
     The study thus aims to explore the process and the product of multimodal meaning negotiation in video peer feedback of L2 writing among Chinese EFL learners who used Microsoft Teams. Under the theoretical framework of social semiotics of multimodality (Bezemer & Kress, 2015), the study seeks to answer three research questions:1. How do students optimize their use of multimodal resources for meaning negotiation during videoconferencing peer feedback? 2. How does learner proficiency impact on videoconferencing feedback? 3. How does videoconferencing feedback affect the Chinese EFL learners’ L2 writing?
     This mixed study employed a convenience sampling method to recruit 6 undergraduate participants from a prominent university in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The participants engaged in a 29-week writing program consisting of 7 video-mediated writing classes as well as 6 rounds of composition writing, videoconferencing peer feedback, and composition revision. To answer the three research questions, a variety of data sources were collected and triangulated, including 6 surveys, 36 composition drafts, 18 videoconferencing peer reviews, 36 revisions, and 12 semi-structured interviews.
     The findings are as follows. Firstly, when providing critical feedback through videoconferencing, the Chinese English learners employed multimodal negotiation strategies. Specifically, they tended to express their views directly, but used minimum body language, and relied on technology mode and symbols for referential purposes. Although their feedback discourse lacked euphemism expressions, their use of body language, such as nodding and smiling, effectively reduced the threat of the critical feedback. At the same time, their employment of technological resources has strengthened the critical feedback. Secondly, significant progress has been observed among all learners in English writing. They provided a large number of peer reviews on writing mechanics and rhetoric issues, and accepted most reviews on writing mechanics, rhetoric, content and organization. Compared with the lower proficient students, the higher proficient students tended to offer more peer reviews on writing mechanics and rhetoric issues, but incorporated a smaller percentage of reviews especially on mechanics. However, the lower proficient students, due to their limited writing competence, were usually unable to provide and incorporate global reviews such as unity.
     The study has the potential to assist teachers in understanding Chinese students’ multimodal strategies of peer feedback, and offers teaching implications on the students’ orchestrating multimodality during videoconferencing feedback for meaning making. To be specific, teachers should a) encourage the students to deploy multimodal resources for the meaning negotiation of peer feedback, b) assist students in developing their feedback literacy, c) foster students` sensitivity to particular cultural multimodal communication.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
     CHINESE ABSTRACT iii
     ABSTRACT v
     TABLE OF CONTENTS xi
     LIST OF TABLES xiii
     LIST OF FIGURES xv
     CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
     1.1 Background of the Study 1
     1.2 Research Gaps 2
     1.3 Research Questions 3
     CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
     2.1 Social Semiotics of Multimodality 5
     2.2 Effects of Learner Proficiency on Online Peer Feedback 6
     2.3 The Influence of Online Peer Feedback on L2 Writing 11
     2.4 Peers’ Orchestration of Multimodal Resources in
     Videoconferencing Feedback and Interaction 14
     CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 21
     3.1 Research Method and Data Collection 21
     3.2 Context and Participants 21
     3.3 Research Design and Procedures 25
     3.3.1 Phase 1 (Week 1- Week 2) 25
     3.3.2 Phase 2 (Week 3 - Week 9) 27
     3.3.3 Phase 3 (Week 10- Week 29) 32
     3.4 Data Analysis 33
     3.4.1 Data Analysis for Research Question 1 33
     3.4.1.1 Interview Data 33
     3.4.1.2 Videoconferencing Feedback Data 34
     3.4.2 Data Analysis for Question 2 54
     3.4.3 Data Analysis for Question 3 55
     CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 57
     4.1 Research Question 1: Learners’ Optimization of
     Multimodal Resources for Making Meaning 57
     4.1.1 Learners’ Deployment of Modes and Corresponding
     Functions 57
     4.1.1.1 Speech Functions 57
     4.1.1.2 Multimodal Communicative Functions- Body Language
     Mode and Technology Mode 58
     4.1.2 Multimodal Patterns of Learners’ Feedback in the
     Beginning, Discussion and Ending 61
     4.2 Research question 2: The Impact of Learner Proficiency on
     Videoconferencing Feedback 68
     4.3 Research Question 3: The Influence of Videoconferencing
     Feedback on Chinese Students’ Writing 71
     CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 75
     5.1 Discussion 75
     5.1.1 Chinese Students’ Optimization of Multimodality for
     Meaning-negotiation 75
