Использование взаимной обратной связи обучающихся как типа совместного обучения в цифровой среде на примере написания академических текстов тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Шульгина Галина Игоревна

• Шульгина Галина Игоревна
• кандидат наук
• 2025

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Шульгина Галина Игоревна

TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF RESEARCH ON COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTS

1.1 Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory and Its Development in the Russian Psychological and Pedagogical Tradition

1.2 Collectively Distributed Learning Activity and Collaborative Learning

1.3 Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Theory

1.4 Characteristics of Peer Feedback Exchange as a Form of Collaborative Learning in Traditional Settings and Digital Environments

Conclusions of Chapter

CHAPTER 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF PEER FEEDBACK EXCHANGE IN DIGITAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

2.1 Establishing Key Definitions for Peer Feedback Exchange in Digital Environment

2.2 Digital Environments as Mediators of Collaborative Learning

2.3 Peer Feedback on Written Assignments in Digital Learning Environments

2.4 Peer Feedback in EFL Academic Writing

2.5 Peer Feedback Characteristics in Digital Learning Environments

2.5.1 Perception of Participation in Peer Feedback Process

2.5.2 Analysis, Selection, and Implementation of Feedback as a Distinct Stage of Peer Editing and Its Relationship with Learner Text Quality

2.5.3 Classification of Comments Received in Computer-Mediated Peer Editing in Terms of Content

Conclusions of Chapter

CHAPTER 3. INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RECEIVING AND IMPLEMENTING DIFFERENT TYPES OF FEEDBACK AND LEARNER TEXT QUALITY

3.1 Research Methodology and Design

3.2 Perceptions of Peer Feedback from High- and Low-Achieving Students

3.2.1 Study summary

3.2.2 Research design

3.2.3 Results

3.2.4 Discussion

3.2.5 Pedagogical recommendations

3.2.6 Limitations and directions for future research

3.3 The Relationship between the Volume of Received Feedback, its Implementation and Learner Text Quality

3.3.1 Study summary

3.3.2 Research design

3.3.3 Results

3.3.4 Discussion

3.3.5 Pedagogical recommendations

3.3.6 Limitations and directions for future research

3.4 The Relationship between Receiving Different Types of Comments (in Terms of Content) and Learner Text Quality on Individual and Dyadic Level

3.4.1 Study summary

3.4.2 Research design

3.4.3 Results

3.4.4 Discussion

3.4.5 Pedagogical recommendations

3.4.6 Limitations and directions for future research

3.5 Recommendations for Higher Education Instructors on Designing and Integrating Peer Feedback as a Form of Collaborative Learning into the Educational Process

CONCLUSION

REFERENCE LIST

APPENDIX

Appendix one: sample text with peer comments

Appendix two: sample revised text (changes highlighted in green)

Appendix three: detailed comment category examples of the provided peer feedback

Appendix four: KAIST IRB approval for study

Appendix five: assessment criteria for the initial writing task - the project proposal

Appendix six: assessment criteria for the final writing task - draft of a research article

Appendix seven: KAIST IRB approval for study

Appendix eight: the descriptors of the text quality for each criterion

Appendix nine: the descriptors of scoring rubrics for assessing pre-test writing ability

Appendix ten: KAIST IRB approval for study

Appendix eleven: criteria assessed across the five rubrics associated with the writing

assignments

Appendix twelve: detailed comment category examples of the feedback students provided

Appendix thirteen: Russian translation of the thesis

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Использование взаимной обратной связи обучающихся как типа совместного обучения в цифровой среде на примере написания академических текстов»

INTRODUCTION

Relevance of the Study

The development of digital educational tools is actively transforming traditional learning models, reshaping not only educational processes but also the ways participants in the learning process interact (Vayndorf-Sysoeva & Pankina, 2021; Patarakin & Visser, 2012). However, the transition of education into a digital environment is accompanied by social isolation of students and reduced engagement, which has become one of the key challenges of online learning (Buelow et al., 2018; McInnerney & Roberts, 2004). Consequently, there is an increasing need to explore ways to enhance student engagement, including the organization of collaborative learning and peer-to-peer interaction (Miao, Chang, & Ma, 2022). In the Russian educational context, the importance of this issue is underscored by the development of a digital learning ecosystem created within national strategic initiatives, such as the federal project Digital Educational Environment under the national project Education.

Collaborative learning promotes deeper comprehension of material through the exchange of ideas with peers, which enhances critical thinking and reflection, as well as supports learning motivation and academic performance (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012). Moreover, it develops cooperation skills essential for both academic and professional contexts (Rubtsov & Ulanovskaya, 2021). One of the most widely implemented forms of collaborative learning in higher, secondary, and vocational education, and particularly in teaching academic writing in a second language, is the exchange of peer feedback among learners (Huisman et al., 2019; Peters, Korndle, & Narciss, 2018). This practice involves providing one another with information and recommendations on the quality of work to improve it and acquire new knowledge (Gielen et al., 2010). A specific form of such feedback is peer editing, where students in pairs or groups evaluate, analyze, and revise each other's texts (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017). This process provides individualized feedback, reduces the instructor's workload (Yu & Hu, 2017), fosters critical thinking and self-assessment skills, deepens knowledge, and enhances the quality of students' written work (Boud, 2013; Patchan & Schunn, 2015). In higher education, academic writing instruction is one of the most affected areas, particularly for students learning English as a foreign language (EFL), where interaction and feedback are essential for mastering disciplinary genres and publishing practices (Hyland, 2019).

While peer feedback exchange in traditional face-to-face learning has been extensively studied (Korenev, 2018; Gielen et al., 2010; Liu & Carless, 2006), its digital

formats remain a less explored area of research (Patarakin & Vachkova, 2019). This study focuses on a specific type of peer interaction: asynchronous, text-based peer feedback exchange in Google Docs. This format relies solely on written communication, lacks nonverbal cues, and allows participants to revisit comments multiple times. These features influence the perception and implementation of feedback (Williams et al., 2012). Moreover, findings obtained in traditional settings cannot always be directly transferred to digital environments due to differences in structure, time frames, and communication affordances.

Most studies on face-to-face peer feedback rely on qualitative methods such as interviews, observations, and surveys (Azbel, Ilyushin, Kazakova, et al., 2022; Forslind et al., 2023). However, such methods capture only subjective perceptions and are susceptible to memory biases, social desirability effects, and self-selection. In contrast, the analysis of digital traces enables the observation of students' actual actions within authentic learning contexts, thus avoiding these limitations.

Another important challenge concerns the effectiveness of interaction with peers who possess a comparable level of knowledge. According to the concept of the zone of proximal development proposed by Vygotsky, achieving the level of potential development is possible "both under the guidance of an adult and through interaction with more competent peers," whose involvement facilitates the formation and development of higher mental functions in learners (Vygotsky, 1999, p. 86). In the broader international scholarship, collaboration with more knowledgeable peers is commonly framed within the zone of proximal development as an essential mechanism of joint knowledge construction and transformative learning (Eun et al., 2008; Smagorinsky, 2018). By contrast, the Russian research tradition offers an alternative view that places less emphasis on differences in competence and instead highlights the value of shared discussion and coordinated action. Tsukerman and Rubtsov argue that collectively distributed learning activity is valuable because it enables learners to engage with one another's ideas and contributions in a coordinated way, fostering new ways of acting and deeper understanding, without necessarily requiring a peer to possess a higher level of competence (Rubtsov, 1996; Tsukerman, 1996, 2006).

However, despite the extensive examination of the effects of collaborative learning in face-to-face settings, where students are aware of their peers' competence levels, its transformation in online environments remains underexplored. This is especially true in the context of asynchronous peer feedback exchange, where information about participants' actual expertise is less available.

Furthermore, when considering the volume of peer feedback received in digital text-based environments, measured by the number of comments, it might be assumed that the more feedback a learner receives, the higher the quality of their text (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017; Qureshi et al., 2023). However, some research reports contradictory findings, suggesting that an excessive amount of feedback may complicate its processing and integration into the text (Forslind et al., 2023; Wichmann et al., 2018). In addition, the substantive value of different types of comments remains an open question: which aspects of feedback are most strongly associated with revised text quality?

Finally, there is a noticeable gap in research concerning the stage of peer feedback uptake. Most existing studies focus on qualitative data, such as student interviews, focus groups, or expert evaluations of feedback implementation potential, while overlooking digital trace analysis and comparisons of text versions before and after revision (Forslind et al., 2023; He & Gao, 2023; Wood, 2022).

Thus, the relevance of this study is driven by the need to overcome existing limitations in students' use of peer feedback in digital environments, particularly the insufficient understanding in the research literature of its optimal volume, content variability, and students' perceptions of their peers' competence. Such factors may reduce the effectiveness of collaborative work and hinder the application of received comments, particularly in asynchronous settings. In this regard, a detailed examination of feedback characteristics (perception, volume, content, and degree of implementation) is required as key conditions for enhancing the effectiveness of collaborative learning in online formats. The present study, based on the use of an open-access tool and digital trace analysis, contributes to refining the conceptual framework of peer feedback exchange in digital environments and identifies key relationships within the context of second language academic writing. The findings can be applied to different types of academic texts and taken into account in the development of instructional materials for students. State of Research on the Topic

In the Russian psychological and pedagogical tradition, student interaction is viewed as a key mechanism of development. In Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, learning is understood as a process that occurs within joint activity and is mediated by signs (Vygotsky, 1983, 1999), enabling the activation of potential functions beyond the learner's current developmental level (Rubtsov, 2016). These ideas formed the foundation for activity theory

(Leontiev, 1975) and the concept of developmental learning, in which learning activity serves as a means of forming theoretical thinking (Davydov, 1986; Elkonin, 1999).

Building on these foundations, the concept of collectively distributed learning activity emerged, emphasizing the coordination of actions among participants (Rubtsov & Ulanovskaya, 2021). Tsukerman highlights the importance of cooperation with peers for the internalization of regulatory components (Tsukerman, 1996, 2006, 2020), while Rubtsov associates the development of conceptual thinking with the mastery of collective forms of action (Rubtsov, 1996). Thus, collaborative learning is regarded as a core structural component of the learning activity rather than a secondary supporting condition. In addition, within the Russian psychological and pedagogical tradition, parallel approaches have been actively developed to study both collaborative activity in a broader sense (Zhuravlev, 2005; Lomov, 1975; Umansky, 1980) and its organization specifically within the context of school education (Dyachenko, 1991, 2004; Slavina, 1958).

In the international research literature, considerable attention has been given to peer feedback as a form of formative assessment, focusing on its processes, the characteristics of constructive feedback, and students' ability to engage with it (Carless, 2022; Cizek, 2010; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Shute, 2008; Topping, 2010). Feedback is also widely recognized for its benefits in supporting academic performance, self-regulation, motivation, and engagement (Lipnevich & Smith, 2009; Mandouit & Hattie, 2023). Building on this understanding, an important complementary dimension highlighted in recent research is feedback literacy, which emphasizes learners' capacities and dispositions to interpret feedback and act upon it in ways that enhance learning outcomes (Carless & Boud, 2018; Molloy et al., 2020; Nieminen & Carless, 2023). Particular emphasis is placed on peer feedback as an integral component of collaborative learning, including research on its effectiveness (Boud, 2013; Wu & Schunn, 2021) and analyses of the differences between feedback provided by peers and that provided by instructors (Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014; Strijbos, Narciss, & Dunnebier, 2010). It is also important to note that peer feedback is a well-established and widely used pedagogical tool in teaching writing in a foreign language (Kuyyogsuy, 2022; Saeli & Cheng, 2021).

Within this broader body of scholarship, Russian research represents one strand of the discussion, including theoretical explorations of the concept of feedback (Korenev, 2018) and reviews of international studies (Karmalita, Popova, & Azbel, 2022). However, the focus is predominantly on teacher-student interaction in school education (Azbel et al., 2021, 2022) or on the development of feedback-giving skills among school students (Karmalita, Popova,

& Azbel, 2023). Direct peer feedback exchange between students is addressed only sporadically, primarily in the context of foreign language learning and academic writing (Zarutskaya, 2023; Stognieva, 2024). Moreover, such studies tend to examine the perception of comments without addressing their content or implementation, leaving this area underexplored.

When considering peer feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, international research highlights its role in supporting both academic writing outcomes and socio-affective processes. Studies conducted in Vietnam, Iran, Turkey, China, and Japan show that peer feedback enhances revision quality, writing performance, and learner engagement, though effects vary depending on modality and learner level (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017; Jiang & Eslami, 2021; Wood, 2022; Weng et al., 2024). In the context of South Korean higher education, research shows that peer editing facilitates writing development and social connectedness, but may also involve risks of inaccuracy (Campbell & Batista, 2023). A recent meta-analysis confirms these findings, emphasizing that peer feedback in EFL academic writing supports not only cognitive gains (e.g., writing performance, revision quality, critical reflection) but also socio-affective benefits such as motivation and positive attitudes (Cao et al., 2022). Taken together, these studies indicate that peer feedback has become an actively researched practice in EFL academic writing, offering a valuable backdrop for interpreting the present study.

With the spread of digital technologies, the international research tradition has seen the active development of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), which builds on Vygotsky's ideas and focuses on analyzing peer-to-peer interaction among students in online environments (Stahl et al., 2006). Studies within the CSCL framework emphasize interaction processes and their relationship to both individual and group outcomes, often drawing on digital traces as automatically recorded data of student activity (Zedadra et al., 2014). Considerable attention has been devoted to organizing peer feedback through both specialized platforms such as Peerceptiv, PeerStudio, and EduTech (Yu & Schunn, 2023; Kulkarni et al., 2023; Latifi et al., 2023) and open-access tools, including Google Docs and wiki-based environments (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017; Wu & Schunn, 2021). However, despite the widespread availability of open digital editors, research specifically addressing peer-to-peer interaction in these environments remains limited. This study builds on this line of inquiry by focusing on asynchronous written peer feedback exchanges in Google Docs.

