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

The present mixed-method study examined the focus and effects of peer and machine feedback on the revisions of English argumentative essays. The study collected data from 127 Chinese university EFL learners, which included Draft 1, peer feedback (PF), PF-based Draft 2, machine feedback (MF), MF-based Draft 2, questionnaires, and interview recordings. The main findings were: (a) peer feedback was primarily concerned with content errors while machine feedback mainly involved language errors, (b) significant differences occurred in most types of errors between Draft 1, PF and PF-based Draft 2, and between Draft 1, MF, and MF-based Draft 2, (c) the uptake of ‘introducing a new topic in Conclusion’ was a powerful predictor of PF-based Draft 2 scores, and (d) the participants generally moderately considered peer and machine feedback to be useful. Based on the findings, some implications are discussed on how to better implement and enhance the quality of peer and machine feedback.

Focus and Effects of Peer and Machine Feedback on Chinese University EFL Learners’ Revisions of English Argumentative Essays