A Comparative Study on Chinese College Students' Behavioral Engagement with Sino-US Peer Feedback

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.609

Abstract

Abstract:

This study explores Chinese college students' behavioral engagement with Sino-US peer feedback and its influencing factors in second language writing. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of initial and revised essays, peer feedback and reflective journals reveal that: (1) For the genre of movie review, there is no significant difference in Sino-US peer feedback uptake among Chinese college students, whereas the frequency of revisions triggered by American peer feedback is significantly higher than that triggered by Chinese peer feedback. (2) Feedback uptake shows a marginal correlation with explicitness but no correlation with feedback focus. Revision modes are influenced by feedback explicitness, while revision behaviors are influenced by feedback focus. (3) Behavioral engagement is influenced by multiple factors such as individual characteristics, context and society. The study may provide some implications for the design of peer interaction activities.

Keywords: peer feedback; behavioral engagement; feedback uptake; foreign language writing

摘要：

本文考察了中国大学生在外语写作过程中对中美同伴反馈的行为投入的异同及其影响因素。在对初稿、同伴反馈、修改稿和反思日志等进行定性和定量分析后发现：第一，在观后感的写作中，中国大学生对中美同伴反馈的吸收程度无显著性差异，但是基于美国同伴反馈的修改频次显著高于中国同伴。第二，吸收与反馈明晰度呈显著性弱相关，与反馈焦点无相关性；修改方式受反馈明晰度的影响，修改行为受反馈焦点的影响。第三，行为投入受个体、情境和社会等多重因素的共同影响。希望本文能够为同伴互动活动设计带来一定的积极启示。

关键词: 同伴反馈, 行为投入, 反馈吸收, 外语写作

CLC Number:

H319

Qiu Yingying, You Xiaoye. A Comparative Study on Chinese College Students' Behavioral Engagement with Sino-US Peer Feedback[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2025, 47(5): 98-111.

裘莹莹, 游晓晔. 中国大学生对中美同伴反馈的行为投入之比较研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2025, 47(5): 98-111.