When moving from receiving feedback to analysing and using it, the competence of the feedback source plays an important role. While instructor feedback is often valued for the

instructor's recognized expertise (Lipnevich & Smith, 2022), peer feedback is evaluated in relation to how knowledgeable the reviewer is. Feedback from higher-achieving peers is typically trusted and more likely to be implemented, whereas feedback from less competent peers may be questioned or disregarded (Kaufman & Schunn, 2011; Dijks et al., 2018; Strijbos, Narciss, & Dunnebier, 2010). Conversely, working with peers of similar ability can lower anxiety, enhance collaboration, and make feedback easier to apply (Diab, 2011; Huisman et al., 2017). Building on this evidence, the present study explores the relationship between peer competence and learners' perception of the feedback they receive.

Peer feedback is widely recognized as a valuable element of learning, with research often examining its benefits for both the giver and the receiver. Reported advantages include the ability to interpret constructive criticism and use it to improve one's work, the development of learner autonomy, and improvements in text quality (Nicol et al., 2014; Simonsmeier et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). Many studies also explore the relationship between the volume of feedback received and the quality of learners' writing (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017; Wu & Schunn, 2021).

However, the content of feedback may be even more important, and its substantive value, defined by its relevance and depth for the learner, is widely regarded as a key factor in its usefulness. Content-related feedback can take different forms; in this study, it is examined through three main types: elaboration, verification, and general, as defined by Gielen and De Wever (2015). Elaboration feedback that provides detailed recommendations is considered the most constructive, as it evaluates a student's work without intimidating or discouraging them while providing actionable suggestions for improvement (Fong et al., 2016), thereby helping students better understand the criteria for text quality (Gielen & De Wever, 2015; Hyland, 2019). In contrast, the absence of reasoning behind comments can decrease learners' motivation to revise their texts (Nicol et al., 2014; Latifi et al., 2021). At the same time, verification feedback may also be beneficial, as it can increase engagement or draw attention to problematic areas of the text (Gan & Hattie, 2014; Wisniewski et al., 2020). General feedback, which consists of broad observations without specific guidance, is typically less effective in motivating revisions than more detailed forms of feedback (Strijbos & Wichmann, 2018). Building on these insights, the present study contributes to this line of research by examining not only the volume but also the content of peer feedback and its relationship to text quality.

Peer feedback can also be characterized along several other dimensions that influence its effectiveness. Research shows that justified and accurate comments foster learning, while

simple replies do not (Gielen et al., 2010). Specific, localized comments on substantive issues are more likely to be taken up and improve revisions than vague or mitigated criticism (Patchan et al., 2016). In online contexts, elaborated suggestions with concrete detail, especially questions or next steps, promote uptake, whereas simple verification does not; affective tone is less decisive (Tan & Chen, 2022). Experimental work also shows that structured feedback scripts increase the quality of peer comments, though not necessarily writing outcomes (Valero Haro et al., 2023). Finally, analytic approaches such as epistemic network analysis highlight recurring patterns of stance and focus in peer feedback cycles (Viberg et al., 2024). While this growing body of research demonstrates the richness of peer feedback dimensions, these aspects are not the focus of the present study. In our analysis, we delimit peer comments to their communicative intent (judgement vs. information) rather than evaluating their correctness or adequacy.

When examining the relationship between receiving and implementing feedback, most studies focus on identifying associations between the volume and/or type of feedback received and the quality of students' texts (Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017; Huisman et al., 2017; Wu & Schunn, 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). In contrast, far fewer studies address the next stage of the process, which involves a detailed analysis of how much of the received feedback is actually implemented during text revision and how this relates to the quality of the final product (He & Gao, 2023; Noroozi, Banihashem, Biemans, et al., 2023; Wu & Schunn, 2023). Moreover, the vast majority of research examines feedback at the individual level, while studies analyzing interaction at the dyadic or group level remain scarce (Tajabadi et al., 2023). The present study addresses this gap by considering peer feedback at both the individual and dyadic levels as well as investigating how feedback is implemented.

Academic writing is one of the most illustrative domains for exploring the effects of asynchronous peer feedback exchange in digital environments (Yu & Lee, 2014; Vuogan & Li, 2023). The staged nature of working on a text, which includes reading, commenting, and revising, makes it a convenient model for analyzing mechanisms of interaction. As a learning task, academic writing requires not only linguistic competence but also an understanding of the logic of scholarly argumentation, text structure, and the conventions of academic discourse (Ahlstrom, 2017; Schimel et al., 2016). Importantly, different sections of an academic article serve distinct communicative functions and impose specific demands on content and form (Nair et al., 2014; Schimel et al., 2016). For this reason, it is particularly sensitive to the quality and nature of feedback, which makes it possible to trace its influence on the development of students' writing competence (Hyland et al., 2016; Ferris, 2016).

The present study seeks to address several theoretical tensions. In the Russian research tradition, which builds on Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, collaborative activity is regarded as a key mechanism for knowledge construction and the development of higher mental functions, primarily in children (Rubtsov, 1996; Tsukerman, 1996, 2006). In contrast, international studies, including those within the framework of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), have reinterpreted and adapted these ideas for higher and adult education. In this context, the focus shifts from fundamental mental development to the functional enhancement of existing skills, such as academic writing, reflection, and collaboration.

Similar tensions can also be observed in defining the conditions under which the learning effect occurs. According to Vygotsky's sociocultural theory, development occurs through interaction with an adult or a more knowledgeable peer who helps the learner move beyond their current developmental level into the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1999). In the Russian tradition, the emphasis remains primarily on the role of the adult as the leading instructional agent. In contrast, international studies more often highlight the potential for learner advancement through interaction with a more knowledgeable peer (Allal & Ducrey, 2000; Forman & Cazden, 2013). However, an open question remains whether the presence of a more competent peer is an essential condition or whether the learning effect can also be achieved through interaction with a peer of equal competence. Building on Vygotsky's ideas, Tsukerman and Rubtsov, in developing the concept of collectively distributed activity, emphasize that the learning effect may also arise in interaction with a peer of equal competence. According to their theoretical framework, what is essential is not the difference in expertise but the engagement with diverse perspectives, which enables the identification of contradictions and their resolution through collaborative work (Rubtsov, 1996; Tsukerman, 1996).

Research on peer feedback exchange in digital environments also reveals a set of practical contradictions related to the volume, quality, and perception of student interaction:

• Optimal volume of interaction. A higher volume of feedback can provide the recipient with a richer set of perspectives and suggestions, potentially supporting more comprehensive text revisions (Wu & Schunn, 2021). However, excessive feedback may overload the learner during the stages of analysis and implementation, thereby reducing its effectiveness (Forslind et al., 2023).

• Peer competence. Feedback from a more competent peer is often perceived as higher in quality and tends to inspire greater trust (Dijks et al., 2018). At the same time, it

may lead to cognitive overload (Zimmerman, 2000). Interaction with an equally competent peer reduces anxiety and increases the clarity and accessibility of feedback (Huisman et al., 2017).

• Types of feedback. Elaboration feedback that includes recommendations is traditionally regarded as more constructive (Fong et al., 2016; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). However, verification feedback, even without explicit suggestions, may stimulate independent problem-solving and lead to text improvement (Wu & Schunn, 2020b).

• Implementation of comments. It is generally assumed that integrating received feedback improves text quality (Simonsmeier et al., 2020). Nevertheless, applying low-quality or contradictory comments may, in fact, worsen it (He & Gao, 2023).

• Level of analysis. From a theoretical perspective, examining interaction at the dyadic and group levels is considered promising (Stahl, 2023). Yet, the majority of empirical research continues to focus predominantly on individual effects.

Formulation of the Research Problem

Despite the widespread use of peer feedback as a form of collaborative learning in online settings, it remains an open question to what exten the principles described in Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and the concept of collectively distributed activity (Rubtsov & Tsukerman) originally developed for face-to-face interaction retain their relevance in digital student interaction. Within this theoretical framework, the learning potential of collaboration is emphasized, particularly in discussing differences in approaches, coordinating actions, and forming a shared perspective. However, in asynchronous online environments, where students are often unaware of each other's actual competence levels and rely on readily available digital tools for interaction, the competence of a peer becomes a significant factor in evaluating and subsequently applying received feedback. Moreover, asynchronous interaction in digital contexts is frequently mediated by written feedback, which requires learners to independently analyze, interpret, and apply the information provided. This, in turn, raises questions about the optimal volume of feedback, its content, and the extent to which it should be implemented, as excessive information may overwhelm learners and reduce the effectiveness of collaborative work.

Thus, the research problem lies in the need to clarify the theoretical and empirical foundations of the effectiveness of asynchronous peer feedback exchange in digital environments and to determine how feedback characteristics relate to text quality in the

context of collaborative academic writing. This leads to the following question: what role does peer interaction, as described in the concept of collectively distributed activity, play in asynchronous digital formats, and which feedback characteristics (perception, volume, content, and implementation) are most significant for achieving high learning outcomes?

The object of the study is collaborative learning of academic writing in digital environments.

The subject of the study is the relationship between feedback characteristics and the quality of academic texts in the process of collaborative learning of academic writing in digital environments.

The aim of this dissertation is to refine the theoretical and methodological approach to understanding the relationship between feedback characteristics and text quality in the process of collaborative learning of academic writing in digital environments and to empirically verify this relationship, taking into account the specific features of academic text sections and the level of analysis.

To achieve this aim, the following objectives must be addressed:

1. Clarify the terminology and identify the key characteristics of feedback that are essential for analyzing its effectiveness.

2. Examine the role of peer competence in how students interpret feedback in asynchronous digital peer-to-peer interaction, drawing on the concept of collectively distributed activity.

3. Analyze how the volume of feedback received and the extent of its implementation relate to text quality in digital interaction, with a focus on determining the optimal amount of feedback from the perspective of collectively distributed activity.

4. Determine the usefulness of receiving elaboration and verification feedback for the quality of academic texts, considering the functional focus of text sections and the level of analysis (individual or dyadic).

5. Synthesize the findings and formulate recommendations for instructors on designing peer feedback activities as a form of collaborative learning that supports productive interaction and the development of students' writing competence.

The research hypothesis is that in the process of peer feedback exchange within collaborative learning, the characteristics of feedback (perception, volume, content, and implementation) are significant factors related to text quality, although their effects may vary depending on the functional features of academic text sections and the level of analysis (individual or dyadic).

To achieve the research aim, the following research questions were formulated:

1) How is the learners' perception of received feedback related to the academic performance of the peer who provided it?

2) How does the volume of feedback received relate to its subsequent implementation and the quality of the learner's text?

3) How is the receipt of elaboration and verification feedback associated with the quality of specific sections of an academic text, considering the sections' functional focus (content-oriented vs. technical) and the level of analysis?

Methodological and Theoretical Foundations of the Study:

Since this study focuses on student interaction in digital environments, its methodological foundation is based on the theory of computer-supported collaborative learning (Stahl et al., 2006). In addition, the dissertation's framework draws on Vygotsky's sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1999) and the concept of collectively distributed activity (Rubtsov, 1996, 2024; Tsukerman, 1996, 2006).

The following research methods were employed:

1. Theoretical methods: analysis of literature on peer feedback as a component of collaborative learning; analysis of the conceptual and terminological framework describing this process; synthesis of best practices related to the research problem.

2. Empirical methods:

a. surveys (learners' perceptions of the usefulness of the peer feedback and their agreement with it);

b. measurement of student interaction during peer editing through the collection, coding, and analysis of digital traces (the number of comments as an indicator of peer feedback volume; content of comments by type, subtype and focus based on model of Gielen and De Wever (2015));

c. comparison of intermediate and final versions of academic texts to measure the number of implemented comments;

d. expert evaluation of final academic texts (student writing scores for the pre-test as an indicator of academic performance and for writing assignments that incorporated peer feedback exchange, using rubrics developed from Clabough and Clabough (2016)).

3. Statistical methods: correlation and regression analysis for processing empirical data and identifying relationships between key variables.

The empirical basis of the study is formed through the collection of empirical data at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), located in South Korea, during the years 2021-2024. Participants were master's and doctoral students enrolled in STEM programs, with English as their second language. As part of a graduate-level scientific writing course in English, designed to develop skills necessary for submitting research to academic journals, students participated in peer feedback sessions.

The study was conducted in four stages to address the following objectives:

1. Theoretical and Analytical Stage (Objective 1) - Conducting a literature review, conceptualizing the study, defining its aim and objectives, formulating the hypothesis, and developing the research design. This stage also involved clarifying the terminology and identifying key feedback characteristics relevant to analyzing its effectiveness. Chapter 2 of the dissertation presents the results obtained in addressing the stated research objective.

2. Study of the Relationship Between Learners' Perception of the Usefulness and Applicability of Received Feedback and the Academic Performance of the Peer Who Provided the Feedback (Objective 2) - Conducting Study 1 (n = 134) to identify the relationships between the mentioned variables. Section 3.2 of Chapter 3 of the dissertation presents the results obtained in addressing the stated research objective.

3. Study of the Relationships Between the Volume of Received Feedback, Its Subsequent Application, and Learner Text Quality (Objective 3) - Conducting Study 2 (n = 186) to identify the relationships between these variables and to test the potential moderating effect of the total number of received comments on the relationship between the number of applied comments and learner text quality. Section 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the dissertation presents the results obtained in addressing the stated research objective.

4. Study of the Relationships Between Receiving Different Types of Feedback (Elaboration, Verification and General) and Learner Text Quality, and Summarizing the Results (Objectives 4 and 5) - Conducting a Study 3 (n = 68) to explore the relationships between receiving different types of feedback and learner text quality in specific sections of an academic paper at individual and dyadic levels. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of Chapter 3 of the dissertation present the results obtained in addressing the stated research objectives.

The scientific novelty of the research lies in clarifying the theoretical and methodological approach that explains the relationship between receiving different types of feedback, their subsequent implementation, and the quality of students' written work within the process of peer feedback exchange in digital environments, specifically in the following aspects:

• The direct relationship between the volume of implemented feedback and the quality of the revised text is reexamined both theoretically and empirically . The

findings indicate that receiving an excessive amount of feedback complicates its selection and application, thereby reducing the effectiveness of text revision. This outcome contributes to refining the criteria for productive learning interaction within the context of peer feedback exchange.

• The understanding of useful feedback in digital interaction has been revised. The findings indicate that concise verification feedback, which provides judgments about the accuracy and persuasiveness of statements, is associated with more effective text revision than the traditionally valued elaboration feedback. This result broadens the theoretical understanding of the functions of different feedback types in horizontal forms of collaborative learning in digital environments.

