電腦輔助教師回饋於外語寫作情境之研究：成果與觀感

、線上人數：61

、訪客IP：18.226.226.221

姓名	陳謝鈞(Hsieh-Jun Chen) 查詢紙本館藏	畢業系所	網路學習科技研究所
論文名稱	電腦輔助教師回饋於外語寫作情境之研究：成果與觀感 (Investigating computer-mediated teacher feedback in EFL writing context: Performance and perceptions)
檔案	[Endnote RIS 格式] [Bibtex 格式] [相關文章] [文章引用] [完整記錄] [館藏目錄] 至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)
摘要(中)	長久以來，寫作對於母語或非母語人士一直是個挑戰，即便學習多年，語言學習者仍覺得產出令人滿意的作品有一定難度，對於以英語為外語（EFL）的學習者而言更是如此，因此，教師回饋在學生寫作過程中扮演至關重要的角色，是以，研究人員和教育工作者積極尋求創新模式。期能提高學習動機與學習成果。由於科技已被廣泛應用到語言教學中，研究人員於是聚焦於如何善用科技以輔助教師給予學生回饋。過去研究指出非同步書面回饋與同步口頭回饋皆對英語寫作有所助益，但最理想的回饋方式仍有待商榷，而且不同電腦輔助教師回饋設計對學生寫作成果的成效亦意見分歧，再者，前述議題對於非英文系研究生而言更無定論。為解決前述研究缺口，本研究特別驗證兩種電腦輔助教師回饋設計對學生寫作成果的成效（總成績、總體/技術細節面向），單一教師回饋設計指的是非同步書面回饋，雙重教師回饋設計則包含是非同步書面回饋與同步口語回饋。本研究亦檢視非同步書面回饋與同步口語回饋分別聚焦哪些面向，並深入探討臺灣學生與美國教師對整體教學設計的觀感。研究對象為北臺灣某國立大學兩班科技英文寫作課程的學生，32位學生皆為非英文系研究生，隨機指派一班（16位學生）為實驗組，接受雙重教師回饋設計，另一班（16位學生）則為控制組，接受單一教師回饋設計。四位美國教師任教於美國中西部某公立大學之英文課程，每位教師皆與八位臺灣學生進行配對（實驗組與控制組各四位），負責給予臺灣學生關於比較文寫作方面的回饋。在本研究寫作課程中，臺灣學生於課前皆須閱讀指定文章、觀看教學影片、回應理解性問題，並於課堂中進行寫作，比較臺灣與美國對於學術剽竊議題的異同。臺灣學生將作文上傳到線上系統後，美國教師即針對所有學生提供非同步書面回饋，學生再據以修改由於實驗組學生接受雙重教師回饋設計，因此除了收到書面回饋外，還要與美國教師進行視訊會議，獲取同步口語回饋。所收集的資料包含學生比較文作品（初稿、修訂稿、完稿）與反思回饋（美國教師與臺灣學生皆有），研究結果如下：一、兩種電腦輔助教師回饋設計皆有效提升學生寫作成果，且雙重教師回饋設計顯著優於單一教師回饋設計。二、實驗組學生在總體面向顯著優於控制組學生，這包含開頭/主題論述、主文、結論、文章架構、回應主旨。三、非同步書面回饋包含總體與技術細節面向的建議，同步口語回饋則聚焦意見釐清與宏觀建議。四、大多數學生認為電腦輔助教師回饋有助於英文寫作。五、美國教師對本研究寫作教學設計皆抱持正面態度。本研究幫助研究者、英文教師、課程設計者更加瞭解電腦輔助教師回饋如何影響非英文系學生的寫作成果，並提出教學規劃及學術研究應用上之討論。
摘要(英)	Writing has long been considered challenging among native and nonnative speakers. Even with years of instruction, language learners, particularly those in English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) contexts, still find it difficult to produce works with satisfying quality. Therefore, teacher feedback has played a vital role in helping student writers to improve during the writing process. With the need for instructional alternatives to English writing that EFL learners long deem challenging, researchers and educators seek instructional innovations that lead to enhanced learning motivation and outcomes. Since technology has been widely integrated into language teaching and learning, researchers have probed into how technology could be optimized to facilitate the provision of teacher feedback and to further enhance student learning. Studies have shown that the positive effects of asynchronous written feedback and synchronous oral feedback on English writing. Nevertheless, the optimal way to respond to student writing has remained undetermined, and the extent to which diverse forms of computer-mediated teacher feedback affected EFL learner’s writing performance has remained inconclusive. Such issue is even more problematic to non-English-majored graduate students. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to address the aforementioned research gap observed in current EFL writing education. Special attention was given to EFL leaners’ writing outcomes (overall performance, global/local aspects of writing) as the result of two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs in a naturalistic setting; that is, the single feedback design consisting of asynchronous teacher written feedback versus the dual feedback design including both asynchronous teacher written feedback and synchronous teacher oral feedback. Focuses of written and oral teacher feedback were also respectively examined. Furthermore, perceptions about the computer-mediated teacher feedback among the Taiwanese students as well as thoughts about