     5.1.1.1 Multimodal Meaning-making as Cross-cultural
     Interaction 75
     5.1.1.2 Translanguaging and Multimodality Scaffolding
     Meaning Making 78
     5.1.2 The Impacts of Learner Proficiency on Videoconferencing
     Feedback 81
     5.1.3 The Influence of Videoconferencing Feedback on
     Chinese students’ Writing 81
     5.2 Conclusion 83
     5.3 Pedagogical Implications 84
     5.4 Limitations 85
     5.5 Suggestions for Future Research 86
     REFERENCES 89
     APPENDIX 1: Chinese Informed Consent 103
     APPENDIX 2: Survey 105
     APPENDIX 3: Pre-writing Test 107
     APPENDIX 4: Post-writing Test 109
     APPENDIX 5: Grading Criteria 111
     APPENDIX 6: Compositions for Videoconferencing Feedback
     Practices 117
     APPENDIX 7: Peer Review Sheet 123
     APPENDIX 8: The Interview Protocol 125
     APPENDIX 9: Transcription System 127
     APPENDIX 10: Participants’ Pre- and Post-writing Tests
     129		zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104551508en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 中國英語學習者zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 視訊同儕回饋zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 二語寫作zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 意義協商zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多模態符號zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多模態社會符號學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Chinese English as Foreign Language learners (Chinese EFL learners)en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Videoconferencing peer feedbacken_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) L2 writingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Meaning negotiationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Multimodal resourcesen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social semiotics of multimodalityen_US
dc.title (題名) 跨模組視角下中國英語學習者在視訊同儕回饋中意義協商之個案研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Case Study of Chinese EFL Learners’ Meaning-making in Videoconferencing Peer Feedback: A Multimodal Perspectiveen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119.
     Akarasriworn, C., & Ku, H. (2013). Graduate students’knowledge construction and attitudes toward online synchronous videoconferencing collaborative learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(1), 35–48.
     Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498-513.
     Andersen, P. A. (1998) Nonverbal Communication: Forms and Functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfifield Publishing.
     Andersen, P. A. (2008) Nonverbal Communication Forms and Functions (2nd ed.). Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
     Arellano-Soto, G., & Parks, S. (2021). The Role of Multimodality during the Negotiation of Meaning in an English/Spanish eTandem Video-Conferencing Exchange. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 77(2), 129-153.
     Austin, N., Hampel, R., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Video conferencing and multimodal expression of voice: Children`s conversations using Skype for second language development in a telecollaborative setting. System, 64, 87-103.
     Barnes, D. & Todd, F. (1995). Communication and Learning Revisited, Making Meaning Through Talk. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers Heinemann.
     Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (2021). Communication and Learning Revisited: Making Meaning Through Talk. Taylor & Francis.
     Berg, Bruce L. 2001. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
     Berglund, T. (2009). Multimodal student interaction online: an ecological perspective. ReCALL (Cambridge, England), 21(2), 186–205.
     Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2015). Multimodality, Learning and Communication: A Social Semiotic Frame. Routledge.
     Cai, J. (2011). A Comparative Study of Online Peer Feedback and Teacher Feedback on English Writing among Chinese College Students. Foreign Language World, (2), 65-72.
     Canagarajah, S. (2016). Translingual writing and teacher development in composition. College English, 78(3), 265-273.
     Canagarajah, S. (2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1). 31-54.
     Cappellini, A. (2017). Sequences of normative evaluation in two telecollaboration projects: A comparative study of multimodal feedback through desktop videoconference. Language Learning in Higher Education (Berlin, Germany), 7(1), 55–80.
     Cappellini, M., & Mompean, A. (2015). Role taking for teletandem pairs involved in multimodal online conversation: Some proposals for counseling practice. Language Learning in Higher Education (Berlin, Germany), 5(1), 243–264.
     Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students` perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
     Chang, C. (2014). Writer’s decision-making process and revision behaviors in L2 peer review. In R. C. Tsai & G. Redmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Information Technology (pp. 165-192). Taipei, Taiwan: Bookman.