• An empirical relationship has been established between the high competence of the peer who provides feedback and students' agreement with that feedback . At the same time, it was shown that agreement is not always accompanied by perceiving the comments as useful or by their subsequent implementation. This finding refines the theoretical understanding of the mechanisms of analysis and reflection in the process of collaborative work.

• An empirical variability in the effect of received feedback was observed depending on the functional purpose of an academic text section. The feedback had different effects on content-oriented sections compared to those focused on the technical presentation of information. This finding offers a new explanation for the selectivity with which students apply feedback.

• The terminology of the peer feedback exchange process in digital environments has been refined by clarifying closely related terms and proposing an extended description of the process, while also identifying key feedback characteristics significant for analyzing its effectiveness.

• A refined theoretical and methodological approach has been proposed for analyzing the relationship between feedback characteristics and text quality in the context of collaborative learning in digital environments.

Theoretical Significance of the Study

The theoretical significance of this study lies in advancing both Russian and international approaches to analyzing collaborative learning in digital environments. The dissertation refines the provisions of Vygotsky's sociocultural theory and the concept of collectively distributed activity developed by Tsukerman and Rubtsov, applying them to the conditions of asynchronous student interaction. It demonstrates that the learning effect of horizontal interaction is preserved and contributes to the improvement of academic writing skills regardless of any predefined differences in participants' competence levels. This effect can be driven by the productive confrontation of perspectives and their collective interpretation. In this study it is reflected in the diversity of feedback types received and the extent to which they are implemented in text revisions, thereby expanding the understanding of the role of collaborative activity in learning.

This study advances the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD) by systematizing Russian and international interpretations of the notion. In Vygotsky's classical definition, the ZPD involves interaction both between a learner and an adult and between a learner and a more knowledgeable peer. In the Russian tradition, the emphasis has been placed primarily on child-adult interaction and the development of higher mental functions, while the work of Rubtsov and Tsukerman extended this perspective by developing the concept of collectively distributed learning activity. In international scholarship, the classical definition has likewise been adopted, and it has been shown that these ideas are applicable to peer-to-peer interaction and, in the context of adult learning, to the enhancement of existing skills such as academic writing, reflection, and collaboration. This interpretation aligns with the context of the present study, which investigates peer feedback exchange among master's and doctoral students, and shows that the Russian and international perspectives can be viewed as complementary rather than contradictory. Accordingly, the ZPD serves as the overarching theoretical foundation, while the concept of collectively distributed learning activity provides the immediate analytical framework for examining peer feedback processes.

From the perspective of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), the study conceptualizes feedback characteristics (perception, content, volume, and degree of implementation) as key elements determining the productivity of digital interaction. The

research also underscores the importance of considering the dyadic level of analysis, showing that certain relationships between feedback characteristics and text quality emerge only when examining fixed peer pairs rather than individual participants in isolation. This perspective complements individually oriented models of collaborative learning in online environments by capturing interaction dynamics and mutual effect. In this way, it advances the conceptual framework for analyzing collaborative activity in digital formats, integrates Russian and international interpretations of the zone of proximal development, and clarifies the theoretical foundations of productive peer feedback exchange in contemporary online learning.

The practical significance of the study lies in the empirical confirmation of the relationships between the competence level of a peer and students' perception of the feedback received in asynchronous digital interaction, as well as between the characteristics of the feedback received, its implementation, and the quality of students' texts. In addition, the study developed specific recommendations for instructors on designing and integrating peer feedback exchange as a form of collaborative work within the educational process. These include using collaborative writing platforms (e.g., Google Docs) to facilitate interaction and monitor contributions, discouraging excessive commenting in favour of concise and high-quality feedback, training students to analyse and selectively implement peer suggestions to enhance revision quality, and prioritising feedback categories most effective for different sections of academic writing.

Statements for Defense

1. When feedback is provided by a highly competent peer, the likelihood of agreement with it increases, which may stimulate subsequent analysis and reflection; however, it does not significantly affect its perceived usefulness.

2. When the volume of feedback received is substantial, its implementation becomes less effective because it is more difficult for the learner to extract relevant information and use it in text revision. Thus, the quantitative characteristics of feedback are not always associated with its productivity, as the process of analysing, selecting, and implementing numerous comments may place excessive demands on learners' cognitive resources.

3. Verification feedback that provides judgments on the accuracy and validity of the author's statements is more beneficial for students than elaboration feedback offering specific revision suggestions, as it is associated with the overall text quality. Verification feedback can encourage independent problem-solving, whereas

elaboration feedback provides information about current writing or offers ready-made solutions that may not always be accurate or aligned with the author's original intent. These findings challenge the prevailing view of constructive feedback primarily as elaboration, demonstrating that verification feedback within collaborative learning can be more advantageous for text quality.

4. In content-oriented sections such as the Abstract and Introduction, receiving verification feedback is associated with higher text quality, whereas in sections focused on technical reporting or reproduction, such as Methodology and Results, this relationship is either absent or reversed. This underscores the importance of the learning task context for interpreting the role of feedback in the process of collaborative learning.

Reliability and Validity of the Results

The reliability and validity of the research findings are ensured by grounding the study in strong theoretical and methodological foundations, as well as by employing valid and reliable methods aligned with the research objectives and tasks. The theoretical framework is based on contemporary national and international theories. The results are derived from a rigorous scientific analysis of the selected literature and are further supported by statistical analysis of newly collected empirical data. The empirical component of the study was conducted as a series of non-experimental/correlational studies, relying on quantitative data analysis. To ensure the reliability of the findings, statistical methods of data analysis were employed, including descriptive statistics, regression analysis, and correlation analysis, which objectively assess the identified relationships. Furthermore, the obtained results and conclusions were validated through peer review and expert discussions, as well as presentations at scientific conferences and publications in high-impact academic journals, ensuring their credibility within the research community.

Approval and Dissemination of Research Findings

The findings of this research were validated through discussions at international scientific conferences. The key results of the study were presented at the Emerging Researchers' Conference (ERC 2022) as part of the European Conference on Educational Research in Yerevan, as well as at the XIII International Russian Conference of Higher Education Researchers in Moscow (2022), the IX International Forum on Teacher Education

("Quality of Teacher Education in the Face of Contemporary Challenges") in Kazan (2023), and the XV International Conference of Higher Education Researchers in Moscow (2024).

Additionally, the research findings were tested in a series of academic seminars organized by the Institute of Education at the Higher School of Economics (HSE University), focusing on the role of peer editing as a component of collaborative learning in educational settings. Furthermore, the results have been published in high-impact international academic journals, confirming their relevance and compliance with academic standards.

The structure of the dissertation is aligned with the logic of scientific research. It comprises an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a reference list containing 352 sources, and 12 appendices. The total length of the dissertation is 219 pages, and the text includes 15 tables and 14 figures.

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF RESEARCH ON COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTS

The first chapter establishes the theoretical framework of the dissertation. It begins with Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory, focusing on Russian scholarship where this tradition originated and where much of Vygotsky's work remains available only in the original language. In contrast, international interpretations have been shaped primarily by a single major English-language publication, Mind in Society (Vygotsky, 1978), which has served as the foundational source for Western scholarship. This divergence has led to different trajectories of theoretical development: in the Russian context toward the concept of Collectively Distributed Learning Activity, and in the international context toward frameworks such as Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL).

Tracing these parallel developments is essential not only for clarifying the theoretical underpinnings of the dissertation but also for highlighting its scholarly contribution: bridging Russian and international perspectives to build a comprehensive foundation for analyzing peer feedback as a form of collaborative learning in digital environments. Since peer feedback represents one of the most widely implemented and empirically studied forms of collaborative learning, particular attention in this chapter is devoted to its characteristics in both traditional and digital settings, outlining the conceptual foundations for its role in supporting learning processes.

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Шульгина Галина Игоревна

ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ

Проведенное исследование позволило реализовать поставленную цель — уточнить теоретико-методологический подход, объясняющий связь между характеристиками обратной связи и качеством текста в ходе совместного обучения академическому письму в цифровой среде, а также ее эмпирически проверить с учетом особенностей разделов академического текста и уровня анализа. Все поставленные исследовательские вопросы получили аргументированные ответы в ходе последовательного решения задач исследования и обоснования положений, выносимых на защиту. Каждое из положений опирается на соответствующие теоретические и эмпирические данные, что обеспечивает логическую целостность работы и доказательность сформулированных выводов.

В ходе диссертационного исследования была сформулирована и эмпирически подтверждена гипотеза о том, что при обмене обратной связью в рамках совместного обучения значимыми факторами для качества текста являются характеристики обратной связи (восприятие обратной связи, ее объем, содержание и степень применения), однако эффект данных факторов может варьироваться в зависимости от функциональных особенностей разделов академического текста и уровня анализа (индивидуальный и парный). Полученные результаты подчеркивают важность анализа не только содержания обратной связи, но и условий ее получения и использования в онлайн-формате. В соответствии с задачами, сформулированными во введении, были получены значимые теоретические и эмпирические результаты, подтверждающие актуальность комплексного подхода к исследованию обмена обратной связью в цифровой образовательной среде.

При рассмотрении второй исследовательской задачи в диссертации был дан ответ на ИВ1: Как связано восприятие обучающимися полученной обратной связи с уровнем успеваемости сверстника, который ее предоставил?

Результаты показывают, что обратная связь от более компетентных сверстников чаще вызывает согласие, потенциально стимулируя более глубокую рефлексию. Однако это не приводит к росту восприятия её полезности, поскольку обучающиеся с разным уровнем успеваемости не демонстрировали систематических различий в оценке инструментальности обратной связи. Этот результат отражает теоретическое противоречие между культурно-исторической теорией Л.С, Выготского в рамках зоны ближайшего развития, где акцент сделан на взаимодействии с более компетентным

сверстником как условии развития [Vygotsky, 1999], и подходами концепции коллективно-распределённой учебной деятельности, которые подчеркивают возможность прогресса во взаимодействии равных по компетентности сверстников [Рубцов, 1996; Цукерман, 1996]. Полученные данные свидетельствуют о том, что компетентность сверстника выступает скорее контекстуальным фактором, связанным с согласием с обратной связью, чем абсолютным условием обучения. В то же время критическую роль для восприятия полезности обратной связи играет её доступность и интерпретируемость, что позволяет предположить: взаимодействие может стимулировать рефлексию и доработку текста как в условиях различий в компетентности, так и во взаимодействии равных по уровню обучающихся.

Полученные результаты легли в основу первого положения, выносимого на защиту: высокий уровень компетентности партнера по обмену обратной связью повышает шанс согласия с обратной связью, стимулируя последующий анализ и рефлексию, но при этом существенно не сказывается на оценке ее полезности.

При рассмотрении третьей исследовательской задачи в диссертации был дан ответ на ИВ2: как объем полученной обратной связи соотносится с ее последующим применением и качеством текста обучающегося?

Результаты показали, что большее количество обратной связи не всегда означает лучшее качество: при превышении управляемого уровня количество комментариев начинает препятствовать их успешному использованию в процессе доработки текста. Этот результат выявил ключевой парадокс: хотя большое число комментариев может рассматриваться как показатель активного вовлечения и предоставлять обучающемуся различные точки зрения, полученные данные демонстрируют, что при превышении допустимого порога объём обратной связи скорее мешает, чем способствует переработке текста. В таких случаях усилия, необходимые для отбора, приоритизации и интеграции комментариев, повышают нагрузку и снижают вероятность их успешного применения, так как ресурсы обучающегося направляются на управление объемом входящей информации, а не на рефлексию и согласование позиций. С точки зрения концепции коллективно-распределенной учебной деятельности Рубцова и Цукерман, такой сдвиг подрывает потенциал для совместной рефлексии, которая является необходимым условием преобразования взаимодействия сверстников в обучающий эффект. В совокупности эти результаты указывают на то, что объём взаимной обратной связи следует рассматривать не только как количественный показатель взаимодействия,

но и как фактор, определяющий уровень требований к переработке информации для достижения содержательных изменений в тексте.

Полученные результаты легли в основу второго положения, выносимого на защиту: при значительном объеме полученной обратной связи ее применение становится менее результативным, поскольку обучающемуся труднее вычленить значимую информацию и использовать ее в доработке текста. Таким образом, количественные характеристики обратной связи не всегда связаны с ее результативностью, поскольку процесс анализа, отбора и применения большого числа комментариев может предъявлять чрезмерные требования к когнитивным ресурсам обучающихся.

При рассмотрении четвёртой исследовательской задачи в диссертации был дан ответ на ИВ3: как получение объясняющей и оценивающей обратной связи связано с качеством отдельных разделов академического текста с учётом их функциональной направленности (содержательной или технической) и уровня анализа?

Анализ эмпирических данных показал, что оценивающая обратная связь статистически значимо связана с качеством текстов обучающихся, тогда как объясняющая обратная связь сопоставимого эффекта не продемонстрировала. Этот результат ставит под сомнение распространённое предположение о том, что наиболее полезная обратная связь преимущественно носит объясняющий характер, и, напротив, указывает на то, что оценивающая обратная связь может в большей степени способствовать стимулированию рефлексии и самостоятельному поиску решений в условиях совместного обучения. С точки зрения культурно-исторической теории Л.С. Выготского оценивающая обратная связь может выступать поддерживающим механизмом, побуждающим обучающегося выходить за пределы имеющихся возможностей, а не опираться на готовые решения. В то же время, в соответствии с идеями Цукерман и Рубцова, оценивающие комментарии без предписывающих указаний способны активировать рефлексивные умения, побуждая обучающихся к анализу, сопоставлению различных точек зрения и согласованию позиций в рамках коллективно-распределенной учебной деятельности.

В то же время результаты показали, что эффект оценивающей обратной связи не является однородным, а варьируется в зависимости от функциональной направленности разделов текста: в содержательных частях, таких как аннотация и введение, оценивающая обратная связь была связана с более высоким качеством текста, тогда как в технических разделах, таких как «Методология» и «Результаты», эта

взаимосвязь отсутствовала либо проявлялась в обратном направлении. Это подчёркивает важность учёта контекста задания при интерпретации роли обратной связи в совместном академическом письме.