the writing instructional design among the American teacher partners were also explored. The Taiwanese participants were 32 non-English-major graduates from two intact English Writing courses in northern Taiwan. One class was randomly assigned as the experimental group (i.e., receiving dual teacher feedback), while the other was the control group (i.e., having single teacher feedback). A total of four writing teachers from the ESL Program in a public university in the Midwestern region of the United States were invited to give Taiwanese students feedback on their compare and contrast essays. Each American teacher was paired with eight Taiwanese students (four from the experimental group and four from the control group). In the writing instruction, all of the students (1) reviewed learning materials and instructional videos, (2) answered comprehension check questions before physical class meetings, and (3) finished a compare and contrast essay concerning the differences in plagiarism between Taiwan and America. After uploading the essays to the designated platform, all Taiwanese students received written comments from the American teacher partners, with which they revised their papers accordingly. The students in the experimental group were further engaged in interaction with their American teacher partners in teacher-student writing conference and received synchronous oral feedback. Thus, the focus of the study lied in how two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs affected writing outcomes, and how the participants (both Taiwanese students and American teachers) perceived the writing instructional design. Multiple sources of data were collected to examine the effectiveness of the two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs and to explore perceptions from the Taiwanese students and American teachers. These included the compare and contrast essays (the first draft, second draft, and final draft) and reflective journals. The major findings were as follows: 1. Both computer-mediated teacher feedback designs (i.e., single and dual teacher feedback) significantly enhanced the writing performance of Taiwanese student. The dual teacher feedback deign, compared with the single teacher feedback design, contributed to significantly higher writing performance among students. 2. The students receiving the dual teacher feedback deign outperformed those receiving the single teacher feedback design in the global aspects of writing including introduction/thesis statement, body paragraphs, conclusion, overall organization, and response to the prompt. 3. Asynchronous teacher written feedback covered both global and local aspects of writing, while synchronous teacher oral feedback in writing conferences focused more on meaning clarification and macro-level suggestions. 4. Most of the Taiwanese students found the computer-mediated teacher feedback to be a beneficial resource for English writing. 5. The American teachers were positive about the overall writing instructional design. Successful implementation of this study provides researchers, English instructors, and curriculum designers with a better understanding of how computer-mediated teacher feedback affected non-English-major learners’ writing performance. Furthermore, the potential effects of the writing instruction identified by this study provide directions for future practice, and pave the way for further research and for integration of innovative instructional designs in an EFL setting.
