Table 3 A Summary of the Revision-Oriented Feedback Exchanges in FFPR and CAPR
Source | Findings |
|---|---|
Beason (1993) | Micro- (focus, organization and development of ideas and macro-(focus, organization and development of ideas across multiple paragraphs) more than surface features (mechanics & grammar). |
Lockhart and Ng (1995) | Focus: Process, ideas, audience and purpose. |
Min (2005) | EFL learners generated a higher number of comments on the global features of texts (53% & 57%) than those comments focusing on local features (47% & 43%). |
Vorobel and Kim (2014) | Global aspects of their texts such as organization of ideas, consistency of ideas and clarity of ideas and local aspects of texts including form-based issues as vocabulary, using information from L1 sources in L2 writing, and mechanics such as punctuation and formatting. |
Sullivan and Pratt (1996) | More comments on the task of criticizing the writing. |
Di Giovanni and Nagaswami (2001) | Global aspects of texts such as ideas and organization of ideas more than FFPR interactions. |
Liu and Sadler (2003) | More global comments on idea development, organization, audience and purpose, than local comments on wording, grammar and punctuations. |
Jones et al. (2006) | More comments on content, organization, topic and thesis of writing. |
Hewett (2006) | Most comments on writing processes, thesis statements, ideas and organization, whereas least on formal aspects of their texts such as grammar, mechanics and others |
Guardado and Shi (2007) | More comments on thesis statement, topic sentences, unity, content and coherence. |
Liou and Peng (2009) | More revision oriented comments than non-revision-oriented comments after training. |
Ho and Usaha (2009) | Most revision-related comments on content, followed by organization, grammar and vocabulary, while the least attention was paid to mechanics. |
Anderson et al. (2010) | Of Chalmers students’ (77) revision-oriented comments in asynchronous peer review, more focused on content (47) than language (30) while of Miami students’ (74) revision-oriented comments, more focused on language (42) than content (32). |
Cha and Park (2010) | In each pair, almost 50% of their interaction focused on their essays. |
Ho (2010) | More global-oriented feedback than local ones. |
In (2008), meaning negotiation, error correction, task management, and technical action were used less than other patterns among the six small groups. In 2010, social talk, task management, and content discussion outnumbered interactions on meaning negotiation and error correction. | |
Ho and Usaha (2011) | 1060 (58.43%) global comment and 754 (41.56%) local comments. |
Chang (2012) | In the asynchronous CAPR, more local comments in both tasks, while in the synchronous CAPR, the global and local comments were balanced. |
Bradley (2014) | More global revision-oriented comments (250/80%) than local revision-oriented comments (64/20%). |
Ho (2015) | More global comments than local comments. |
Pham and Usaha (2015) | After training, a higher number of global revision-oriented comments (552/60.2%) than local revision-oriented comments (365/39.8%). |
Saeed and Ghazali (2016) | More comments on content and meaning. |