کدام نوع بازخورد اصلاحی را باید برای زبان‌آموزان سالمند در اولویت قرار داد؟ بررسی بازخورد هم‌کلاسی-محور مستقیم و غیرمستقیم

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسندگان

1 گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی ، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهرکرد، شهرکرد، ایران.

2 گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی ، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران

چکیده

با وجود افزایش چشمگیر پژوهش‌ها درباره بازخورد اصلاحی در سال‌های اخیر، موضوع مناسب بودن روش‌های اصلاح خطا برای سالمندان (افراد بالای ۵۰ سال) همچنان کمتر مورد توجه قرار گرفته است. برای پر کردن این شکاف، مطالعه حاضر به بررسی اثربخشی بازخورد هم‌کلاسی به دو صورت مستقیم و غیرمستقیم بر بهبود مهارت‌های دستور زبان در این گروه سنی پرداخته است. پانزده زبان‌آموزان سطح متوسط  بالای ۵۰ سال (میانگین سنی= ۵/۶۴)، در یک مؤسسه بازنشستگی غیرانتفاعی، در یک پیش‌آزمون، چهار پس‌آزمون، یک مصاحبه گروهی و جلسات بازبینی نتایج توسط مشارکت‌کنندگان شرکت کردند. شرکت‌کنندگان در چهار جلسه نخست، بازخورد هم‌کلاسی مستقیم و در چهار جلسه بعدی، بازخورد غیرمستقیم دریافت کردند (با طراحی متقاطع متوازن). پس از پاک‌سازی داده‌ها از طریق میانگین‌گیری، تشخیص داده‌های پرت، و آزمون نرمال بودن، نتایج تحلیل واریانس نشان داد که بازخورد غیرمستقیم به‌طور معناداری برای آموزش دستور زبان سالمندان شرکت‌کننده مؤثرتر بوده است. به‌طور کلی، مصاحبه‌شوندگان بازخورد هم‌کلاسی را رویکردی حمایت‌گرایانه تلقی کردند و اظهار داشتند که اصلاح خطاهای دیگران، فرصت یادگیری متقابل را برای هر دو طرف فراهم ساخته است. آنان همچنین از کار گروهی و حمایت متقابل که باعث ارتقای رشد زبانی‌شان شد، ابراز رضایت داشتند. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که بازخورد غیرمستقیم در بهبود دستور زبان زبان‌آموزان سالمند تأثیر معناداری داشته است؛ هرچند به نظر می‌رسید شرکت‌کنندگان تمایل بیشتری به بازخورد مستقیم داشتند و آن را برای درک آسان‌تر و بازخورددهی مؤثرتر ترجیح می‌دادند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Which Corrective Feedback to Privilege for Elderly Language Learners: A Mixed-methods Study of Peer Feedback Variations