關鍵字(中)	★ 教師回饋 ★ 同步/非同步回饋 ★ 英文寫作 ★ 電腦媒介溝通 ★ 社會建構主義	關鍵字(英)	★ teacher feedback ★ synchronous/asynchronous feedback ★ EFL writing ★ CMC ★ social constructivism
論文目次	ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ENGLISH ABSTRACT ii CHINESE ABSTRACT v TABLE OF CONTENTS vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the Study 1 1.2 Statements of the Problem 6 1.3 Purposes of the Study and the Research Questions 8 1.4 Theoretical framework 10 1.5 Significance of the Study 14 1.6 Organization of the Dissertation 15 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATUR 16 2.1 Teacher feedback 17 2.1.1 Asynchronous teacher written feedback 21 2.1.2 Synchronous teacher oral feedback 24 2.2 Computer-mediated communication (CMC) 27 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 33 3.1 Participants 34 3.2 Selection of Learn@Illinois for online interaction 35 3.3 Instructional design 38 3.4 Research design 50 3.5 Data collection 51 3.6 Data analysis 52 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 56 4.1 Overall writing learning outcomes between the two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs 57 4.2 Local and global aspects of writing between the two computer-mediated teacher feedback designs 59 4.3 Feedback focuses between asynchronous teacher written feedback and synchronous teacher oral feedback 63 4.4 Taiwanese students’ perceptions about the computer-mediated teacher feedback 68 4.4.1 Expectation on teacher feedback 69 4.4.2 Writing enhancement as the result of teacher feedback 73 4.4.3 Time and effort commitment between this writing instruction and previously-received conventional writing instruction 77 4.4.4 Level of nervousness in synchronous teacher-student writing conference 80 4.4.5 Perceptions about the instructional design as a whole 81 4.5 American teachers’ perceptions about the writing instruction 82 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 89 5.1 Similarities in overall student writing outcomes 89 5.1.1 Writing enhanced observed in both teacher feedback designs 89 5.2 Discrepancies in diagnostic aspects of writing, feedback focuses, and performance/perception conflict 90 5.2.1 Better writing performance with synchronous teacher-student dialogic interaction 90 5.2.2 Feedback focuses between asynchronous teacher written feedback and synchronous teacher oral feedback 93 5.2.3 Inconsistency between writing enhancement and perceptions 95 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION 98 6.1 Major findings 98 6.2 Pedagogical implications 103 6.3 Contributions of the study 104 6.4 Limitations and future directions 105 REFERENCES 107 IST OF TABLES Table 1. Number of the participants 34 Table 2. Time allocation of the writing instruction 47 Table 3. Summary of the research design 53 Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the first/final drafts in both groups 57 Table 5. Paired-samples t-Test results of the first/final drafts in both groups 58 Table 6. Independent-samples t-Test results of the first/final drafts 58 Table 7. Descriptive statistics of the six aspects of writing in the first/final drafts in both groups 60 Table 8. Paired-samples t-Test results of the six aspects of writing in the first/final drafts in the control group 61 Table 9. Paired-samples t-Test results of the six aspects of writing in the first/final drafts in the experimental group 62 Table 10. Independent-samples t-Test results of the six aspects of writin in the first/final drafts 63 Table 11. Desire for the American teachers’ feedback 69 Table 12. Perceived strength of the American teachers’ feedback 70 Table 13. Usefulness of the American teachers’ written feedback in writing 75 Table 14. Usefulness of the American teachers’ oral feedback in writing 76 Table 15. Hours spent per week on writing outside of the classroom 78 Table 16. Synthesis of the overall results of the study 88 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study 11 Figure 2. Sample snapshots of Learn@Illinois 36 Figure 3. Sample snapshots of Blackboard Collaborate 37 Figure 4. Sample snapshots of the video file (Elements of an Essay) 41 Figure 5. Sample snapshots of the two instructional videos 42 Figure 6. Instructional procedures of the experimental group 48 Figure 7. Instructional procedures of the control group 49 Figure 8. Issues explored and instruments employed in the current study 51 Figure 9. Desire for the American teachers’ feedback in the control group 71 Figure 10. Perceived strength of American teachers’ feedback in the control group 71 Figure 11. Desire for the American teachers’ feedback in the experimental group 72 Figure 12. Perceived strength of the American teachers’ feedback in the experimental group 72 Figure 13. Perceived usefulness of the American teachers’ written feedback in writing 74 Figure 14. Usefulness of the American teachers’ oral feedback in writing 77 Figure 15. Hours spent per week on writing outside of the classroom 79 Figure 16. Preference for future writing instruction 79 Figure 17. Preference for future writing instruction between the control group and the experimental group 80 Figure 18. The scheme based on the key results 102 APPENDIX Appendix A. Online consent form for Taiwanese students (Experimental group) 124 Appendix B. Online consent form for Taiwanese students (Control group) 126 Appendix C. Recruitment email for ESL lecturer participants 128 Appendix D. Written consent form for US lecturer participants 129 Appendix E. Reading material 1 131 Appendix F. Reading material 2 143 Appendix G. Reading comprehension essay questions 145 Appendix H. Compare and contrast essay writing criteria 146 Appendix I. Template for compare and contrast essay writing 148 Appendix J. Topics for discussion in video chat 149 Appendix K. Reflective questions (Experimental group) 150 Appendix L. Reflective questions (Control group) 153 Appendix M. Reflective questions (American teachers) 155