Figures/Tables 3

References 41

[1]	ALLEN D & MILLS A. The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback[J]. Language Teaching Research, 2016(4):498-513.
[2]	BITCHENER J & FERRIS D R. Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing[M]. New York: Routledge, 2012.
[3]	BOHNDICK C, MENNE C, KOHLMEYER S, et al. Feedback in internet-based self-assessments and its effects on acceptance and motivation[J]. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2020(6):717-728.
[4]	CARLESS D & BOUD D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback[J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018(8):1315-1325.
[5]	CRESWELL J W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches[M]. 6^th Ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2022.
[6]	DIAB N M. Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing[J]. Assessing Writing, 2011(4):274-292.
[7]	DÖRNYEI Z. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition[M]. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2005.
[8]	DRESSLER R, CHU Manwai, CROSSMAN K, et al. Quantity and quality of uptake: Examining surface and meaning-level feedback provided by peers and an instructor in a graduate research course[J]. Assessing Writing, 2019,39:14-24.
[9]	ELLIS R. Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback[C]//BATSTONE R. Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2010:151-165.
[10]	FAN Yumei & XU Jinfen. Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing[J/OL]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2020,50:100775[2023-12-15]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775.
[11]	GOTTFRIED M A. Peer effects in urban schools: Assessing the impact of classroom composition on student achievement[J]. Educational Policy, 2014(5):607-647.
[12]	HAN Ye & HYLAND F. Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2015,30:31-44.
[13]	HYLAND F. The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1998(3):255-286.
[14]	LI Mimi & KIM M. One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2016(3):25-42.
[15]	LI Mimi & ZHU Wei. Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-based collaborative writing[J]. Language Learning & Technology, 2017(2):96-120.
[16]	NIU Ruiying,SHAN Peiwen & YOU Xiaoye. Complementation of multiple sources of feedback in EFL learners' writing[J/OL]. Assessing Writing, 2021,49:100549[2023-12-15]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100549.
[17]	SOTILLO S. Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads[J]. CALICO Journal, 2005(3):467-496.
[18]	TENG Lin Sophie, SUN Peijian Paul & XU Linlin. Conceptualizing writing self-efficacy in English as a foreign language contexts: Scale validation through structural equation modeling[J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2018(4):911-942.
[19]	TIAN Lili & ZHOU Yu. Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context[J/OL]. System, 2020,91:102247[2023-12-15]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247.
[20]	TSENG Sheng-Chau & TSAI Chin-Chung. On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course[J]. Computers & Education, 2007(4):1161-1174.
[21]	WEEKLY R, POLLARD A & , MACPHERSON J. EAP corrective feedback in an EMI setting: Student and teacher beliefs[J/OL]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2022,59:101157[2023-12-15]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101157.
[22]	YU Shulin & HU Guangwei. Understanding university students' peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study[J]. Assessing Writing, 2017,33:25-35.
[23]	YU Shulin & LIU Chunhong. Improving student feedback literacy in academic writing: An evidence-based framework[J/OL]. Assessing Writing, 2021,48:100525[2023-12-08]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100525.
[24]	YU Shulin, ZHANG Yiran, ZHENG Yao, et al. Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master's theses[J]. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2019(1):50-65.
[25]	ZHANG Zhe & HYLAND K. Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing[J]. Assessing Writing, 2018,36:90-102.
[26]	ZHENG Yao & YU Shulin. Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students[J]. Assessing Writing, 2018,37:13-24.
[27]	高瑛, 汪溢, SCHUNN C D. 英语写作同伴反馈评语采纳及其影响因素研究[J]. 外语电化教学, 2019(2):17-24.
[28]	韩晔, 杨鲁新. 非英语专业硕士生对多稿多轮同伴反馈认知投入的个案研究[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2021(3):92-101,150.
[29]	李昆. 二语动机自我系统对动机调控策略及动机行为的影响研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2021(2):87-100.
[30]	李文静, 任庆梅. 同伴互动对英语课堂学习投入的影响——以学业自我效能感为中介[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2025(3):106-123.
[31]	刘立新, 游晓晔. 基于跨文化修辞学视角的跨洋互动写作教学活动设计[J]. 现代外语, 2018(2):257-267.
[32]	裘莹莹, 马广惠, 游晓晔. 中美跨洋写作互动中同伴反馈类型的对比研究[J]. 外语教学理论与实践, 2019(2):69-76.
[33]	王启. 读后续写协同产出的促学效果[J]. 外语界, 2021(6):15-22.
[34]	汪清, 郑璐, 陈向俊. 同伴互动模式对学习者投入的影响研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2025(3):90-105.
[35]	伍志伟. 外语写作跨洋互动研究二十载——成果、问题与展望[J]. 现代外语, 2018(2):235-245.
[36]	许春燕, 张军. 跨洋互动在线写作教学对中国学生英语书面语的影响[J]. 现代外语, 2018(2):246-256.
[37]	许春燕, 张军, 战菊. 动态系统论视角下跨洋互动写作课程学生英语作文的复杂度、准确度和流利度研究[J]. 中国外语, 2017(6):53-61.
[38]	徐锦芬, 范玉梅. 社会认知视角下的外语学习者投入研究[J]. 外语教学, 2019(5):39-43,56.
[39]	徐锦芬, 龙在波. 多元互动环境下学习者写作反馈投入研究[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2022(5):21-31,144-145.
[40]	许悦婷, 刘骏. 基于匿名书面反馈的二语写作反馈研究[J]. 外语教学理论与实践, 2010(3):44-49.
[41]	薛红果. 网络环境下美国同伴的反馈对中国学生英语写作能力影响的个案研究[J]. 外语电化教学, 2011(1):33-37.