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farnoosh Zolala 1
  • Shima Ghahari 2
  • Faezeh Ebrahimi 2
1 Department of English Language Studies, University of Shahrekord, Shahrekord, Iran.
2 Department of Foreign Languages, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Objective: Although the research subject of corrective feedback has proliferated recently, the appropriateness of error treatment for elderlies (aged over 50) is considerably undertreated. To bridge the gap, this study examined the efficacy of explicit and implicit peer feedback for grammar development of this age bracket.
Method: Some intermediate language learners aged over 50 (M= 64.5) at a non-profit retirement institute sat for a pretest, four posttests, a group interview, and member checking sessions. They exchanged explicit peer feedback on grammar errors in the first four sessions and implicit peer feedback in the next four sessions (i.e. counterbalanced design).
Results: Following data pruning via mean imputation, univariate outlier detection, and normality tests, the ANOVA results manifested that implicit feedback was significantly more helpful in grammar development for the participating elderly learners. Overall, the interviewees appreciated peer feedback as a supportive approach, arguing that correcting others’ errors created a mutual opportunity for both partners. They also enjoyed the group work and scaffold which prompted their language development.
Conclusions: The study concluded that implicit peer feedback was significantly more effective for elderly language learners' grammar development, while they seemed to be slightly more in favor of explicit peer feedback for easier and more efficient noticing.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • elderly language learners
  • grammar development
  • peer feedback
  • implicit feedback
  • explicit feedback
  • cognitive decline
Akbari, E. (2021). Examining the effectiveness of peer feedback in the context of learning English in a Web2.0 environment. Journal of Foreign Language Research11(3), 556-570. https://doi: 10.22059/jflr.2021.330903.895.
Alias, M., Masek, A., & Salleh, H. (2015). Self, peer and teacher assessments in problem-based learning: Are they in agreements? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.157.
Alkhawajah, F. (2022). The effect of written corrective feedback on the acquisition of different types of linguistic features. English Language Teaching15(9), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n9p32.
Antoniou, M., Gunasekera, G., & Wong, P. (2013). Foreign language training as cognitive therapy for age-related cognitive decline: A hypothesis for future research. Neuroscience Biobehavioral Review, 37, 2689-2698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.09.004
Antoniou, M., & Wright, S. (2017). Uncovering the mechanisms responsible for why language learning may promote healthy cognitive aging. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 22-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02217
Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: Attitudes and friendship bias. Language Testing in Asia, 3(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2229-0443-3-11
Bak, T., Long, M., Vega-Mendoza, M., & Sorace, A. (2016). Novelty, challenge, and practice: the impact of intensive language learning on attentional functions, Plos One, 11 (4), e0153485. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153485
Bar-Tur, L. (2021). Fostering well-being in the elderly: Translating theories on positive aging to practical approaches, Frontiers in Medicine, 8, 517226. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fmed. 2021. 517226
Bellander, M., Berggren, R., Mårtensson, J., Brehmer, Y., Wenger, E., Li, T. Q., Bodammer, N. C., Shing, Y., Werkle-Bergner, M., Lövdén, M. (2016). Behavioral correlates of changes in hippocampal gray matter structure during acquisition of foreign vocabulary. Neuroimage, 131, 205–213.
Berggren, R., Nilsson, J., Brehmer, Y., Schmiedek, F. & Lövdén, M. (2018). No evidence that foreign language learning in older age improves cognitive ability: A randomized controlled study. https:// doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/8y4ga
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chang, C. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 25, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.04.001
Chen, C. (2010). Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Education Review11, 151-158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9081-5
Cheng, K., Deng, Y., Li, M, & Yan, H. (2015). The impact of L2 learning on cognitive aging. ADMET and DMPK, 3(3), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.5599/admet.3.3.206
Cheng, W, & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of oral proficiency. Language Testing, 22, 93–121. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt298oa 
Cho, Y., & Sohn, T. (2007). Complementarity of peer and teacher feedback in Korean high school English classes. English Teaching62(3), 307-329.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
De Guerrero, M. & Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
DeKeyser, R. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 77, 501-514. https://doi.org/10.2307/329675
Diab, N. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014
Diaz-Orueta, U., Facal, D., Nap, H., & Ranga, M. (2012). What is the key for older people to show interest in playing digital learning games? Initial qualitative findings from the LEAGE project on a multicultural European sample. Games Health, 1, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2011.0024
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00980.x
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 
Enders, C. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. New York: Sage.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ghahari, S., & Piruznejad, M. (2016). Recast and Explicit Feedback to Young Language Learners: Impacts on Grammar Uptake and Willingness to Communicate. Issues in language teaching, 5 (2), 187-209. . https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2017.8058
Ghahari, S., & Farokhnia, F. (2017) Triangulation of language assessment modes: learning benefits and socio-cognitive prospects, Pedagogies: An InternationaL Journal, 12(3), 275-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2017.1342540
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 445 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000149
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588240
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255–276.
Hong, A., Welch-Stockton, J., Kim, J., Canham, S. L., Greer, V., & Sorweid, M. (2023). Age-friendly community interventions for health and social outcomes: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032554
Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 98, 668-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000019
Jacobs, J. M., & Maaravi, Y., & Stessman, J., Newman, A. B. (2021). Optimism and longevity beyond age 85. Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 76(10), 1806–1813. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glab051
Jafari, A., & Hesampour, F. (2017). Predicting life satisfaction based on spiritual intelligence and psychological capital in older people. Iranian Journal of Ageing, 12(1), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.21859/sija-120190
Kacetl, J., & Klímová, B. (2021). Third-Age Learners and Approaches to Language Teaching. Education Sciences, 11(7), 310-318. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070310
Kazazi, L. (2017). The efficacy of computer-based cognitive training intervention on the quality of life of community- dwelling elderly by controlling the effects of probable variables affecting relationship between cognitive functions and quality of life. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Grontology
Kim, J. H. (2004). Issues of Corrective Feedback in Second Language. Issues of Applied Linguistic, 4(2), 1-24
Klimova, B. (2018). Learning a Foreign Language: A review on recent findings about its effect on the enhancement of cognitive functions among healthy older individuals. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12 (305). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00305
Klimova, B., & de Paula Nascimento Silva, C. (2024). Enhancing foreign language learning approaches to promote healthy aging: A systematic review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 53(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-024-10088-3