Полученные результаты легли в основу еще двух положений, выносимых на защиту:

• В содержательно-ориентированных разделах оценивающая обратная связь, содержащая суждения о точности и обоснованности высказываний автора, оказывается более полезной для обучающихся, чем объясняющая обратная связь, предлагающая конкретные варианты доработки. Оценивающая обратная связь может стимулировать самостоятельное решение проблем, тогда как объясняющая обратная связь предоставляет информацию о текущем состоянии текста или готовые решения, которые не всегда бывают точными или соответствуют авторскому замыслу. Эти результаты ставят под сомнение распространенное представление о конструктивной обратной связи преимущественно как об объясняющей, показывая, что в условиях совместного обучения именно оценивающая обратная связь может оказывать более значимое влияние на качество текста.

• В содержательно-ориентированных разделах («Аннотация», «Введение») получение оценивающей обратной связи соотносится с более высоким качеством текста, тогда как в разделах, ориентированных на техническое воспроизведение или отчетность («Методология», «Результаты»), подобная взаимосвязь не наблюдается или имеет обратный характер. Это подчеркивает значимость контекста учебной задачи для интерпретации роли обратной связи в процессе совместного обучения.

Пятая задача, направленная на обобщение полученных результатов и формулирование рекомендаций для преподавателей по проектированию заданий на обмен взаимной обратной связью, обеспечила прикладной аспект исследования и была основана на всестороннем анализе данных, полученных в ходе эмпирических этапов. Ее решение позволило перевести ключевые выводы исследования в практическую плоскость, сформировав основу для рекомендаций, ориентированных на повышение эффективности совместного обучения в цифровой среде.

Помимо эмпирического вклада, диссертация уточняет теоретическую перспективу, основанную на культурно-исторической теории Л.С. Выготского. Результаты показывают, что развивающий эффект взаимодействия сверстников не

ограничивается сотрудничеством с более компетентным участником, но может возникать и во взаимодействии равных по уровню, что соответствует концепции коллективно-распределенной учебной деятельности. Кроме того, исследование демонстрирует, что оценивающая обратная связь, традиционно недооцениваемая по сравнению с объясняющей, может выступать формой скаффолдинга, стимулирующей рефлексию и самостоятельное решение задач. Таким образом, диссертация расширяет теоретическую перспективу культурно-исторической теории Л.С, Выготского, уточняя, каким образом различные типы и объёмы обратной связи функционируют как развивающие механизмы в условиях совместного обучения в цифровой среде.

В совокупности ответы на три исследовательских вопроса подтверждают гипотезу диссертации о том, что результативность взаимной обратной связи в процессе совместного академического письма определяется множеством взаимосвязанных характеристик (восприятие, объём, тип и применение), эффект которых варьируется в зависимости от функциональных особенностей разделов текста и уровня анализа. Таким образом, полученные результаты уточняют и эмпирически подтверждают предложенный теоретико-методологический подход к изучению взаимосвязи между обратной связью и качеством текста обучающихся в цифровой среде, что позволяет достигнуть основной цели диссертации. В контексте расширяющихся исследований, посвящённых обмену взаимной обратной связью в цифровой среде при обучении английскому языку как иностранному, результаты, полученные на основе данных курса академического письма в Южной Корее, подтвердили имеющиеся межконтекстуальные выводы и одновременно расширяют их.

Помимо теоретического и эмпирического вклада, исследование имеет важные педагогические импликации. Полученные результаты показывают, что организация взаимной обратной связи должна быть направлена на минимизацию перегрузки, стимулирование избирательного применения комментариев и соотнесение типов обратной связи с функциональными задачами отдельных разделов академического текста. Эти выводы согласуются с результатами предыдущих исследований, подчёркивающих значимость поддержки и обучения процедурам взаимного рецензирования [Topping, 2009; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006], и приобретают особую актуальность в корейском контексте обучения английскому языку как иностранному, где студенты склонны в значительной степени полагаться на авторитет преподавателя и могут нуждаться в дополнительной поддержке для формирования доверия к оценке со стороны сверстников.

Ограничения исследования

Несмотря на полученные теоретические и эмпирические результаты, исследование имеет ряд ограничений, которые следует учитывать при интерпретации выводов и планировании дальнейших исследований.

Во-первых, ограничением является сравнительно небольшой размер выборки. Хотя выявленные тенденции указывают на значимость оптимизации объема и типов взаимной обратной связи, для повышения надежности результатов и их обобщаемости необходимо проведение исследований на более крупных выборках, что обеспечит большую статистическую мощность анализа. Во-вторых, в качестве основного показателя взаимодействия обучающихся использовалось количество комментариев, оставленных в Google Документах. Это объясняется тем, что студенты обучались на разных программах и, предположительно, не взаимодействовали за пределами цифровой среды. Однако анализ дополнительных каналов коммуникации мог бы дать более полное представление о характере их сотрудничества.

В-третьих, метрикой качества текста обучающихся выступала итоговая оценка финальной версии текста. Данное решение было обусловлено необходимостью оценить конечный результат применения взаимной обратной связи, а также ограниченными возможностями привлечения экспертов для анализа всех промежуточных версий текстов. При этом изменения качества текста после обмена взаимной обратной связью по сравнению с исходным черновиком не были зафиксированы на всех этапах, что ограничивает возможности для анализа динамики улучшения текста. Кроме того, в исследовании не учитывалось возможное влияние внешних цифровых инструментов, включая технологии искусственного интеллекта, такие как GPT, которые студенты могли использовать в процессе редактирования. В то же время дизайн задания предполагал, что обратная связь должна предоставляться в форме локализованных комментариев, прикреплённых к конкретным фрагментам текста в Google Документах, а не в виде сплошного рецензирования. Такой формат снижает вероятность значительного использования ИИ, поскольку автоматически сгенерированные комментарии потребовали бы ручной адаптации и контекстуальной вставки, что связано с дополнительными усилиями. Тем не менее возможность применения ИИ полностью исключить нельзя, и этот аспект следует учитывать в будущих исследованиях.

Дополнительным ограничением настоящего исследования является специфика выборки, включающей студентов STEM-программ университета Южной Кореи.

Культурно-образовательные особенности, такие как академические традиции, ожидания от обратной связи и нормы взаимодействия между обучающимися, могут существенно влиять на восприятие и применение взаимной обратной связи. В связи с этим возникает вопрос о возможности переноса полученных результатов на другие образовательные контексты, в том числе на российскую аудиторию. Для более полной интерпретации выявленных закономерностей и их проверки в иных условиях необходимы дальнейшие исследования, ориентированные на различные культурные и институциональные среды.

Несмотря на обозначенные ограничения, проведенное исследование вносит значимый вклад в изучение процессов взаимного редактирования в цифровой среде, выявляя его особенности и закономерности в образовательной практике. Для дальнейшего развития данной области необходимы исследования, направленные на устранение указанных ограничений и расширение теоретико-эмпирической базы.

Направления для будущих исследований

Исследование взаимосвязи объема полученной и примененной обратной связи и качеством текстов обучающихся является важным начальным этапом, однако будущие исследования должны стремиться к более целостному изучению объема и характеристик взаимной обратной связи.

Во-первых, перспективным направлением является более комплексное исследование количественных и качественных аспектов обратной связи. Будущие исследования могут быть направлены на разработку моделей, интегрирующих объем обратной связи с ее содержательными характеристиками (тип, фокус, структура комментариев) и форматом предоставления (анонимный или не анонимный, синхронный или асинхронный, устный или письменный). Такой подход позволит более точно оценивать образовательную ценность обратной связи и ее эффект на результативность редактирования текста обучающихся.

Во-вторых, для повышения внутренней валидности будущих исследований целесообразно предусмотреть включение пре-тестов и контрольных замеров. Это позволит более точно отслеживать динамику развития навыков академического письма и оценивать эффект обратной связи на улучшение текстов.

В-третьих, необходимо учитывать индивидуальные различия обучающихся, которые могут оказывать влияние на взаимосвязь между характеристиками обратной связи и качеством текста. Будущие исследования могут быть направлены на изучение роли таких факторов, как уровень подготовки, мотивация, уровень образования,

область научных интересов, опыт участия во взаимном редактировании, а также личностные установки по отношению к обратной связи.

В-четвёртых, расширение эмпирических исследований за счёт включения выборок из различных культурных и институциональных контекстов позволило бы получить ценные данные о применимости полученных результатов за пределами данного контекста. Актуализация результатов в локальном контексте позволит уточнить особенности восприятия и применения взаимной обратной связи российскими обучающимися и выявить возможные культурно-специфические аспекты данного процесса.

В-пятых, важным направлением является изучение стратегий применения обратной связи. Будущие исследования могут быть посвящены тому, как различные способы анализа и отбора комментариев соотносятся с успешностью доработки текста, и каким образом обучающиеся осмысленно интегрируют полученные замечания в свои письменные работы.

Ещё одним перспективным направлением исследований является интеграция инструментов искусственного интеллекта во взаимное редактирование. В условиях растущего использования больших языковых моделей для генерации или совместного конструирования обратной связи важно изучить, каким образом обучающиеся применяют такие инструменты при предоставлении или интерпретации обратной связи и в какой мере опора на ИИ дополняет или заменяет подлинное взаимодействие со сверстниками. В частности, дальнейшие исследования могут прояснить, используют ли студенты ИИ в соответствии с рекомендациями преподавателя (например, как ресурс для генерации идей, подлежащих критическому осмыслению и адаптации) или же полагаются на комментарии, сгенерированные ИИ, без дополнительной рефлексии. Перспективным также является изучение того, как использование ИИ во взаимной обратной связи соотносится с особенностями педагогического дизайна. Ответы на эти вопросы позволят уточнить педагогические импликации обратной связи с поддержкой ИИ и оценить её потенциал в трансформации практик совместного письма.

Наконец, перспективными являются экспериментальные исследования, направленные на выявление вклада отдельных этапов взаимного редактирования (например, инструктажа, анализа комментариев) в повышение качества текста. Такие исследования позволят более точно определить, какие компоненты процесса обмена обратной связью оказывают наибольший эффект на результативность обучения.

Таким образом, проведенное исследование расширяет представления о взаимосвязи характеристик обмена взаимной обратной связью в цифровой среде и качество текста обучающегося на примере академического письма, предоставляя ценные данные как для научного сообщества, так и для практиков в области образования.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Шульгина Галина Игоревна, 2025 год

СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

1. Азбель А. А., Илюшин Л. С., Казакова Е. И., Морозова П. А. Отношение учеников и учителей к обратной связи: противоречия и тенденции развития // Образование и наука. - 2022. - Т. 24, № 7. - С. 76-109.

2. Азбель А. А., Илюшин Л. С., Морозова П. А. Обратная связь в обучении глазами российских подростков // Вопросы образования. - 2021. - № 1. - С. 195-212.

3. Вайндорф-Сысоева М. Е., Панькина Е. В. Специфика учебно-педагогического взаимодействиям в цифровой образовательной среде // Профессиональное образование в России и за рубежом. - 2021. - №. 2 (42). - С. 92-100.

4. Выготский Л. С. Мышление и речь. - 5-е изд. - М.: Лабиринт, 1999. - 352 с.

5. Давыдов В. В. Теория развивающего обучения. — М.: ИНТОР, 1996. — 544 с.

6. Давыдов В.В. (1986). Проблемы развивающего обучения. — М.: Педагогика. -240 с.

7. Дьяченко В.К. Сотрудничество в обучении: о коллективном способе учебной работы: книга для учителя. - М.: Просвещение, 1991. - 192 с.

8. Дьяченко В.К. Коллективный способ обучения: дидактика в диалогах. - М.: Народное образование, 2004. - 352 с.

9. Журавлев А.Л. Психология совместной деятельности. - М.: Изд-во «Институт психологии РАН», 2005. - 640 с.

10. Заруцкая Е. В. Определение эффективности реализации обратной связи между однокурсниками в обучении иностранному языку с позиции студента-получателя обратной связи //Педагогика. Вопросы теории и практики. - 2023. - Т. 8. - №. 9. - С. 960-966.

11. Кармалита А. В., Попова О. Н., Азбель А. А. Обзор современных исследований обратной связи в метаанализах Дж. Хэтти и последователей //Персонализированное образование: теория и практика. - 2022. - С. 170-180.

12. Коренев А. А. Обратная связь в обучении и педагогическом общении // Rhema. Рема. - 2018. - № 2. - URL: https://cyberleninka.rU/article/n/obratnaya-svyaz-v-obuchenii-i-pedagogicheskom-obs chenii (дата обращения: 04.03.2025).

13. Леонтьев А.Н. Деятельность. Сознание. Личность. М.: Политиздат, 1975. 302 с.

14. Ломов Б.Ф. Общение как проблема общей психологии // Методологические проблемы социальной психологии. - М.: Наука, 1975. - С. 124-135.

15. Патаракин Е. Д., Вачкова С. Н. Сетевой анализ коллективных действий над цифровыми образовательными объектами //Вестник Московского городского педагогического университета. Серия: Педагогика и психология. - 2019. - №. 4 (50). - С. 101-112.

16. Рубцов В.В. Основы социально-генетической психологии. — М.: Институт практической психологии; Воронеж: МОДЭК, 1996. — 384 с.

17. Рубцов В. В. (ред.) Коммуникативно-ориентированные образовательные среды. Психология проектирования : сб. ст. / Рос. акад. образования, Психол. ин-т, Лаб. психол. основ новых образоват. технологий. — М. : МГППУ, 1996.

18. Рубцов В. В. Культурно-историческая научная школа: проблемы, которые поставил Л.С. Выготский //Культурно-историческая психология. - 2016. - Т. 12.

- №. 3. - С. 4-14.

19. Славина Л.С. Индивидуальный подход к неуспевающим и недисциплинированным ученикам / Академия педагогических наук РСФСР, Институт психологии. - М.: Изд-во Академии педагогических наук РСФСР, 1958. - 212 с.

20. Совместная учебная деятельность и развитие детей / Коллективная монография. Под редакцией В.В. Рубцова, И.М. Улановской — М.: ФГБОУ ВО МГППУ, 2021.

— 352 с.

21. Стогниева О. Н. Использование практик взаимооценивания в курсе «Академическое письмо» на английском языке //Педагогика и психология образования. - 2024. - №. 2. - С. 48-68.

22. Уманский Л.И. Психология организаторской деятельности школьников: учебное пособие. - М.: Просвещение, 1980. - 160 с.

23. Цукерман Г. А. От умения сотрудничать к умению учить себя //Психологическая наука и образование. - 1996. - Т. 1. - №. 2.