     Chang, C., Kelly, J. C., Satar, H. M., & Strobl, C. (2017). Electronic feedback on second language writing: A retrospective and prospective essay on multimodality. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(3), 405-428.
     Chang, C. Y. H. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 25, 2-21.
     Debras, H. (2015). The Multimodality of Corrective Feedback in Tandem Interactions. Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212(2), 16–22.
     Diab, N. M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55-65.
     Dizon, G. (2016). A comparative study of Facebook vs. paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1249-1258.
     Dong, Z., Gao, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2023). Assessing students’ peer feedback literacy in writing: scale development and validation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 53, 1-16.
     Duff, K., Beglinger, L. J., Schultz, S. K., Moser, D. J., McCaffrey, R. J., Haase, R. F., ... & Huntington`s Study Group. (2007). Practice effects in the prediction of long-term cognitive outcome in three patient samples: A novel prognostic index. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(1), 15-24.
     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.
     Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74.
     Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50(4), 100775.
     Freschi, A., & Cavalari, S. (2020). Corrective Feedback and Multimodality: Rethinking Categories in Telecollaborative Learning. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 154-180.
     Gao, Y., Schunn, C. D. D., & Yu, Q. (2019). The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 294-308.
     Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP
     Gumperz, J. (2003). Response essay. Language and Interaction: Discussions With John J. Gumperz, 105-126.
     Guichon, N., Bétrancourt, M., & Prié, Y. (2012). Managing written and oral negative
     feedback in a synchronous online teaching situation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 181-197.
     Halliday, M. A. K. (1969). A brief sketch of systemic grammar. La Grammatica: La Lessicologia. Bulzoni Editore.
     Halliday, M.A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London, UK, NY: Houghton Mifflin Hartcourt.
     Halliday, M. A. (1985). Systemic background. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, 1, 1-15.
     Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2), 116-137.
     Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO journal, 24(2), 269-290.
     Hodge, B., Hodge, R. I. V., Hodge, R., & Kress, G. R. (1988). Social Semiotics. Cornell University Press.
     Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
     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(4), 371-394.
     Hung, S. T. A., & Huang, H. T. D. (2015). Video blogging and English presentation performance: A pilot study. Psychological Reports, 117(2), 614-630.
     Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language (pp. 350-377). MA: MIT Press.
     Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H., & Kriz, M. (2012). Native-nonnative speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing motivation? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 1-19.
     Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 191, 222.
     Jewitt, C. (2009). Introduction: Handbook rationale, scope and structure. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, 1-7.
     Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O`Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing Multimodality. Routledge.
     Jiang, L., & Yu, S. (2020). Appropriating automated feedback in L2 writing: experiences of Chinese EFL student writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–25.
     Jin, Jiang, Q., Xiong, W., Feng, Y., & Zhao, W. (2022). Effects of student engagement in peer feedback on writing performance in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–16.
     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.
     Kim, B. R. (2009). Examining the effects of trained peer feedback on EFL students` writing. English Language & Literature Teaching, 15(2), 151-168.
     Korhonen, V. (2010). Chapter 10 - Dialogic literacy: A sociocultural literacy learning approach. In Practising Information Literacy (pp. 211–226). Elsevier Ltd.
     Kress, G. R. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Taylor & Francis.
     Kress, & Leeuwen, T. van. (2001). Multimodal Discourse : the Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication / Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. Arnold.
     Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J., & Cullum‐Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 295-314.
     Lee, I. (2017). Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Springer Singapore Pte. Limited.
     Lee, M. K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary students` perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1-10.
     Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
     Liu, X., & Yang, G. (2008). A web-based peer writing assessment approach. Foreign Languages in China, 2, 54-58.
     Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
     Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
     Ma, M., Wang, C., & Teng, M. F. (2021). Using learning-oriented online assessment to foster students’ feedback literacy in L2 writing during COVID-19 pandemic: A case of misalignment between micro-and macro-contexts. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30, 597-609.
     McNeill D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
     Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
     Min, H. T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 43-57.
     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.
     Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
     Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. Routledge.
     Pham, V., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748.
     Pham, V. P. H., Huyen, L. H., & Nguyen, M. T. (2020). The incorporation of qualified peer feedback into writing revision. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 45-59.
     Pham, H. T. P. (2022). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112-2147.