Klimova, B., & Kuca, K. (2015). Alzheimer’s disease: potential preventive, non-invasive, intervention strategies in lowering the risk of cognitive decline—a review study. Journal of Applied Biomedicine, 13(4), 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jab.2015.07.004
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lee, E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada journal, 22 (2), 1-16.
Lee, M. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary students’ perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.08.003.
Lezaic, N., Roussy, J., Masson, H., Jetté, N., & Keezer, M. (2020). Epilepsy in the elderly: unique challenges in an increasingly prevalent population. Epilepsy & Behavior, 102, 106724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2019.106724
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Liu, H., & Feng, M. (2023). The role of learner engagement with corrective feedback in EFL/ESL classrooms. Frontiers in psychology14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1118467
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on
L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition
(pp. 361-377). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51-81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44486383.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Lyster, R., Saito, K. & Sato, M. (2013). Oral Corrective Feedback in Second Language Classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1–40.
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4). 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000393
Mårtensson, J., Eriksson, J., Bodammer, N., Lindgren, M., Johansson, M., Nyberg, L., & Lövdén, M. (2012). Growth of language-related brain areas after foreign language learning. NeuroImage, 63(1), 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.043
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2010). Second language research: Methodology and design. New York; London Routledge.
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., & Sandiford, H. (2014). Touchstone student book. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Mujtaba, S., Parkash, R., & Nawaz, M. (2020). Do indirect coded corrective feedback and teachers short affective comments improve the writing performance and learners uptake? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(1), 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2019.1616638
Narushima, M., Liu, J., & Diestelkamp, N. (2018). I learn, therefore I am: A phenomenological analysis of meanings of lifelong learning for vulnerable older adults. The Gerontologist, 58(4), 696–705. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ geront/ gnx044
Nilsson, J., Berggren, R., Garzón, B., Lebedev, A., & Lövdén, M. (2021). Second language learning in older adults: Effects on brain structure and predictors of learning success. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 13, 666851. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2021.666851
Niu, R., Shan, P., & You, X. (2021). Complementation of multiple sources of feedback in EFL learners’ writing. Assessing Writing49, 100549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100549
Olshansky, S., Carnes, B. & Cassel, C. (1993). The ageing of the human species. Scientific American, 4(268), 18-24.
Pan, J., Chen, H., & Yuan, S. (2023). A comparative study of the engagement with written corrective feedback of Chinese private college students. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education8(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00191-8
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly36(4), 573-595.
Pawlak, M. (2013). The role of written corrective feedback in promoting language development: An overview. In B. S. Szubko-Sitarek, M. Salski, & P. Stalmaszczyk (Eds.), Language learning, discourse and communication (pp. 21–40). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00041-8_1
Plonsky, L. & Derrick, D. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 538-553. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12335
Rassaei, E., & Moinzadeh, A. (2014). Recasts, metalinguistic feedback, and learners’ perceptions: A case of Persian EFL learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2012.744411
Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Cunillera, T., Mestres-Missé, A., & Diego-Balaguer, R. (2009). Neurophysiological mechanisms involved in language learning in adults. Word Learning and Lexical Development Across the Lifespan, 1536(364), 393-402. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0130
Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29(2), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001
Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21-31.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000356
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., Ghonsooly, B., Shahriari, H., & Fatemi, A. H. (2016). Examining the effects of Google Docs-based instruction and peer feedback types (implicit vs. explicit) on EFL learners’ writing performance. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal17(1), 35-51. https://callej.org/index.php/journal/article/view/220
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language teaching research, 8(3), 263-300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 593–610). Routledge.
Shekarabi, Z. (2023). Anxiety and Writing Performance in Online vs. Face-to-Face Feedback Condition. Journal of Foreign Language Research, 13 (4), 595-611. http//doi.org/ 10.22059/jflr.2023.364850.1065.
Statista (2017). Proportion of selected age groups of world population in 2017, by region. https://www.statista.com/statistics/265759/world-population-by-age-and-region/
Steptoe, A., & Wardle, J. (2017). Life skills, wealth, health, and wellbeing in later life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(17), 4354-4359. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616011114
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A Natural Approach to Second Language Acquisition and Learning 1. The modern language journal61(7), 325-337.
Tian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of second language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Tsang, W. (2004). Feedback and uptake in teacher-student interaction: An analysis of 18 English lessons in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. RELC Journal, 35(2), 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500207
Tseng, S., & Tsai, C. (2010). Taiwan college students' self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online peer assessment environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 164-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.01.001
Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
van der Ploeg, M., Lowie, W., & Keijzer, M. (2023). The effects of language teaching pedagogy on cognitive functioning in older adults. Behavioral Sciences, 13(3), 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs1303019
Varnosfaderani, A., & Basturkmen, H. (2008). Corrective feedback: Focus on form in. English language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 187-199.
Wang, H., Xu, L., & Li, J. (2023). Connecting foreign language enjoyment and English proficiency levels: The mediating role of L2 motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1054657.
WHO (2024). Ageing and health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health
Wu, W., Huang, J., Han, C., & Zhang, J. (2022). Evaluating peer feedback as a reliable and valid complementary aid to teacher feedback in EFL writing classrooms: A feedback giver perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation73(4), 101-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101140
Xu, Z., Zhang, L. & Parr, J. (2023). Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching61(4), 1337-1364. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2021-0078
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback. System, 41(3), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.020
Yu, S. (2016). An exploratory study on the role of L1 use in peer written feedback of L2 writing. Porta Linguarum, 25, 135–146. https://doi.org/ 10.30827/Digibug.53894
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, 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1221806
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(5), 572–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541714
Zaninotto, P., Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2016). Sustained enjoyment of life and mortality at older ages: analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. BMJ, 355, 62-67. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6267
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.22