24. Цукерман Г. А. Взаимодействие ребенка и взрослого, творящее зону ближайшего развития //Культурно-историческая психология. - 2006. - Т. 2. - №. 4. - С. 61-73.

25. Цукерман Г. А. Совместное учебное действие: решенные и нерешенные вопросы //Психологическая наука и образование. - 2020. - Т. 25. - №. 4. - С. 51-59.

26. Цукерман Г. А., Обухова О. Л. Обучение, которое ведет за собой развитие субъектности // Вестник Московского университета. 2024. № 4 (47). С. 129-149.

27. Эльконин Б. Д. Главная задача развивающего обучения // Опосредствование. Действие. Развитие. Ижевск: ERGO, 2010. С. 119-121.

28. Эльконин Д.Б. Избранные психологические труды. М., 1999.

29. Aben J. E. J., Timmermans A. C., Dingyloudi F., Strijbos J.-W. In the eye of the beholder: The relationship between perceived peer language skills, provided peer feedback and peer grading in secondary education // Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2023. № 77. С. 101248. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101248.

30. AbuSeileek A., Abualsha'r A. Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners' writing // Language Learning & Technology. 2014. Т. 18. № 1. С. 76-95. DOI: 10.10125/44355.

31. Ahmed R., Al-Kadi A. Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences // Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2021. С. 169-201. DOI: 10.32601/ejal.911245.

32. Aldabbus S., Almansouri E. Academic writing difficulties encountered by university EFL learners // British Journal of English Linguistics. - 2022. - Т. 10, № 3. - С. 1-11.

33. Alharbi M. A. Exploring the potential of Google Doc in facilitating innovative teaching and learning practices in an EFL writing course // Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 2020. Т. 14. № 3. С. 227-242. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2019.1572157.

34. Aljaafreh A., Nassaji H. Corrective feedback from a sociocultural perspective // Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications / ed. by H. Nassaji, E. Kartchava. Routledge, 2017. С. 60-74. DOI: 10.4324/9781315621432.

35. Ahlstrom, D. How to Publish in Academic Journals: Writing a Strong and Organized Introduction Section // Journal of International Business Studies. 2017. Т. 48. № 9. С. 1091-1094.

36. Ahlstrom D., Wang L. C. Getting a good start on your research: Writing up the paper's introduction //International Journal of Higher Education Management. - 2020. - Т. 6. - №. 2.

37. Alisha F., Safitri N., Santoso I., Siliwangi I. Students' difficulties in writing EFL // Professional Journal of English Education. - 2019. - Т. 2, № 1. - С. 20-25.

38. Anderson T. Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction // The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2003. T. 4, № 2. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149.

39. Andrade H.L. Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning // Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge, 2010. C. 90-105.

40. Andrews C., Wright S. E., Raskin H. Library Learning Spaces: Investigating Libraries and Investing in Student Feedback // Journal of Library Administration. 2016. T. 56. № 6. C. 647-672. DOI: 10.1080/01930826.2015.1105556.

41. Berndt M., Strijbos J.W., Fischer F. Effects of written peer-feedback content and sender's competence on perceptions, performance, and mindful cognitive processing // European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2018. T. 33. C. 31-49.

42. Biasutti M. A comparative analysis of forums and wikis as tools for online collaborative learning // Computers & Education. 2017. № 111. C. 158-171. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.006.

43. Bijami M., Kashef S. H., Nejad M. S. Peer Feedback in Learning English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages // Journal of Studies in Education. 2013. T. 3. № 4. C. 91. DOI: 10.5296/jse.v3i4.4314.

44. Birnholtz J., Ibara S. Tracking changes in collaborative writing: Edits, visibility and group maintenance // Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 2012. C. 809-818. DOI: 10.1145/2145204.2145325.

45. Blau I., Caspi A. What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs // Proceedings of the Chais Conference on Instructional Technologies Research. 2009. T. 12. № 1. C. 48-55. URL: http://telem-pub.openu.ac.il/users/chais/2009/noon/1_1.pdf.

46. Bolourchi A., Soleimani M. The impact of peer feedback on EFL learners' writing performance and writing anxiety // International Journal of Research in English Education. 2021. T. 6. № 1. C. 1-15.

47. Borthick A. F., Jones D. R., Wakai S. Designing Learning Experiences within Learners' Zones of Proximal Development (ZPDs): Enabling Collaborative Learning On-Site and Online //Journal of Information Systems. - 2003. - T. 17. - №. 1. - C. 107-134.

48. Bota A., Guerra J. Collaborative writing using Google Docs. Insights from writing projects in intermediate French classes // EDULEARN11 Proceedings. 2011. C. 6147-6154.

49. Boud D. (Ed.). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from & with each other. London: Routledge, 2013.

50. Boud, D., Molloy, E. Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. - London: Routledge, 2013.

51. Boud D., Molloy E. Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2013. T. 38, № 6. C. 698-712. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.

52. Bouzidi L., Jaillet A. Can online peer assessment be trusted? // Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2009. T. 12. № 4. C. 257-268.

53. Brodahl C., Hadjerrouit S., Hansen N. K. Collaborative writing with Web 2.0 technologies: Education students' perceptions // Journal of Information Technology Education. 2011. T. 10. C. IIP73-IIP103.

54. Brookhart S. M. Summative and Formative Feedback // B: Lipnevich A. A., Smith J. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. C. 52-78. DOI: 10.1017/9781316832134.005.

55. Brown G. T. L., Peterson E. R., Yao E. S. Student conceptions of feedback: Impact on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement // British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016. T. 86. № 4. C. 606-629. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12126.

56. Buelow J. R., Barry T., Rich L. E. Supporting learning engagement with online students //Online Learning. - 2018. - T. 22. - №. 4. - C. 313-340.

57. Bürgermeister A., Glogger-Frey I., Saalbach H. Supporting peer feedback on learning strategies: Effects on self-efficacy and feedback quality // Psychology Learning & Teaching. 2021. T. 20. № 3. C. 383-404. D0I:10.1177/14757257211016604

58. Campbell C.W., Batista B. To peer or not to peer: A controlled peer-editing intervention measuring writing self-efficacy in South Korean higher education // International Journal of Educational Research Open. 2023. T. 4. Article 100218. D0I:10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100218

59. Campbell C. W., Brandon M. W. Peer editing and writing proficiency: an experimental study in South Korean higher education // Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 2024. C. 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2024.2399701.

60. Cao S., Zhou S., Luo Y., Wang T., Zhou T., Xu Y. A review of the ESL/EFL learners' gains from online peer feedback on English writing //Frontiers in Psychology. - 2022. - T. 13. - C. 1035803.

61. Carless D. Differing perceptions in the feedback process // Studies in Higher Education. 2006. T. 31. № 2. C. 219-233. DOI:10.1080/03075070600572132

62. Carless D. From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes // Active Learning in Higher Education. 2022. T. 23. № 2. C. 143-153. DOI: 10.1177/1469787420945845.

63. Carless D., Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018. T. 43. № 8. C. 1315-1325. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.

64. Carless D., Salter D., Yang M., Lam J. Developing sustainable feedback practices // Studies in Higher Education. 2011. T. 36. № 4. C. 395-407. DOI: 10.1080/03075071003642449.

65. Chang C. Peer Review via Three Modes in an EFL Writing Course // Computers and Composition. 2012. T. 29. № 1. C. 63-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001.

66. Chen M., Aziz R. A., Turiman S. A comparative analysis of four-word lexical bundles used by postgraduate students in China and America // International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics. - 2024. - T. 14, № 2. - C. 20-30.

67. Chen J., Wang M., Kirschner P. A., Tsai C.-C. The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-Analysis // Review of Educational Research. 2018. T. 88. № 6. C. 799-843. DOI: 10.3102/0034654318791584.

68. Chen T. Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2016. T. 29. № 2. C. 365-397. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.960942.

69. Cheng K.-H., Liang J.-C., Tsai C.-C. Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students' writing performance during an online peer assessment activity // The Internet and Higher Education. 2015. № 25. C. 78-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001.

70. Cho Y. H., Cho K. Peer reviewers learn from giving comments // Instructional Science. 2011. T. 39. № 5. C. 629-643. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1.

71. Cho M. H., Cho Y. Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students' academic engagement in online learning: Mediating role of perceived online class goal

structures // The Internet and Higher Education. 2014. T. 21. C. 25-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008.

72. Cho K., MacArthur C. Student revision with peer and expert reviewing // Learning and Instruction. 2010. T. 20. № 4. C. 328-338. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006.

73. Cho K., MacArthur C. Learning by reviewing // Journal of Educational Psychology. 2011. T. 103. № 1. C. 73-84.

74. Cho K., Schunn C.D. Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system // Computers & Education. 2007. T. 48. № 3. C. 409-426.

75. Ciftci H., Kocoglu Z. Effects of Peer E-Feedback on Turkish EFL Students' Writing Performance // Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2012. T. 46. № 1. C. 61-84. DOI: 10.2190/EC.46.1.c.

76. Cizek G. J. An introduction to formative assessment: History, characteristics, and challenges // B: Andrade H. L., Bennett R. E. (Eds.), Handbook of Formative Assessment. Routledge, 2010. C. 3-17.

77. Cizek G. J., Andrade H. L., Bennett R. E. Formative assessment: History, definition, and progress // B: Bennett R. E. (Ed.), Handbook of Formative Assessment in the Disciplines. Routledge, 2019. C. 3-19.

78. Cizek G. J., Lim S. N. Formative assessment: An overview of history, theory and application // B: International Encyclopedia of Education (4th ed.). Elsevier, 2023. C. 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.09002-3.

79. Clabough E. B., Clabough S. W. Using rubrics as a scientific writing instructional method in early-stage undergraduate neuroscience study // Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education. 2016. T. 15. № 1. C. A85-A93.

80. Coffin C. et al. Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. -Routledge, 2005.

81. Coffin P. Implementing Collaborative Writing in EFL Classrooms: Teachers and Students' Perspectives // LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network. 2020. T. 13. № 1. C. 178-194.

82. Cortina J. M. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications // Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993. T. 78. № 1. C. 98-104. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.

83. Costley J., Zhang H., Courtney M., Shulgina G., Baldwin M., Fanguy M. Peer editing using shared online documents: The effects of comments and track changes on student L2 academic writing quality // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2023. C. 1-27. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2023.2233573.

84. Dao P. Effect of interaction strategy instruction on learner engagement in peer interaction // System. 2020. T. 91. C. 102244. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2020.102244.

85. Daoud J. I. Multicollinearity and Regression Analysis // Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2017. T. 949. C. 012009. DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/949/1/012009.

86. Dawadi S., Shrestha S., Giri R. A. Mixed-Methods Research: A Discussion on its Types, Challenges, and Criticisms // Journal of Practical Studies in Education. 2021. T. 2. № 2. C. 25-36. DOI: 10.46809/jpse.v2i2.20.

87. Dawson P., Henderson M., Mahoney P., Phillips M., Ryan T., Boud D., Molloy E. What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019. T. 44. № 1. C. 25-36. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877.

88. Diab N. M. Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students' revision of language errors in revised drafts // System. 2010. T. 38. № 1. C. 85-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.008.

89. Diab N.M. Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing // Assessing Writing. 2011. T. 16. № 4. C. 274-292. DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001

90. Dijks M.A., Brummer L., Kostons D. The anonymous reviewer: The relationship between perceived expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in higher education // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018. T. 43. № 8. C. 1258-1271. DOI:10.1080/02602938.2018.1447645

91. Dillenbourg P. What do you mean by collaborative learning? // B: Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Elsevier, 1999. C. 1-19.

92. Dillenbourg P. Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design // Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? / ed. by P. A. Kirschner. Open Universiteit Nederland, 2002. C. 61-91.

93. Dinsmore D. L., Parkinson M. M. What are confidence judgments made of? Students' explanations for their confidence ratings and what that means for calibration //

Learning and Instruction. 2013. № 24. C. 4-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.06.001.

94. Dishaw M., Eierman M. A., Iverson J. H., Philip G. C. Wiki or word? Evaluating tools for collaborative writing and editing // Journal of Information Systems Education. 2011. T. 22, № 1. C. 43.

95. Dizon G. A comparative study of Facebook vs. Paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2016. T. 29, № 8. C. 1249-1258. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2016.1266369

96. Donato R. Collective scaffolding in second language learning // Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. 1994. C. 33-56.

97. Dong Z., Gao Y., Schunn C. D. Assessing students' peer feedback literacy in writing: Scale development and validation // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2023. T. 48, № 8. C. 1103-1118. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2175781

98. Ebadi S., Rahimi M. Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners' academic writing skills: A mixed methods study // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2017. T. 30, № 8. C. 787-815. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056

99. Elachachi H. H. Exploring cultural barriers in EFL Arab learners' writing // Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. - 2015. - T. 199. - C. 129-136.

100. Ene E., Upton T. A. Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition // System. 2014. T. 46. C. 80-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011.

101. Er E., Dimitriadis Y., Gasevic D. A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: A theoretical framework // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2021. T. 46, № 4. C. 586-600. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497

102. Etikan I. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling // American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 2016. T. 5, № 1. C. 1. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

103. Eun, B., Knotek, S. E., Heining-Boynton, A. L. Reconceptualizing the zone of proximal development: The importance of the third voice // Educational Psychology Review. 2008. T. 20. C. 133-147. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-008-9064-1.

104. Fang Z. Demystifying academic writing: Genres, moves, skills, and strategies. -New York: Routledge, 2021.

105. Ferris D. R. L2 writers in higher education // Manchón R. M., Matsuda P. K. (Eds.). Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing. De Gruyter, 2016. C. 141-160. DOI: 10.1515/9781614511335-009

106. Filius R. M., De Kleijn R. A. M., Uijl S. G., Prins F. J., Van Rijen H. V. M., Grobbee D. E. Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs // Computers & Education. 2018. T. 125. C. 86-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.004

107. Fisher K., Phelps R., Ellis A. Group processes online: Teaching collaboration through collaborative processes // Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2000. T. 3, № 3. C. 484-495.