參考文獻	Abrahamson, E. (2010). Enhancing students’ understanding of formative assessment through video-feedback on an undergraduate sports rehabilitation programme. Oxford: The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www-new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/hlst/documents/case_studies/147_abrahamson_video-feedback.pdf Abu-Rass, R. (2001). Integrating reading and writing for effective language teaching. English Teaching Forum, 39(1), 30-39. Ahmed, Y., Wagner, R. K., & Lopez, D. (2014). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence, and text levels: A latent change score analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 419-434. Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of Using Screencast Feedback on EFL Students′ Writing and Perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121. Aljaafreh, A. L., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. Angelova, M., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Using an online collaborative project between American and Chinese students to develop ESL teaching skills, cross-cultural awareness and language skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 167-185. Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students’ perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing: Exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378-411. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-257. Aubrey, S. (2012, November). Students’ reactions to using technology in an EAP writing class. Paper presented at the 9th International Far Eastern English Language Teachers Association (FEELTA) conference, Vladivostok, Russia. Aubrey, S. (2014). Students’ attitudes towards the use of an online editing program in an EAP course. Annual Research Review, 17, 45-57. Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187-198. Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179-192. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays, Edited by: Bakhtin, M. M. Austin: University of Texas Press. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Beaumont, C., O’Doherty, M., & Shannon, L. (2011). Reconceptualising assessment feedback: A key to improving student learning?. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 671-687. Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198-217. Bellini, S., & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 264-287. Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1‐English and L2‐writing development: A meta‐analysis. ETS Research Report Series, 2011(1), i-99. Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT journal, 63(3), 204-211. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5, 5-24. Blair, A., & McGinty, S. (2013). Feedback-dialogues: exploring the student perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 466-476. Blake, R. J. (2008). Brave new digital classroom. Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Blake, R. J., & Zyzik, E. C. (2003). Who′s helping whom?: Learner/heritage‐speakers′ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied linguistics, 24(4), 519-544. Bloch, J. (2008). Technologies in the second language composition classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. Brown, F. A. (2008). Collaborative learning in the EAP classroom: Students’ perception. ESP World, 17, 1-18. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. NY: Pearson Education. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press Harvard University. Cann, A. J. (2007). Podcasting is dead. Long live video!. Bioscience Education, 10(1), 1-4. Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407. Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188. Chalmers, C., Mowat, E., & Chapman, M. (2018). Marking and providing feedback face-to-face: Staff and student perspectives. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 35-45. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. Chen, D. W. (1997). The state of college EFL composition instruction-A survey of college EFL composition instructors′ professional background and views. Proceedings of the Fourteenth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp.355-366). Taipei: Crane. Chen, G. M. (2005). A model of global communication competence. China Media Research, 1, 3-11. Chen, H. C. (2001). Diagnosis of difficulties in English writing and suggested remedial instructional strategies. Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching. (pp. 197-207). Taipei: Crane. Chen, K. T. (2017). An exploratory study of NNES graduate students’ reading comprehension of English journal articles. Reading in a Foreign Language, 29(1), 20-35. Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365-397. Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 64-80. Clarence, S., & McKenna, S. (2017). Developing academic literacies through understanding the nature of disciplinary knowledge. London Review of Education, 15(1), 38-49. Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Hadden, A. A., & Frisby, B. N. (2019). College instructors and the digital red pen: An exploratory study of factors influencing the adoption and non-adoption of digital written feedback technologies. Computers & Education, 128, 414-426. Collins, J. L., Lee, J., Fox, J. D., & Madigan, T. P. (2017). Bringing Together Reading and Writing: An Experimental Study of Writing Intensive Reading Comprehension in Low‐Performing Urban Elementary Schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(3), 311-332. Colpaert, J. (2014). Educational engineering and distributed design (A Research Report). Los Angeles, CA: Institute for Education and Information Sciences (IOIW). Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-180. Cook, S. E. (2004). New technologies and language change: Toward an anthropology of linguistic frontiers. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 103-115. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative & mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Crisp, B. R. (2007). Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(5), 571-581. Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., et al. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for stall and students? Computers and Education, 58, 386-396. Crook, A., Park, J., Lawson, C., Lundqvist, K., Drinkwater, R., Walsh, J., Gomez, S., Orsmond, P., Maw, S. J., & Crook, A. (2010). ASSET: Moving forward through feedback. Joint Information Systems Committee [JISC] Final Report. Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. Highway One, 8, 58-78. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1-23. Cunningham, K. J. (2019). Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers and Composition, 52, 222-241. Cunningham, M. (2015). Using audio screencast for feedback on short written essays (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation & Theses: Full Text (NR3733157). De Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. Diab, R. L. (2006). Error correction and feedback in the EFL writing classroom. English Teaching Forum, 44(3), 2-13. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-272. Dooly, M. (2010). The Teacher 2.0. In S. Guth and F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0. Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century (pp. 277-303). Bern/New York: Peter Lang. Dowden, T., Pittaway, S., Yost, H., & McCarthy, R. (2013). Students’ perceptions of written feedback in teacher education: Ideally feedback is a continuing two-way communication that encourages progress. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 349-362. Ducate, L., & Arnold, D. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and students’ perceptions of screen-casting software vs the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.),Technology across writing contexts and tasks (CALICO Monograph Series Vol. 10, pp. 31-55). San Marcos, TX: CALICO. Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed‐forward’: improving students′ use of tutors′ comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271-283. Eaton, S.E. (2010). How to use Skype in the ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 16(11), 1-14. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 454-477. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52-60. Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80-95. Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1-13. Fan, N., & Ma, Y. (2018). The Role of Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Practice. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(12), 1629-1635. Fang, Y. C. (2006). Student response to teacher-written comments in an EFL college writing classroom. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 283-295). Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339. Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for Academic Purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Ed.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes (pp. 298-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62. Ferris, D. R. (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). NY: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd Ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446-459. Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6-23. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications. Journal of Second language writing, 6(2), 155-182. Ferris, D., R. & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fidas, C., Komis, V., Tzanavaris, S., & Avouris, N. (2005). Heterogeneity of learning material in synchronous computer-supported collaborative modelling. Computers and Education, 44(2), 135-154. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. Frear, D. (2012). The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback and Revision on Intermediate Chinese Learners′ Acquisition of English (Doctoral dissertation, ResearchSpace@ Auckland). Fresen, J. (2007). A taxonomy of factors to promote quality web-supported learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 81-94. Fuchs, C., Hauck, M., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012). Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 82-102. Fukuta, J., Tamura, Y., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2019). Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: is feedback always effective?. Language Awareness, 28(1), 1-14. Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(1), 69-94. Gascoigne, C. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 71-76. Ge, Z. G. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 75-91. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304-315. Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies: blogs and wikis: environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12-16. Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Goldstein, L. M. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185-205). New York: Cambridge University Press. Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443-460. Graham, S., Liu, X., Bartlett, B., Ng, C., Harris, K. R., Aitken, A., Barkel, A., Kavanaugh, C., & Talukdar, J. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243-284. Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83-128. Grosbois, M. (2016). Computer-supported collaborative writing and language learning. In Fiarr, F. & Murray, L. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 269-280). London: Routledge. Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of second language writing, 16(1), 40-53. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2006). Feedback in portfolio-based writing courses. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 140-161. Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1-13. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. Haugh, M., & Chang, W. L. (2015). Understanding im/politeness across cultures: An interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53(4), 389-414. Hawe, E. M., & Dixon, H. R. (2014). Building students’ evaluative and productive expertise in the writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 19, 66-79. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication methods and measures, 1(1), 77-89. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Helma, F., Gutha, S., & O’Dowdb, R. (2012, August). Telecollaboration: Where Are We Now?. In EUROCALL Conference (pp. 124-128). Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yb3refer Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: Scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51-66. Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2015). Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 51-66. Henderson, M., Boud, D., Molloy, E., Dawson, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., & Mahoney, P. (2018). Feedback for Learning: Closing the Assessment Loop. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, Department for Education and Training Hewings, A., & Coffin, C. (2006). Formative interaction in electronic written exchanges: Fostering feedback dialogue. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 225-245). NY: Cambridge University Press. Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290. Hsu, H. C. (2015). The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 359-385. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54. Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171-182. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 185-212. Hyland, K. (2013a). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253. Hyland, K. (2013b). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180-187. Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching second language writing (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Iinuma, M., Matsuhashi, T., Nakamura, T., & Chiyokura, H. (2016). Student awareness change in computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 448-452. Iron, A. (2008). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. Key guides for effective teaching in higher education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ives, J. C., Straub, W. F., & Shelley, G. A. (2002). Enhancing athletic performance using digital video in consulting. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14(3), 237-245. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Jølle, L. (2014). Pair assessment of pupil writing: A dialogic approach for studying the development of rater competence. Assessing writing, 20, 37-52. Juwah, D., Macfarland-Dick, B., Matthew, D., Nicol, D., & Smith, B. (2004). Enhancing student learning through effective formative feedback. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy. Kahmi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web‐based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 423-455. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39, 387-406. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic webbased projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91-109. Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 26-43. Kim, S. Y. (2017). ESL college learners’ interactive perspective and its influence on reading-writing practices and development. Linguistic Research, 34, 1-24. Kitade, K. (2008). The role of offline metalanguage talk in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 64-84. Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L. (2010). Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 23-49 Ko, C. J. (2012). Can synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) help beginning-level foreign language learners speak? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 217-236. Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance: An investigation of linguistic and discourse complexity in narrative tasks. In H. Byrnes & R.M. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights to and from writing (pp. 193-216). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative wiki projects. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 606-620. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Kurk, G., & Atay, D. (2007). Students′ writing apprehension. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(1), 12-23. Lantolf, J. P., & Beckett, T. G. (2009). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Language teaching, 42(4), 459-475. Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Psyllakis, P. (2010). The role of languaging in creating zones of proximal development (ZPDs): A long-term care resident interacts with a researcher. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 29(4), 477-490. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 285-312. Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning?. Assessing Writing, 12(3), 180-198. Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers′ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22. Lee, I. (2011). Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT Journal, 65(1), 1-12. Lee, I. (2016). Teacher education on feedback in EFL writing: Issues, challenges, and future directions. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 518-527. Lee, J. S. J., Nakamura, Y., & Sadler, R. (2016). Design and implementation of a videoconferencing-embedded flipped classroom (VEFC) in college-level EFL. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 46(1), 105-118. Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Exploring the reading–writing connection: A yearlong classroom‐based experimental study of middle school students developing literacy in a new language. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(2), 143-164. Lee, K., & Lee, H. (2018). An EAP professional development program for graduate students in an English‐medium instruction context. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 1097-1107. Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO, 27(2), 260-276. Leijen, D. A. (2017). A novel approach to examine the impact of web-based peer review on the revisions of L2 writers. Computers and Composition, 43, 35-54. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2013). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. New York: Routledge. Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61-82. Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93e109. Lin, H., & Voong, M. (2013). Exploring the efficacy of CMC on second language writing: A meta-analysis. WorldCALL Glasgow, 10-13, 189-193. Lin, S. M., & Griffith, P. (2014). Impacts of online technology use in second language writing: A review of the literature. Reading Improvement, 51(3), 303-312. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Liu, S. H. J. (2017). Text-based negotiated interaction of NNS-NNS and NNS-NS dyads on Facebook. ReCALL, 1-19. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press. Lunsford, A. A., & Lunsford, K. J. (2008). ‘Mistakes are a fact of life’: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 781-806. Mahfoodh, O., & Pandian, A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 14-25. Maliborska, V., & You, Y. (2016). Writing conferences in a second language writing classroom: Instructor and student perspectives. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 874-897. Martin-Beltrán, M., & Chen, P. J. (2013). From monologue to dialogue: A case study on mediated feedback in a transnational asynchronous online writing tutorial. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 17(1), 145-150. Mavrou, K, Lewis, A. & Douglas, G. (2010). Researching computer-based collaborative learning in inclusive classrooms in Cyprus: The role of the computer in pupils’ interaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 486-501. McFadden, A.C., & Price, B.J. (2007). SKYPE: A synchronous tool for computer-mediated collaboration. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 3(2), 37-45. McGarrell, H., & Verbeem, J. (2007). Motivating revision of drafts through formative feedback. ELT Journal, 61(3), 228-236. McKnight, K., O′Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of research on technology in education, 48(3), 194-211. McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 24-35. Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 16-28. Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1-11. Meskill, C. (2013). Online Teaching and Learning: Sociocultural Perspectives. Advances in Digital Language Learning and Teaching. London/New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2007). Form-focused communicative practice via computer mediated communication: What language learners say. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 25(1), 69-90. Michinov, N., & Michinov, E. (2008). Face-to-face contact at the midpoint of an online collaboration: Its impact on the patterns of participation, interaction, affect, and behavior over time. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1540-1557. Moll, L. C. (1989). Teaching second language students: A Vygotskian perspective. Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students, 55-69. Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99. Mory, E. H. (2003). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 745-783). New York: Macmillan. Mullen, T., Appel, C., & Shanklin, T. (2009). Skype-based tandem language learning and web 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 101-118). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or socio-cognitivist approach?. ReCALL, 20(1), 82-97. Murray, R., & Yamamoto, B. A. (2019). Writing retreats for Japanese second-language graduate students: Beyond the language deficit model. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 13(1), A1-A14. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125e143). New York: Erlbaum. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51. Nelson, G. & Carson J. (2006). Cultural issues in peer responses: Revisiting “culture”. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 42-59). NY: Cambridge University Press. Newton, P. (2016). Academic integrity: a quantitative study of confidence and understanding in students at the start of their higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 482-497. Nguyen, H. T. (2016). Peer Feedback Practice in EFL Tertiary Writing Classes. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 76-91. Nurmukhamedov, U., & Kim, S. H. (2010). ‘Would you perhaps consider…’: Hedged comments in ESL writing. ELT Journal, 64(3), 272-282. Nyström, L., & Gultekin, M. (2019). Written corrective feedback in the writing classroom for young English Second Language Learners. Degree Project in English Studies and Education, 1-36. Retrieved from ttp://muep.mau.se/bitstream/handle/2043/28269/Examensarbete%20Gultekin%20Nystr%C3%B6m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y O’Dowd, R. (2013). The INTENT project: Integrating telecollaborative networks into foreign language higher education. The Eurocall Review, 21(1), 54-59. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Okuda, T., & Anderson, T. (2018). Second language graduate students’ experiences at the writing center: a language socialization perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 391-413. Olander, M. V. (2007). Painting the voice: Weblogs and writing instruction in the high school classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Miami. Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125-136. Özdemir, E. (2017). Promoting EFL learners’ intercultural communication effectiveness: a focus on Facebook. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 510-528. Parkes, M., & Fletcher, P. (2017). A longitudinal, quantitative study of student attitudes towards audio feedback for assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1046-1053. Parton, B. S., Crain-Dorough, M., & Hancock, R. (2010). Using flip camcorders to create video feedback: Is it realistic for professors and beneficial to students. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(1), 15-23. Parton, B. S., Crain-Dorough, M., & Hancock, R. (2010). Using flip camcorders to create video feedback: Is it realistic for professors and beneficial to students? International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 7(1), 15-23. Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 303-321. Phakiti, A., & Li, L. (2011). General academic difficulties and reading and writing difficulties among Asian ESL postgraduate students in TESOL at an Australian university. RELC Journal, 42(3), 227-264. Pokorny, H., & Pickford, P. (2010). Complexity, cues and relationships: Student perceptions of feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 21-30. Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011). Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 879-896. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O′Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277-289. Pritchard, A. & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. New York: Routledge. Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1-12. Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277-303. Raimes, A. (2002). Ten steps in planning a writing course and training teachers in writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology current practice (pp. 306-314). NY: Cambridge University Press. Ramage, J. D., Bean, J. C., & Johnson, J. (2015). The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing (Concise Edition). London: Pearson Education. Razagifard, P. (2013). The impact of text‐based CMC on improving L2 oral fluency. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 270-279. Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260-272. Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260-272. Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 87-102. Santangelo, T., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2007). Self-regulated strategy development: A validated model to support students who struggle with writing. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 5(1), 1-20. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120. Savignon, S., & Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Texts and strategies. CALICO Journal, 21(2), 265-90. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for understanding effective language teaching in face-to-face and online learning communities. RELC Journal, 41(2), 137-147. Shanahan, T. (2016). Relationships between reading and writing development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 194-207). New York, NY: Guilford. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569. Sherblom, J. C., Withers, L. A., & Leonard, L. G. (2013). The influence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) competence on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) in online classroom discussions. Human Communication, 16(1), 31-39. Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829-845. Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517-538. 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. Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. Simpson, J. (2005). Conversational floors in synchronous text-based CMC discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(3), 337-361. Sindoni, M. G. (2014). Spoken and written discourse in online interactions: A multimodal approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-57. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning? In A. Goodsell, M. Maher, & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9-22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Smith, M. S., & Truscott, J. (2014). The multilingual mind: A modular processing perspective. Cambridge University Press. Sommers, J. (2013). Response 2.0: Commentary on student writing for the new millennium. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 39, 21-37. Sperling, M. (1990). I want to talk to each of you: Collaboration and the teacher-student writing conference. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 279-321. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: A historical perspective. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288. Storch, N. (2017). Peer corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 66-79). New York: Routledge. Straub, R., & Lunsford, R. F. (1995). Twelve Readers Reading. