English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Understanding the proactive roles of receivers in peer feedback processes is crucial because proactive recipience carries great potential in enhancing the effectiveness of feedback and supporting self-regulated (SRL) and co-regulated learning (CoRL). However, receiver’s proactivity has been insufficiently explored and the field lacks a clear understanding of how peer feedback receivers could aid academic self-regulation and co-regulation. This study unpacks the black box through examining different receiver roles in peer feedback dialogue and receiver-triggered SRL and CoRL behaviours in an undergraduate writing course for first-year English majors in China. Data were collected through audio-taped peer feedback dialogue, stimulated recall interviews and journals. Findings revealed a variety of increasingly active receiver roles: respondent, verifier, explicator, negotiator, seeker and generator. Assuming these roles, receivers not only regulated their own learning by self-monitoring works, evaluating the quality of received comments and co-producing feedback but also improved feedback providers’ writing and evaluative skills. The study challenges the stereotypical image of passive receivers and argues that receiver proactivity could turn peer feedback into a mutually beneficial learning activity for receivers and providers. Implications for developing receiver proactivity are discussed.

Proactive receiver roles in peer feedback dialogue: Facilitating receivers’ self-regulation and co-regulating providers’ learning