     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.
     Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
     Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 75-99.
     Saeed, M. A., Ghazali, K., Sahuri, S. S., & Abdulrab, M. (2018). Engaging EFL learners in online peer feedback on writing: What does it tell us?. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 39-61.
     Sacks, H. (1992 [1964–72]). Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell
     Satar, H. (2016). Meaning-making in online language learner interactions via desktop videoconferencing. ReCALL (Cambridge, England), 28(3), 305–325.
     Satar, M. (2020). L1 for social presence in videoconferencing: A social semiotic account. Language Learning and Teaching, 24(1), 129-153.
     Savignon, S. J., & Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Texts and strategies. Calico Journal, 21(2), 265-290.
     Schegloff, E. (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1): 1–63.
     Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. London: Routledge.
     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.
     Shang, H. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 1–13.
     So, & Lee, C. H. L. (2012). Peer Feedback Using Blended Learning in L2 Writing at the University Level. English Teaching, 67(3), 307–337.
     Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
     Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63.
     Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk Among Friends. New York: Oxford University Press.
     Tannen, D. (2012) Turn-taking and intercultural discourse and communication. In C. Paulston, S. Kiesling and E. Rangel (eds.), The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication,( p.135-157). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
     Tian, & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91. 102247-14.
     Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3), 249-276.
     Tsui, & Ng, M. (2000). Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170.
     Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2019). The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 390-398.
     Van der Zwaard, B. (2020). Negotiation of Meaning in Digital L2 Learning Interaction: Task Design Versus Task Performance. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 56–89.
     van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
     Vuogan, A., & Li, S. (2022). Examining the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing: A Meta‐Analysis. TESOL Quarterly.
     Vurdien, R. (2019). Videoconferencing: Developing students’ communicative competence. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 4(2), 269-298.
     Wang, L. (2010). The Impact of Synchronous Online Peer Assessment on English Majors` Writing Motivation and Writing Performance. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, (11), 52-56.
     Wang, S., & Usaha, S. (2009). How EFL university students use electronic peer response into revisions. Suranaree J. Sci. Technol., 16(3), 263-275.
     Wang, W. (2014). Students’perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96.
     Wang, Y. (2007). Task design in videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. Calico Journal, 24(3), 591-630.
     Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: Their interactions and reflections. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-635.
     Williams, M., & Tang, K. S. (2020). The implications of the non-linguistic modes of meaning for language learners in science: a review. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1041-1067.
     Woo, Chu, S. K. W., & Li, X. (2013). Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 279–309.
     Xu, J. (2021). Chinese university students’ L2 writing feedback orientation and self-regulated learning writing strategies in online teaching during COVID-19. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 563-574.
     Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297.
     Yeh, C. C. (2018). L1 versus L2 use in peer review of L2 writing in English. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 20(9.1), 124.
     Yeh, H. C., Tseng, S. S., & Chen, Y. S. (2019). Using online peer feedback through Blogs to promote speaking performance. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(1), 1-14.
     Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2014). An analysis of Chinese EFL students’ use of first and second language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System, 47, 28-38.
     Yu, L. (2015). What Factors Shape the Collaborative Pattern of Group Interaction during Peer Feedback in the L2 Writing Classroom? Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 28(2), 618–640.
     Yu, Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2016). Revisiting Chinese Cultural Issues in Peer Feedback in EFL Writing: Insights from a Multiple Case Study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(2), 295–304.
     Yu, S. (2016). An exploratory study on the role of L1 use in peer written feedback of L2 writing, Porta Linguarum, 25, 135-146.
     Yu, S. (2019). Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices from Master`s students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing, 40, 42-52.
     Yu, S. (2021). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 36–53.
     Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Can higher-proficiency L2 learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback?. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 178-192.
     Yu, S., Zhang, D., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53, 1-13.
     Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: A Macau study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 50-65.
     Zeng, & Liang. (2017). An Empirical Study on the Impact of Different Types of Peer Assessment on College Students` English Writing. Foreign Language Education, 41(6), 67-71. 34(4), 53-57.
     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(1), 3-17.
     Zhao, H., Sullivan, K. P., & Mellenius, I. (2014). Participation, interaction and social presence: An exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 807-819.
     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 and Development, 37(4), 883–897.		zh_TW