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Strobl, C. (2014). Affordances of Web 2.0 technologies for collaborative advanced writing in a foreign language. CALICO Journal, 31(1), 1-18. Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers′ comment types on students′ revision. ELT Journal, 60(1), 34-41. Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners′ self revisions and peer revisions of their written compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 209-233. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: OUP. Swain, M. (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use/learning (pp. 112-130). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 79-101. Terhune, N. M. (2016). Language learning going global: linking teachers and learners via commercial Skype-based CMC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(6), 1071-1089. Thirakunkovit, S., & Chamcharatsri, B. (2019). A Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness of Teacher and Peer Feedback: Implications for Writing Instructions and Research. The Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140-170. Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (2013). Contemporary computer-assisted language learning: The role of digital media and incremental change. In Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning (pp. 1-12). London, Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic. Thompson, I. (2009). Scaffolding in the writing center: A microanalysis of an experienced tutor’s verbal and nonverbal tutoring strategies. Written Communication, 26, 417-453. Thompson, R., & Lee, M. J. (2012). Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1-16. Tolosa, C., East, M., & Villers, H. (2013). Online peer feedback in beginners’ writing tasks. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 43(1), 1-24. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369. Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 27(2), 93-108. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. Truscott, J. (2010). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38(4), 626-633. Truscott, J. (2015). Consciousness and second language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A.Y.-p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305. Tseng, D. S. D. (2008). Creative English writing and idea organization. Inservice Education Bulletin, 25(2), 27-38. Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147-170. Tsukamoto, M., Nuspliger, B., & Senzaki, Y. (2009). Using Skype© to connect a classroom to the world: Providing students an authentic language experience within the classroom. CamTESOL Conference on English Language Teaching, 5, 162-168. Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and composition, 21(2), 217-235. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. Vikneswaran, T., & Krish, P. (2016). Utilising social networking sites to improve writing: a case study with Chinese students in Malaysia. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(3), 287-300. Vinagre, M. (2016). Developing key competences for life-long learning in online collaboration: Teaching ICT in English as a medium of instruction. In P. Wang & L. Winstead (Eds.), Handbook of research on foreign language education in the digital age (pp. 170-187). Hershey: IGI Global. Vinagre, M., & Muñoz, B. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 72-103. Vygosky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable?. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 67-78. Wang, C., & Wang, M. (2014). Effect of alignment on L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 503-526. Ware, P., & O′Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Warner, M. S. (1998). Advanced college-level ESL students’ beliefs about composition feedback (Doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1247845401 Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer‐mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The modern language journal, 81(4), 470-481. Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45-58. Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., & Park, Y. (2013). New ways of connecting reading and writing. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 825-830. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364-374. Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73-91. Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 173-201. Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(13), 165-172. Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 165-172. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). ‘It′d be useful, but I wouldn′t use it’: barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026-2041. Wong, Y. K. (2018). Exploring the reading–writing relationship in young Chinese language learners’ sentence writing. Reading and Writing, 31(4), 945-964. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Wu, W. C. V., Marek, M., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Assessing cultural awareness and linguistic competency of EFL learners in a CMC-based active learning context. System, 41(3), 515-528. 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. Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270-275. Xu, C., & Qi, Y. (2017). Analyzing pauses in computer-assisted EFL writing—A computer-keystroke-log perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 24-34. 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. (2016). EFL college students’ experiences and attitudes towards teacher-student writing conferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 2(2), 37-65. Yoshimura, F. (2009). Effects of connecting reading and writing and a checklist to guide the reading process on EFL learners’ learning about English writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1871-1883. Yung, K. W. H., & Fong, N. (2019). Learning EAP at university: perceptions of high-achieving first-year ESL undergraduates. ELT Journal. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccz019 Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 195-209. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to students’ writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101. Zhang, X. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240. Zhong, Q., Yan, M., & Zou, F. (2019). The Effect of Teacher Feedback on the Simple Past Tense Acquisition in Senior High School Students′ English Writing. World Journal of Education, 9(3), 30-37. Ziegler, N., & Mackey, A. (2017). Interactional feedback in synchronous computer-mediated communication. In Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implications (pp. 66-80). New York: Routledge.
指導教授	楊接期吳文琪(Jie Chi Yang Wen-Chi Wu)	審核日期	2020-1-16
推文	facebook plurk twitter funp google live udn HD myshare reddit netvibes friend youpush delicious baidu
網路書籤	Google bookmarks del.icio.us hemidemi myshare

博碩士論文 103584010 詳細資訊