108. Fong C. J., Schallert D. L., Williams K. M., Williamson Z. H., Warner J. R., Lin S., Kim Y. W. When feedback signals failure but offers hope for improvement: A process model of constructive criticism // Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2018. T. 30. C. 42-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.014

109. Fong C. J., Warner J. R., Williams K. M., Schallert D. L., Chen L.-H., Williamson Z. H., Lin S. Deconstructing constructive criticism: The nature of academic emotions associated with constructive, positive, and negative feedback // Learning and Individual Differences. 2016. T. 49. C. 393-399. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.019

110. Forslind E.-L., Hrastinski S., Forsler I. Digital peer feedback on visual ideas: A study of eighth-grade students in visual art // Interactive Learning Environments. 2023. C. 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2164785

111. Forman E. A., Cazden C. B. Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction //Learning relationships in the classroom. -Routledge, 2013. - C. 189-206.

112. Frank M. C., Gibson E. Overcoming memory limitations in rule learning // Language, Learning, & Development. 2011. T. 7. C. 130-148. DOI: 10.1080/15475441.2010.512522.

113. Fransen J., Weinberger A., Kirschner P. A. Team effectiveness and team development in CSCL // Educational Psychologist. 2013. T. 48, № 1. C. 9-24. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2012.747947.

114. Fyfe E. R., Rittle-Johnson B. Feedback both helps and hinders learning: The causal role of prior knowledge // Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016. T. 108, № 1. C. 82-97. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000053

115. Gamberi C., Hall K. Undergraduates can publish too! A case study of a scientific team writing assignment leading to publication // International Journal of Science Education. 2019. T. 41, № 1. C. 48-63. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1531439

116. Gan M. J. S., Hattie J. Prompting secondary students' use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task // Instructional Science.

2014. T. 42, № 6. C. 861-878. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-014-9319-4

117. Gao Y., An Q., Schunn C. D. The bilateral benefits of providing and receiving peer feedback in academic writing across varying L2 proficiency // Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2023. T. 77. C. 101252. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101252

118. Gao Y., Schunn C. D. D., Yu Q. The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019. T. 44, № 2. C. 294-308. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075

119. Gaynor J. W. Peer review in the classroom: Student perceptions, peer feedback quality and the role of assessment // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020. T. 45, № 5. C. 758-775. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1697424

120. Geithner C.A., Pollastro A.N. Doing peer review and receiving feedback: Impact on scientific literacy and writing skills // Advances in Physiology Education. 2016. T. 40. № 1. C. 38-46. DOI:10.1152/advan.00071.2015

121. Gielen M., De Wever B. Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content // Computers in Human Behavior.

2015. T. 52. C. 315-325. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019

122. Gielen S., Peeters E., Dochy F., Onghena P., Struyven K. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning // Learning and Instruction. 2010. T. 20, № 4. C. 304-315. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007

123. Gogus A. Constructivist Learning // Seel N. M. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Springer US, 2012. C. 783-786. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_142

124. Golzar J., Noor S., Tajik O. Convenience Sampling // International Journal of Education Language Studies. 2022. T. 1, № 2. DOI: 10.22034/ijels.2022.162981

125. Griffith P. Impacts of online technology use in second language writing: A review of the literature // Reading Improvement. 2014. T. 51, № 3. C. 303-312.

126. Han Y., Xu Y. The development of student feedback literacy: The influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019. T. 45, № 5. C. 680-696. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1689545.

127. Hansford, D., Wylie, A. Evaluating online collaborative learning: A case study in increasing student participation // Challenging Futures - Changing Agendas in Teacher Education. - 2002.

128. Hakkarainen K. et al. Sociocultural perspectives on collaborative learning: Toward collaborative knowledge creation //The international handbook of collaborative learning. - Routledge, 2013. - C. 57-73.

129. Hartikainen S., Rintala H., Pylvas L., Nokelainen P. The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education // Education Sciences. 2019. T. 9, № 4. C. 276. DOI: 10.3390/educsci9040276

130. Hartley J. Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. - Routledge, 2008.

131. Hattie J., Clarke S. Visible Learning: Feedback. 1st ed. Routledge, 2018. DOI: 10.4324/9780429485480

132. Hattie J., Timperley H. The Power of Feedback // Review of Educational Research. 2007. T. 77, № 1. C. 81-112. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487

133. He W., Gao Y. Explicating peer feedback quality and its impact on feedback implementation in EFL writing // Frontiers in Psychology. 2023. T. 14. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1177094

134. Heim C. Tutorial facilitation in the humanities based on the tenets of Carl Rogers // Higher Education. 2012. T. 63, № 3. C. 289-298. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-011-9441-z.

135. Henri F. Computer conferencing and content analysis // Kaye A. R. (Ed.). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers. - Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 1992. P. 117-136. - DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-77684-7_8.

136. Hoogeveen M., Van Gelderen A. What Works in Writing With Peer Response? A Review of Intervention Studies With Children and Adolescents // Educational Psychology Review. 2013. T. 25, № 4. C. 473-502. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-013-9229-z

137. Hounsell D. Feedback in postgraduate online learning: Perspectives and practices // Online postgraduate education in a postdigital world: Beyond technology / ed. by T.

Fawns, G. Aitken, D. Jones. Springer, 2021. C. 39-62. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-77673-2_3.

138. Hu G. Culture and Peer Feedback // Hyland K., Hyland F. (Eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge Core, 2019. C. 45-63. DOI: 10.1017/9781108635547.005

139. Huisman B., Saab N., Van Den Broek P., Van Driel J. The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: A Meta-Analysis // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019. T. 44, № 6. C. 863-880. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

140. Huisman B., Saab N., Van Driel J., Van Den Broek P. Peer feedback on college students' writing: Exploring the relation between students' ability match, feedback quality and essay performance // Higher Education Research & Development. 2017. T. 36, № 7. C. 1433-1447. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1325854

141. Huisman B., Saab N., Van Driel J., Van Den Broek P. Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students' peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018. T. 43, №

6. C. 955-968. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318

142. Hyland K. Second language writing. Cambridge University Press, 2019. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511667251

143. Hyland K. Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? // English for Specific Purposes. - 2002. - T. 21, № 4. - C. 385-395. - DOI: 10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00028-X.

144. Hyland K., Hyland F. Feedback on second language students' writing // Language Teaching. 2006. T. 39, № 2. C. 83-101. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444806003399

145. Hyland F., Nicolás-Conesa F., Cerezo L. Key issues of debate about feedback on writing // Manchón R. M., Matsuda P. K. (Eds.). Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing. De Gruyter, 2016. C. 433-452. DOI: 10.1515/9781614511335-023

146. Irons A., Elkington S. Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. 2nd ed. Routledge, 2021. DOI: 10.4324/9781138610514

147. Ishtaiwa F. F., Aburezeq I. M. The impact of Google Docs on student collaboration: A UAE case study // Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2015. T.

7. C. 85-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.07.004

148. Janssen J., Kirschner P. A. Applying collaborative cognitive load theory to computer-supported collaborative learning: Towards a research agenda // Educational

Technology Research and Development. 2020. Т. 68, № 2. С. 783-805. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-019-09729-5.

149. Jeong H., Hmelo-Silver C. An overview of CSCL methodologies (No. 1) // International Society of the Learning Sciences. 2010. URL: https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/2774 (дата обращения: 11.03.2025).

150. Jiang W., Eslami Z. R. Effects of computer-mediated collaborative writing on individual EFL writing performance // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2021. Т. 35, № 9. С. 2701-2730. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1893753.

151. Jones S. R., Torres V., Arminio J. Negotiating the Complexities of Qualitative Research in Higher Education: Essential Elements and Issues. 3rd ed. Routledge, 2021. DOI: 10.4324/9781003090694

152. Juwah C., ed. Interactions in online learning: Implications for theory and practice. New York: Routledge, 2006. DOI: 10.4324/9780203003435.

153. KAIST. About KAIST [Электронный ресурс]. 2024a. URL: https://www.kaist.ac.kr/en/html/kaist/01.html#0112 (дата обращения: 11.03.2025).

154. KAIST. Vision 2031. Global Value-Creative Leading University [Электронный ресурс]. 2024b. URL: https://www.kaist.ac.kr/en/html/kaist/011301.html (дата обращения: 11.03.2025).

155. Kang E., Han Z. The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis // The Modern Language Journal. 2015. Т. 99, № 1. С. 1-18. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12189

156. Kasch J., Van Rosmalen P., Löhr A., Klemke R., Antonaci A., Kalz M. Students' perceptions of the peer-feedback experience in MOOCs // Distance Education. 2021. Т. 42, № 1. С. 145-163. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2020.1869522

157. Kaufman J. H., Schunn C. D. Students' perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work // Instructional Science. 2011. Т. 39, № 3. С. 387-406. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6

158. Kerman N. T., Banihashem S. K., Noroozi O. The Relationship Among Students' Attitude Towards Peer Feedback, Peer Feedback Performance, and Uptake // Noroozi O., De Wever B. (Eds.). The Power of Peer Learning. Springer International Publishing, 2023. С. 347-371. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-29411-2_16

159. Kerman N. T., Noroozi O., Banihashem S. K., Karami M., Biemans H. J. A. Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing //

Interactive Learning Environments. 2024. T. 32, № 2. C. 614-626. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914

160. Kessler G., Bikowski D., Boggs J. Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects // Language Learning & Technology. 2012. T. 16, № 1. C. 91-109.

161. Kim S., Chang C.-H. Japanese L2 learners' translanguaging practice in written peer feedback // International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2020. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2020.1760201.

162. King A. ASK to THINK-TEL WHY: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning // Educational Psychologist. 1997. T. 32. № 4. C. 221-235.

163. Kirschner F., Paas F., Kirschner P. A. A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks // Educational Psychology Review. 2009. T. 21. C. 31-42. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2.

164. Kirschner P. A., Sweller J., Kirschner F., Zambrano R. J. From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory // International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2018. T. 13. C. 213-233. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-018-9277-y.

165. Koenka A. C., Linnenbrink-Garcia L., Moshontz H., Atkinson K. M., Sanchez C. E., Cooper H. A meta-analysis on the impact of grades and comments on academic motivation and achievement: A case for written feedback // Educational Psychology. 2021. T. 41, № 7. C. 922-947. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2019.1659939

166. Kulkarni C. E., Bernstein M. S., Klemmer S. R. PeerStudio: rapid peer feedback emphasizes revision and improves performance // Proceedings of the second (2015) ACM conference on learning@ scale. 2015. P. 75-84.

167. Kuyyogsuy S. The Pilot Study of Students' English Writing Improvement through Online Peer Feedback during the Covid-19 Pandemic in the Southern Border Province of Thailand, Yala Rajabhat University // World Journal of English Language. 2022. T. 12, № 5. C. 217. DOI: 10.5430/wjel.v12n5p217

168. Laal M., Laal M. Collaborative learning: what is it? //Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. - 2012. - T. 31. - C. 491-495. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092

169. Lam J. Collaborative learning using social media tools in a blended learning course //Hybrid Learning: Innovation in Educational Practices: 8th International

Conference, ICHL 2015, Wuhan, China, July 27-29, 2015, Proceedings 8. - Springer International Publishing, 2015. - C. 187-198.

170. Langfeldt L., Reymert I., Aksnes D. W. The role of metrics in peer assessments // Research Evaluation. 2021. T. 30, № 1. C. 112-126. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvaa032

171. Lange C., Costley J., Fanguy M. Collaborative group work and the different types of cognitive load // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2021. T. 58, № 4. C. 377-386. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2020.1788970.

172. Lantolf J. P., Thorne S. L., Poehner M. E. Sociocultural theory and second language development // Theories in second language acquisition / ed. by B. van Patten, J. Williams. New York: Routledge, 2015. C. 207-226.

173. Latifi S., Noroozi O., Hatami J., Biemans H. J. A. How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2021. T. 58, № 2. C. 195-206. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005

174. Latifi S., Noroozi O., Talaee E. Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students' argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021. T. 52, № 2. C. 768-784. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13054

175. Latifi S., Noroozi O., Talaee E. Worked example or scripting? Fostering students' online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning // Interactive Learning Environments. 2023. T. 31, № 2. C. 655-669. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032

176. Lee H. The effects of university English writing classes focusing on self and peer review on learner autonomy // Journal of Asia TEFL. 2017. T. 14, № 3. C. 464. DOI: 10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.3.6.464.

177. Li L., Liu X., Steckelberg A. L. Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010. T. 41, № 3. C. 525-536. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x

178. Li S. Corrective feedback and affect // Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications / ed. by H. Nassaji, E. Kartchava. Routledge, 2017. C. 41-55. DOI: 10.4324/9781315621432.

179. Lillis T., Curry M. J. Academic writing for publication in a multilingual world // Manchón R. M., Matsuda P. K. (Eds.). Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing. De Gruyter, 2016. C. 201-222. DOI: 10.1515/9781614511335-012

180. Lin L., Evans S. Structural patterns in empirical research articles: A cross-disciplinary study // English for Specific Purposes. 2012. T. 31, № 3. C. 150-160. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.10.002

181. Lipnevich A. A., Panadero E. A Review of Feedback Models and Theories: Descriptions, Definitions, and Conclusions // Frontiers in Education. 2021. № 6. C. 720195. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2021.720195.

182. Lipnevich A. A., Smith J. K. Effects of differential feedback on students' examination performance // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2009. T. 15, № 4. C. 319-333. DOI: 10.1037/a0017841.

183. Lipnevich A. A., Smith J. K. Student - Feedback Interaction Model: Revised // Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2022. № 75. C. 101208. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101208.

184. Liu J., Edwards J. G. H. Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press, 2018.

185. Liu J., Sadler R. W. The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing // Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 2003. T. 2, № 3. C. 193-227. DOI: 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0.

186. Liu N., Carless D. Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment // Teaching in Higher Education. 2006. T. 11, № 3. C. 279-290. DOI: 10.1080/13562510600680582.

187. Liu O. L., Roohr K. C. Investigating Ten-Year Trends of Learning Outcomes at Community Colleges // ETS Research Report Series. 2013. № 2013(2). DOI: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2013.tb02341.x.

188. Long J. A. Interactions: Comprehensive, User-Friendly Toolkit for Probing Interactions. 2019. URL: https://cran.r-project.org/package=interactions.

189. Lu Q., Zhu X., Cheong C. M. Understanding the Difference Between Self-Feedback and Peer Feedback: A Comparative Study of Their Effects on Undergraduate Students' Writing Improvement // Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. № 12. C. 739962. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739962.