吸收类型	子类	中国同伴反馈	美国同伴反馈	卡方检验（中美对比）	小计	卡方检验
成功吸收		60	85	χ²=0.253，df=1，p=0.615	145
未吸收	赞同未修改	13	13	无	26	χ²=11.522，df=3，p=0.009
	讨论未修改	17	28	χ²=0.595，df=1，p=0.440	45
	不赞同	12	10	无	22
	无回应	20	21	χ²=0.662，df=1，p=0.416	41
	小计	62	72	χ²=0.273，df=1，p=0.602	134

吸收类型	子类	中国同伴反馈	美国同伴反馈	卡方检验（中美对比）	小计	卡方检验
成功吸收		60	85	χ²=0.253，df=1，p=0.615	145
未吸收	赞同未修改	13	13	无	26	χ²=11.522，df=3，p=0.009
	讨论未修改	17	28	χ²=0.595，df=1，p=0.440	45
	不赞同	12	10	无	22
	无回应	20	21	χ²=0.662，df=1，p=0.416	41
	小计	62	72	χ²=0.273，df=1，p=0.602	134

反馈	子类	吸收情况		卡方检验	相关性分析
反馈	子类	成功吸收	未吸收	卡方检验	相关性分析
反馈来源	中国同伴反馈	60	62	χ²=0.677，df=1，p=0.411	λ=0.015，p=0.856
反馈来源	美国同伴反馈	85	72	χ²=0.677，df=1，p=0.411	λ=0.015，p=0.856
反馈焦点	形式反馈	11	11	χ²=0.037，df=1，p=0.847	λ=0.000
反馈焦点	内容反馈	134	123	χ²=0.037，df=1，p=0.847	λ=0.000
反馈明晰度	直接反馈	98	59	χ²=15.705，df=1，p=0.000	λ=0.209，p=0.010
反馈明晰度	间接反馈	47	75	χ²=15.705，df=1，p=0.000	λ=0.209，p=0.010

反馈	子类	吸收情况		卡方检验	相关性分析
反馈	子类	成功吸收	未吸收	卡方检验	相关性分析
反馈来源	中国同伴反馈	60	62	χ²=0.677，df=1，p=0.411	λ=0.015，p=0.856
反馈来源	美国同伴反馈	85	72	χ²=0.677，df=1，p=0.411	λ=0.015，p=0.856
反馈焦点	形式反馈	11	11	χ²=0.037，df=1，p=0.847	λ=0.000
反馈焦点	内容反馈	134	123	χ²=0.037，df=1，p=0.847	λ=0.000
反馈明晰度	直接反馈	98	59	χ²=15.705，df=1，p=0.000	λ=0.209，p=0.010
反馈明晰度	间接反馈	47	75	χ²=15.705，df=1，p=0.000	λ=0.209，p=0.010

修改行为	修改方式					小计	卡方检验
修改行为	他人修改				自发修改	小计	卡方检验
	中国同伴反馈	美国同伴反馈	重叠反馈	小计（中国+美国-重叠）		他人修改+自发修改	中美同伴反馈	修改方式	修改行为
添加	102	207	41	268	34	302	χ²=10.411，df=1，p=0.001	χ²=236.952，df=1，p=0.000	χ²=257.303，df=4，p=0.000
删除	108	57	21	144	70	214	χ²=3.587，df=1，p=0.058	χ²=45.450，df=1，p=0.000
纠正	2	43	0	45	175	220	χ²=26.326，df=1，p=0.000	χ²=109.098，df=1，p=0.000
改写	16	16	3	29	107	136	无	χ²=62.902，df=1，p=0.000
重新排序	6	1	0	7	11	18	χ²=2.333，df=1，p=0.127	χ²=2.025，df=1，p=0.155
合计	234	324	65	493	397	890	χ²=14.516，df=1，p=0.000	χ²=10.355，df=1，p=0.001	χ²=10.355，df=1，p=0.001