190. Ludvigsen S. R., Arnseth H. C. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning // Technology Enhanced Learning / Eds. E. Duval, M. Sharples, R. Sutherland. Springer International Publishing, 2017. C. 47-58. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-02600-8_5.

191. Ludvigsen S. R., M0rch A. I. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Basic Concepts, Multiple Perspectives, and Emerging Trends // International Encyclopedia

of Education. Elsevier, 2010. C. 290-296. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00493-0.

192. Lundstrom K., Baker W. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing // Journal of Second Language Writing. 2009. T. 18. № 1. C. 30-43. DOI:10.1016/jjslw.2008.06.002

193. Maarof N., Yamat H., Li K. L. Role of teacher, peer and teacher-peer feedback in enhancing ESL students' writing // World Applied Sciences Journal. 2011. T. 15, № 1. C. 29-35.

194. Mabbott A., Bull S. Student Preferences for Editing, Persuading, and Negotiating the Open Learner Model // Intelligent Tutoring Systems / Eds. M. Ikeda, K. D. Ashley, T.-W. Chan. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. T. 4053. C. 481-490. DOI: 10.1007/11774303_48.

195. Maier U., Wolf N., Randler C. Effects of a computer-assisted formative assessment intervention based on multiple-tier diagnostic items and different feedback types // Computers & Education. 2016. № 95. C. 85-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.12.002.

196. Mandouit L., Hattie J. Revisiting "The Power of Feedback" from the perspective of the learner // Learning and Instruction. 2023. № 84. C. 101718. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101718.

197. Martin I. A., Sippel L. Providing vs. receiving peer feedback: Learners' beliefs and experiences // Language Teaching Research. 2024. T. 28, № 3. C. 1033-1054. DOI: 10.1177/13621688211024365.

198. Mayer R. E., Alexander P. A. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (0 ed.). Routledge, 2016. DOI: 10.4324/9781315736419.

199. McCarthy K. S., Roscoe R. D., Allen L. K., Likens A. D., McNamara D. S. Automated writing evaluation: Does spelling and grammar feedback support high-quality writing and revision? // Assessing Writing. 2022. № 52. C. 100608. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2022.100608.

200. McInnerney J. M., Roberts T. S. Online learning: Social interaction and the creation of a sense of community //Journal of Educational Technology & Society. -2004. - T. 7. - №. 3. - C. 73-81.

201. McConlogue T. Making judgements: Investigating the process of composing and receiving peer feedback // Studies in Higher Education. 2015. T. 40, № 9. C. 1495-1506. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.868878.

202. McMillan J. H. The practical implications of educational aims and contexts for formative assessment // Handbook of formative assessment. Routledge, 2010. C. 41-58.

203. Mercer-Mapstone L. D., Matthews K. E. Student perceptions of communication skills in undergraduate science at an Australian research-intensive university // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017. T. 42, № 1. C. 98-114. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1084492.

204. Miao J., Chang J., Ma L. Teacher-student interaction, student-student interaction and social presence: their impacts on learning engagement in online learning environments // The Journal of Genetic Psychology. - 2022. - Vol. 183, No. 6. - P. 514-526.

205. Min H.T. The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality // Journal of Second Language Writing. 2006. T. 15. № 2. C. 118-141. D0I:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003

206. Molloy E., Boud D., Henderson M. Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020. T. 45, № 4. C. 527-540. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955.

207. Moore M. G. Three types of interaction // The American Journal of Distance Education. 1989. T. 3, № 2. C. 1-6. DOI: 10.1080/08923648909526659.

208. Moradi M. R., Karimpour Z. The effect of online peer feedback on the academic writing ability of Iranian EFL learners // International Education Studies. 2012. T. 5, № 2. C. 113-117. DOI: 10.5539/ies.v5n2p113.

209. Mueller J. S., Melwani S., Goncalo J. A. The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas // Psychological Science. 2012. T. 23, № 1. C. 13-17. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611421018.

210. Nair P. K. R. et al. Organization of a research paper: The IMRAD format //Scientific writing and communication in agriculture and natural resources. - 2014. -C.13-25.

211. Nandi D., Hamilton M., Harland J. Evaluating the quality of interaction in asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses // Distance Education. 2012. T. 33, № 1. C. 5-30. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2012.667957.

212. Nassaji H., Swain M. A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random vs. negotiated help on the learning of English articles // Language Awareness. 2000. T. 9. № 1. C. 34-51. DOI:10.1080/09658410008667135

213. Nelson G.L., Carson J.G. ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups // Journal of Second Language Writing. 1998. T. 7. № 2. C. 113-131.

214. Nelson M.M., Schunn C.D. The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance // Instructional Science. 2009. T. 37. № 4. C. 375-401. DOI:/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x

215. Newell C., Bain A. Building Shared Mental Models // Team-Based Collaboration in Higher Education Learning and Teaching / ed. by C. Newell, A. Bain. Springer Singapore, 2018. C. 43-49. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-1855-9_5.

216. Nicol D. From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2010. T. 35. № 5. C. 501-517.

217. Nicol D. The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2021. T. 46, № 5. C. 756-778. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314.

218. Nicol D., Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice // Studies in Higher Education. 2006. T. 31, № 2. C. 199-218. DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090.

219. Nicol D., Thomson A., Breslin C. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2014. T. 39, № 1. C. 102-122. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.

220. Nieminen J. H., Carless D. Feedback literacy: A critical review of an emerging concept // Higher Education. 2023. T. 85, № 6. C. 1381-1400. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-022-00895-9.

221. Nilson L. B. Improving Student Peer Feedback // College Teaching. 2003. T. 51, № 1. C. 34-38. DOI: 10.1080/87567550309596408.

222. Nokes-Malach T. J., Richey J. E., Gadgil S. When Is It Better to Learn Together? Insights from Research on Collaborative Learning // Educational Psychology Review. 2015. T. 27, № 4. C. 645-656. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8.

223. Nordrum L., Evans K., Gustafsson M. Comparing student learning experiences of in-text commentary and rubric-articulated feedback: Strategies for formative assessment // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2013. T. 38, № 8. C. 919-940. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2012.758229.

224. Noroozi O. Considering students' epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game //

Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2018. T. 55, № 3. C. 357-365. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112.

225. Noroozi O., Banihashem S. K., Biemans H. J. A., Smits M., Vervoort M. T. W., Verbaan C.-L. Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students' argumentative essay quality // Education and Information Technologies. 2023. T. 28, № 10. C. 12757-12784. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y.

226. Noroozi O., Banihashem S. K., Taghizadeh Kerman N., Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh M., Babaee M., Ashrafi H., Biemans H. J. A. Gender differences in students' argumentative essay writing, peer review performance and uptake in online learning environments // Interactive Learning Environments. 2023. T. 31, № 10. C. 6302-6316. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887.

227. Noroozi O., Biemans H., Mulder M. Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay // The Internet and Higher Education. 2016. № 31. C. 20-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002.

228. Noroozi O., Hatami J., Bayat A., Van Ginkel S., Biemans H. J. A., Mulder M. Students' online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter? // Interactive Learning Environments. 2020. T. 28, № 6. C. 698-712. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200.

229. Novakovich J. Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback // Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2016. T. 32, № 1. C. 16-30. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12114.

230. Ocampo J. C., Panadero E., Zamorano D., Sánchez-Iglesias I., Diez Ruiz F. The effects of gender and training on peer feedback characteristics // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2024. T. 49, № 4. C. 539-555. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2023.2286432.

231. Öchsner A. Introduction to Scientific Publishing: Backgrounds, Concepts, Strategies. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-38646-6.

232. Ohme J., Araujo T., Boeschoten L., Freelon D., Ram N., Reeves B. B., Robinson T. N. Digital Trace Data Collection for Social Media Effects Research: APIs, Data Donation, and (Screen) Tracking // Communication Methods and Measures. 2024. T. 18, № 2. C. 124-141. DOI: 10.1080/19312458.2023.2181319.

233. Olsen J. K., Rummel N., Aleven V. It is not either or: An initial investigation into combining collaborative and individual learning using an ITS // International Journal

of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 2019. Т. 14, № 3. С. 353-381. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-019-09307-0.

234. Paltridge B. Academic writing // Language Teaching. - 2004. - Т. 37, № 2. - С. 87-105. - DOI: 10.1017/S0261444804002216.

235. Panadero E., Jonsson A., Strijbos J.-W. Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning Through Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment: Guidelines for Classroom Implementation // Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge of Implementation / Eds. D. Laveault, L. Allal. Springer International Publishing, 2016. Т. 4. С. 311-326. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_18.

236. Panadero E., Lipnevich A. A. A review of feedback models and typologies: Towards an integrative model of feedback elements // Educational Research Review. 2022. № 35. С. 100416. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100416.

237. Paradita L. I., Rizka H., Murtafi'ah B., Mauludin L. A., Prasetyo G. Bilingual feedback and translanguaging in online EFL mentoring: mediating academic writing for undergraduate theses // Cogent Education. - 2025. - Т. 12, № 1. - Статья 2510010. - DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2025.2510010.

238. Park J. Effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Through the lens of Korean tertiary writing classroom // Journal of Asia TEFL. 2018. Т. 15, № 2. С. 429. DOI: 10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.11.429.

239. Patarakin E., Visser L. New Tools for Learning-The Use of Wiki's //Trends and issues in distance education: International Perspectives. 2nd Edition. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. - 2012. - С. 287-299.

240. Patchan M.M., Hawk B., Stevens C.A., Schunn C.D. The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions // Instructional Science. 2013. Т. 41. С. 381-405. DOI:10.1007/s11251-012-9236-3

241. Patchan M. M., Schunn C. D. Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers' texts of varying quality // Instructional Science. 2015. Т. 43, № 5. С. 591-614. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x.

242. Patchan M. M., Schunn C. D., Correnti R. J. The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students' implementation rate and quality of revisions // Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016. Т. 108, № 8. С. 1098-1120. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000103.

243. Perron B. E., Sellers J. Book Review: A Review of the Collaborative and Sharing Aspects of Google Docs // Research on Social Work Practice. 2011. T. 21, № 4. C. 489-490. DOI: 10.1177/1049731510391676.

244. Peters O., Körndle H., Narciss S. Effects of a formative assessment script on how vocational students generate formative feedback to a peer's or their own performance // European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2018. T. 33, № 1. C. 117-143. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0344-y.

245. Petrovic J., Pale P., Jeren B. Online formative assessments in a digital signal processing course: Effects of feedback type and content difficulty on students learning achievements // Education and Information Technologies. 2017. T. 22, № 6. C. 3047-3061. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-016-9571-0.

246. Pham H. T. P. Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2022. T. 35, № 9. C. 2112-2147. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530.

247. Pham V. P. H., Bui T. K. Genre-based approach to writing in EFL contexts // World Journal of English Language. - 2022. - T. 11, № 2. - C. 95-106. - DOI: 10.5430/wjel.v11n2p95.

248. Pham V. P. H., Luong T. K. P., Tran T. T. O., Nguyen Q. G. Should Peer E-Comments Replace Traditional Peer Comments? // International Journal of Instruction. 2020. T. 13, № 1. C. 295-314. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2020.13120a.

249. Phuket P. R. N., Bidin S. J. Native language interference in writing: A case study of Thai EFL learners // International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research. - 2016. - T. 4, № 16. - C. 25-36.

250. Qureshi M. A., Khaskheli A., Qureshi J. A., Raza S. A., Yousufi S. Q. Factors affecting students' learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement // Interactive Learning Environments. - 2023. - Vol. 31, No. 4. - P. 2371-2391. - DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886.

251. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021. URL: https://www.R-project.org/.

252. Rahimi M., Fathi J. Exploring the impact of wiki-mediated collaborative writing on EFL students' writing performance, writing self-regulation, and writing self-efficacy: A mixed methods study // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2022. T. 35, № 9. C. 2627-2674. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1888753.

253. Rasheed R. A., Kamsin A., Abdullah N. A. Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review // Computers & Education. 2020. T. 144. C. 103701. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701.

254. Rodríguez-González E., Castañeda M. E. The effects and perceptions of trained peer feedback in L2 speaking: Impact on revision and speaking quality // Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 2018. T. 12, № 2. C. 120-136. DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2015.1108978.

255. Rogers C. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1969.

256. Rogers C. The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning // Supporting Lifelong Learning. 2002. T. 1. C. 25-39.

257. Rollinson P. Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class // ELT Journal. 2005. T. 59. № 1. C. 23-30.

258. Rubin B., Katznelson H., Perpignan H. Learning for life: The potential of academic writing courses for individual EFL learners // System. - 2005. - T. 33, № 1. - C. 17-27. - DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2004.06.008.

259. Ruegg R. The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students' writing self-efficacy // The Language Learning Journal. 2018. T. 46, № 2. C. 87-102.

260. Ryan T., Henderson M. Feeling feedback: Students' emotional responses to educator feedback // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018. T. 43. № 6. C. 880-892. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456

261. Sadler D.R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems // Instructional Science. 1989. T. 18. № 2. C. 119-144.

262. Saeli H., Cheng A. Peer Feedback, Learners' Engagement, and L2 Writing Development: The Case of a Test-Preparation Class // TESL-EJ. 2021. T. 25, № 2. C. 1-18.

263. Salas E., Sims D. E., Burke C. S. Is there a "big five" in teamwork? // Small Group Research. 2005. T. 36, № 5. C. 555-599. DOI: 10.1177/1046496405277134.

264. Santana A. D. Online Readers' Comments Represent New Opinion Pipeline // Newspaper Research Journal. 2011. T. 32, № 3. C. 66-81. DOI: 10.1177/073953291103200306.

265. Santos M., Serrano S. L., Manchon R. M. The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction // International Journal of English Studies. 2010. T. 10, № 1. C. 131-154. DOI: 10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011.

266. Schillings M., Roebertsen H., Savelberg H., Van Dijk A., Dolmans D. Improving the understanding of written peer feedback through face-to-face peer dialogue: Students' perspective // Higher Education Research & Development. 2021. T. 40, № 5. C. 1100-1116. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1798889.

267. Schimel J., Saunders S., Arnold J. Scientific Writing Made Easy: A Step-by-Step Guide to Undergraduate Writing in the Biological Sciences // Ecology and Evolution. 2016. T. 6. № 21. C. 7516-7525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1258.

268. Schunk D.H., Pajares F. The development of academic self-efficacy // Development of achievement motivation / eds. A. Wigfield, J.S. Eccles. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002. C. 15-31.

269. Shang H.-F. An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing // Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2017. T. 29, № 3. C. 496-513. DOI: 10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0.

270. Shang H.-F. Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance // Interactive Learning Environments. 2022. T. 30, № 1. C. 4-16. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601.

271. Shintani N. The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2016. T. 29, № 3. C. 517-538. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.993400.

272. Shulgina G., Costley J., Shcheglova I., Zhang H., Sedova N. Online peer editing: The influence of comments, tracked changes and perception of participation on students' writing performance // Smart Learning Environments. 2024. T. 11, № 1. C. 30. DOI: 10.1186/s40561-024-00315-8.

273. Shulgina G., Fanguy M., Zhang H., Courtney M., Baldwin M., Costley J. The moderating effects of total comments on the relationship between comment implementation and online peer-supported writing performance // Computers & Education. 2024. T. 219. C. 105104. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105104.

274. Shute V. J. Focus on Formative Feedback // Review of Educational Research. 2008. T. 78, № 1. C. 153-189. DOI: 10.3102/0034654307313795.

275. Shute V. J., Kim Y. J. Formative and Stealth Assessment // Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology / Eds. J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, M. J. Bishop. Springer New York, 2014. C. 311-321. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5 25.

276. Simonsmeier B. A., Peiffer H., Flaig M., Schneider M. Peer Feedback Improves Students' Academic Self-Concept in Higher Education // Research in Higher Education. 2020. T. 61, № 6. C. 706-724. DOI: 10.1007/s11162-020-09591-y.

277. Sj0berg S. Constructivism and Learning // International Encyclopedia of Education. Elsevier, 2010. C. 485-490. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00467-X.

278. Spearman C. Correlation calculated from faulty data // British Journal of Psychology. 1910. T. 3, № 3. C. 271-295.

279. Smagorinsky, P. Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development // Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2018. T. 16. C. 70-75. - DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.10.009.

280. Sprouls K., Mathur S. R., Upreti G. Is Positive Feedback a Forgotten Classroom Practice? Findings and Implications for At-Risk Students // Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 2015. T. 59, № 3. C. 153-160. DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2013.876958.

281. Stahl G. Contributions to a Theoretical Framework for CSCL // Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Routledge, 2023. C. 62-71.

282. Stahl G., Koschmann T., Suthers D. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: An Historical Perspective, 2006.

283. Steen-Utheim A., Wittek A. L. Dialogic feedback and potentialities for student learning // Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. 2017. T. 15. C. 18-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.06.002.

284. Stobart G. Becoming proficient: An alternative perspective on the role of feedback // The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback / Eds. A. A. Lipnevich, J. K. Smith. Cambridge University Press, 2018. C. 29-51. DOI: 10.1017/9781316832134.005.

285. Storch N., Wigglesworth G. Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case Studies // Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 2010. T. 32, № 2. C. 303-334. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263109990532.

286. Strijbos J.-W., Narciss S., Dunnebier K. Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? // Learning and Instruction. 2010. T. 20, № 4. C. 291-303. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008.

287. Strijbos J.-W., Wichmann A. Promoting learning by leveraging the collaborative nature of formative peer assessment with instructional scaffolds // European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2018. T. 33, № 1. C. 1-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0353-x.

288. Suthers D. D. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning // Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning / Ed. N. M. Seel. Springer US, 2012. C. 719-722. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_389.

289. Sutton P. Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting // Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2012. T. 49, № 1. C. 31-40. DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2012.647781.

290. Suwantarathip O., Wichadee S. The Effects of Collaborative Writing Activity Using Google Docs on Students' Writing Abilities // Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET. 2014. T. 13, № 2. C. 148-156.

291. Taber K. S. The Use of Cronbach's Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education // Research in Science Education. 2018. T. 48, № 6. C. 1273-1296. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.

292. Tajabadi A., Ahmadian M., Dowlatabadi H., Yazdani H. EFL learners' peer negotiated feedback, revision outcomes, and short-term writing development: The effect of patterns of interaction // Language Teaching Research. 2023. T. 27, № 3. C. 689-717. DOI: 10.1177/1362168820951207.

293. Tan J. S. H., Chen W. Peer feedback to support collaborative knowledge improvement: What kind of feedback feed-forward? // Computers & Education. 2022. T. 187. C. 104467. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104467.

294. Topping K. Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities // Review of Educational Research. 1998. T. 68, № 3. C. 249-276. DOI: 10.3102/00346543068003249.

295. Topping K. Peers as a source of formative assessment // Handbook of formative assessment. Routledge, 2010. C. 61-74.

296. Topping, K. J. Peer assessment // Theory into Practice. 2009. T. 48, № 1. C. 20-27. - DOI: 10.1080/00405840802577569.

297. Tseng S.-C., Tsai C.-C. On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course // Computers & Education. 2007. T. 49, № 4. C. 1161-1174. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007.

298. Udvari-Solner A. Collaborative Learning // Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning / Ed. N. M. Seel. Springer US, 2012. C. 631-634. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_817.

299. Valero Haro A., Noroozi O., Biemans H. J. A., Mulder M. The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students' argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology // Journal of Biological Education. 2019. T. 53, № 4. C. 390-398. DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132.

300. Valero Haro A., Noroozi O., Biemans H. J. A., Mulder M., Banihashem S. K. How does the type of online peer feedback influence feedback quality, argumentative essay writing quality, and domain-specific learning? // Interactive Learning Environments. 2023. T. 31. № 9. C. 5459-5478. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2215822.

301. Valsiner J., Van der Veer R. The social mind: Construction of the idea. Cambridge University Press, 2000.

302. Van Beuningen C. G., De Jong N. H., Kuiken F. Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing // Language Learning. 2012. T. 62, № 1. C. 1-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x.

303. Van Den Berg I., Admiraal W., Pilot A. Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback // Teaching in Higher Education. 2006. T. 11, № 2. C. 135-147. DOI: 10.1080/13562510500527685.

304. Van Der Kleij F. M., Feskens R. C. W., Eggen T. J. H. M. Effects of Feedback in a Computer-Based Learning Environment on Students' Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis // Review of Educational Research. 2015. T. 85, № 4. C. 475-511. DOI: 10.3102/0034654314564881.

305. Van Gennip N. A. E., Segers M. S. R., Tillema H. H. Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions // Learning and Instruction. 2010. T. 20, № 4. C. 280-290. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010.

306. Van Heerden M., Bharuthram S. Knowing me, knowing you: The effects of peer familiarity on receiving peer feedback for undergraduate student writers // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2021. T. 46, № 8. C. 1191-1201. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1863910.

307. Van Popta E., Kral M., Camp G., Martens R. L., Simons P. R.-J. Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider // Educational Research Review. 2017. T. 20. C. 24-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003.

308. Van Zundert M., Sluijsmans D., Van Merrienboer J. Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions // Learning and Instruction. 2010. T. 20, № 4. C. 270-279. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.

309. Vella E. J., Turesky E. F., Hebert J. Predictors of academic success in web-based courses: Age, GPA, and instruction mode // Quality Assurance in Education. 2016. T. 24, № 4. C. 586-600.

310. Viberg O., Baars M., Mello R. F., Weerheim N., Spikol D., Bogdan C., Gasevic D., Paas F. Exploring the nature of peer feedback: An epistemic network analysis approach // Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2024. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.13035.

311. Vuogan A., Li S. Examining the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing: A Meta-Analysis // TESOL Quarterly. 2023. T. 57, № 4. C. 1115-1138. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.3178.

312. Vygotsky L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 1978.

313. Vygotsky L. S. Thought and language. MIT press, 1986.

314. Wagner E. In support of a functional definition of interaction // The American Journal of Distance Education. 1994. № 8. C. 6-29. DOI: 10.1080/08923649409526852.

315. Wang Y.-C. Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: A new approach for advancing innovative and active learning in an ESP context // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2015. T. 28, № 6. C. 499-512. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.881386.

316. Weigle S. C. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

317. Weng, F., Zhao, C. G., Chen, S. Effects of peer feedback in English writing classes on EFL students' writing feedback literacy // Assessing Writing. 2024. T. 61. Article 100874. - DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2024.100874.

318. Wichmann A., Funk A., Rummel N. Leveraging the potential of peer feedback in an academic writing activity through sense-making support // European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2018. T. 33, № 1. C. 165-184. DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0348-7.

319. Wiliam D. An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment // Handbook of formative assessment. Routledge, 2010. C. 18-40.

320. Wiliam D. Feedback: At the Heart of - But Definitely Not All of - Formative Assessment // The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback / Eds. A. A. Lipnevich, J. K. Smith. Cambridge University Press, 2018. C. 3-28. DOI: 10.1017/9781316832134.003.

321. Willse J. T. CTT: Classical Test Theory Functions. 2018. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CTT.

322. Winstone N. E., Nash R. A., Parker M., Rowntree J. Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes // Educational Psychologist. 2017. T. 52, № 1. C. 17-37. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.

323. Wisniewski B., Zierer K., Hattie J. The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research // Frontiers in Psychology. 2020. T. 10. C. 3087. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087.

324. Wood J. Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2022. T. 47, № 3. C. 327-346. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544.

325. Woodrich M., Fan Y. Google Docs as a Tool for Collaborative Writing in the Middle School Classroom // Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 2017. T. 16. C. 391-410. DOI: 10.28945/3870.

326. Wu W. C. V., Petit E., Chen C. H. EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2015. T. 28, № 1. C. 58-80. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.937442.

327. Wu Y., Schunn C. D. From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions // Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020. T. 60. C. 101826. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826.

328. Wu Y., Schunn C. D. When peers agree, do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback // Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020. T. 62. C. 101897. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101897.

329. Wu Y., Schunn C. D. The Effects of Providing and Receiving Peer Feedback on Writing Performance and Learning of Secondary School Students // American Educational Research Journal. 2021. T. 58, № 3. C. 492-526. DOI: 10.3102/0002831220945266.

330. Wu Y., Schunn C. D. Passive, active, and constructive engagement with peer feedback: A revised model of learning from peer feedback // Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2023. T. 73. C. 102160. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102160.

331. Xiong Y., Schunn C. D., Wu Y. What predicts variation in reliability and validity of online peer assessment? A large-scale cross-context study // Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2023. T. 39, № 6. C. 2004-2024. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12861.

332. Yaccob N. S., Yunus M. M. Students' perspectives on challenges and solutions to learning English in Malaysian ESL context // Journal of Language and Communication (JLC). 2019. T. 6, № 2. C. 487-496.

333. Yadin A., Or-Bach R. The importance of emphasizing individual learning in the "collaborative learning era" // Journal of Information Systems Education. 2010. T. 21, № 2. C. 185-194.

334. Yalch M. M., Vitale E. M., Kevin Ford J. Benefits of Peer Review on Students' Writing // Psychology Learning & Teaching. 2019. T. 18, № 3. C. 317-325. DOI: 10.1177/1475725719835070.

335. Yanagida T. misty: Miscellaneous Functions 'T. Yanagida'. R package version 0.4.11. 2023. URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=misty.

336. Yen Y.-C., Hou H.-T., Chang K. E. Applying role-playing strategy to enhance learners' writing and speaking skills in EFL courses using Facebook and Skype as learning tools: A case study in Taiwan // Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2015. T. 28, № 5. C. 383-406. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.839568.

337. Yu F. Y., Wu C. P. Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality // Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2013. T. 16, № 1. C. 332-341.

338. Yu Q., Schunn C. D. Understanding the what and when of peer feedback benefits for performance and transfer // Computers in Human Behavior. 2023. T. 147. C. 107857. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107857.

339. Yu S. Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: Sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges // Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education. 2021. T. 46, № 1. C. 36-53. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2020.1742872.

340. Yu S., Hu G. Understanding university students' peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study // Assessing Writing. 2017. T. 33. C. 25-35.

341. Yu S., Lee I. An analysis of Chinese EFL students' use of first and second language in peer feedback of L2 writing // System. 2014. T. 47. C. 28-38. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2014.08.007.

342. Zedadra A., Lafifi Y., Zedadra O. Interpreting learners' traces in collaborative learning environments //2014 4th International Symposium Isko-Maghreb: Concepts and Tools for Knowledge Management (isko-maghreb). - IEEE, 2014. - C. 1-8. DOI: 10.1109/ISK0-Maghreb.2014.7033472

343. Zhan Y., Yan Z., Wan Z. H., Wang X., Zeng Y., Yang M., Yang L. Effects of online peer assessment on higher-order thinking: A meta-analysis // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2023. T. 54, № 4. C. 817-835. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13310.

344. Zhang Z., Hyland K. Corrective feedback in computer-mediated versus face-to-face environments // Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications / Eds. H. Nassaji, E. Kartchava. Routledge, 2017. C. 80-94. DOI: 10.4324/9781315621432.

345. Zhang F., Schunn C. D., Baikadi A. Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews // Instructional Science. 2017. T. 45, № 5. C. 679-707. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6.

346. Zhang H., Shulgina G., Fanguy M., Costley J. Online peer editing: Effects of comments and edits on academic writing skills // Heliyon. 2022. T. 8, № 7. C. e09822. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09822.

347. Zhang Z. Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions // Assessing Writing. 2020. T. 43. C. 100439. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439.

348. Zheng B., Lawrence J., Warschauer M., Lin C.-H. Middle School Students' Writing and Feedback in a Cloud-Based Classroom Environment // Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 2015. T. 20, № 2. C. 201-229. DOI: 10.1007/s10758-014-9239-z.

349. Zhu Q., Carless D. Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning // Higher Education Research & Development. 2018. T. 37, № 4. C. 883-897. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417.

350. Zhu W., Mitchell D. A. Participation in Peer Response as Activity: An Examination of Peer Response Stances From an Activity Theory Perspective // TESOL Quarterly. 2012. T. 46, № 2. C. 362-386. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.22.

351. Zimmerman B.J. Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective // Handbook of self-regulation / eds. M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, M. Zeidner. San Diego: Academic Press, 2000. C. 13-39.

352. Zong Z., Schunn C. D., Wang Y. What aspects of online peer feedback robustly predict growth in students' task performance? // Computers in Human Behavior. 2021. T. 124. C. 106924. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106924.