A Meta-Synthesis of Technology-Supported Peer Feedback in ESL/EFL Writing Classes Research: A Replication of Chen’s Study

Abstract

Research on the efficiency of technology-supported peer feedback activities in the ESL/EFL writing classroom has led to contradictory results. Some studies claim that it improves learners’ motivation and attitudes toward writing while others mention technical difficulties or a lack of training as drawbacks affecting learners’ experiences and thus learning. This ongoing debate calls for a meta-synthesis of studies published between 2011 and 2022. Replicating Chen’s study, the authors identified 20 primary studies and analyzed them under the lens of Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory constant comparison method. The findings revealed that students’ preferences, capabilities, and attitudes regarding the features of the technology used in classes; the contextual factors, suitable online platforms, and training on the provision of proper feedback; and the use of the selected technologies can determine the extent to which implementing technology-supported peer feedback activities would be successful.

Full text

Citation: Cuocci, Sophie, Padideh
Fattahi Marnani, Iram Khan, and
Shayla Roberts. 2023. A Meta-
Synthesis of Technology-Supported
Peer Feedback in ESL/EFL Writing
Classes Research: A Replication of
Chen’s Study. Languages 8: 114.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
languages8020114
Academic Editor:
Jeanine Treffers-Daller
Received: 24 January 2023
Revised: 5 April 2023
Accepted: 6 April 2023
Published: 21 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
languages
Article
A Meta-Synthesis of Technology-Supported Peer Feedback
in ESL/EFL Writing Classes Research: A Replication of
Chen’s Study
Sophie Cuocci, Padideh Fattahi Marnani * , Iram Khan and Shayla Roberts
School of Teacher Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
*Correspondence: padideh.fattahi@ucf.edu
Abstract:
Research on the efficiency of technology-supported peer feedback activities in the ESL/EFL
writing classroom has led to contradictory results. Some studies claim that it improves learners’
motivation and attitudes toward writing while others mention technical difficulties or a lack of
training as drawbacks affecting learners’ experiences and thus learning. This ongoing debate calls
for a meta-synthesis of studies published between 2011 and 2022. Replicating Chen’s study, the
authors identified 20 primary studies and analyzed them under the lens of Glaser and Strauss’s
grounded theory constant comparison method. The findings revealed that students’ preferences,
capabilities, and attitudes regarding the features of the technology used in classes; the contextual
factors, suitable online platforms, and training on the provision of proper feedback; and the use of
the selected technologies can determine the extent to which implementing technology-supported
peer feedback activities would be successful.
Keywords:
technology-supported; peer feedback; grounded theory; ESL/EFL writing; computer-
mediated communication
1. Introduction
Peer feedback or peer assessment is becoming increasingly common in higher edu-
cation (Van den Berg et al. 2006). According to Dochy et al. (1999), peer feedback is an
educational arrangement in which the quality of the student’s work is assessed by their
fellow students. As described by Hansen and Liu (2005), learners provide feedback in the
capacities of an editor, tutor, or teacher by taking on their roles and employing similar
strategies and techniques (p. 31). Specifically, based on past relevant research, the process
of teaching writing has shifted from being product-oriented to being more process-oriented
(Hedgecock 2005). A process-oriented approach to writing encompasses different phases,
such as prewriting, writing, editing, revising, feedback, and rewriting activities (Ferris and
Hedgcock 2013). By adapting this approach, educators use a variety of techniques to teach
English writing as a second language (ESL) and a foreign language (EFL). Peer feedback,
one of these techniques, was introduced from L1 to L2 in the 1980s and has been extensively
used in EFL/ESL classes since the 1990s (Zamel 1982;Chen 2016).
In recent years, different lenses of evidence-based theoretical frameworks such as
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (SCT), the zone of proximal development (ZPD), and col-
laborative learning approaches have been used to analyze and understand peer feedback
practices in ESL/EFL writing classrooms. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes
social interaction and collaborative dialogue. According to the sociocultural perspective,
people rely on different tools to develop connections and a sense of belonging to society.
Furthermore, language is considered the most potent instrument of communication created
by human culture, which fosters problem-solving and higher-order thinking through mean-
ingful interactions (Lantolf 2000). Collaboration and peer interactions through different
feedback patterns (corrective and negotiated) promote learning with the revision of written
Languages 2023,8, 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8020114 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

Languages 2023,8, 114 2 of 19
text and enable language learners to assist their peers’ L2 development (Tajabadi et al. 2020).
Vygotsky’s ZPD theory focuses on the language learners’ achievements and signifies what
learners can achieve with or without a teacher or peer support. Chew et al. (2016) suggested
that effective assistance enhances learners’ learning experiences if they are aided by peers
rather than working independently. Additionally, it enables teachers or skilled peers to
observe the learners’ engagement with the feedback (how learners receive and respond to
it) by analyzing their revised written work (Storch 2018). The evidence-based framework
focuses on improving learners’ feedback literacy. This model views peer feedback as a
writing process that offers opportunities for planning, translating, and reviewing academic
writing (Yu and Liu 2021). In other words, traditional teacher feedback is insufficient; peer
feedback in a technology-supported learning environment assists learners in developing
their writing proficiency (Kostopoulou and O’Dwyer 2021). The collaborative learning
theory is based on the idea of social interaction (Vygotsky and Cole 1978), in which lan-
guage learners work collaboratively to complete a task in a face-to-face or virtual platform.
This theoretical framework enables peers to exchange dialogic feedback during multiple
phases (planning, discussion, and translation) of construction (Er et al. 2021). At each
stage, learners work together as a team while providing and receiving feedback. It is
an effective way to build a meaningful interactive space where knowledge is exchanged
during peer-to-peer collaboration.
During the 1970s, most types of feedback in L1 composition classes consisted of the
production of multiple drafts through which the teachers made suggestions for revisions
(Ravand and Rasekh 2011). Due to the popularity of interactionist theories, peer feedback
practices became more common as they considered not only mechanical accuracy, control
of language, and development of meaning, but also the specific audience that might read
the learners’ writing (Ravand and Rasekh 2011). Teachers began integrating conventional
feedback with technology-supported feedback as technology gained popularity and became
more accessible. Teachers started using blogs (Kelly and Safford 2009), both synchronous
and asynchronous computer-mediated peer feedback such as email or online discussion
boards (Chen 2016), audio-visual feedback (Kim 2018), or even software with automated-
writing feedback features such as Write to Learn (Hyland and Hyland 2019). It has been
demonstrated that students also tend to perceive the use of technology-supported feedback
as beneficial and comforting as well as able to strengthen relationships and promote active
learning regardless of whether the feedback is provided using social media or via screencast
(Ko 2019;Thompson and Lee 2012;Warnock 2008;Anson et al. 2016). However, other
studies have found that traditional face-to-face peer feedback tends to be more helpful and
of higher quality compared to online feedback because of the pressure of immediacy and
the clues given by peers’ body language and facial expressions (Ahmed and Abdu 2021;
Liu and Sadler 2003;Ho 2015). In addition, according to these findings, the extra steps
needed when using digital tools can be seen as cumbersome and discriminating against
students who lack access outside of the class (Cunningham 2019).
The present study intends to replicate Chen’s (2016) synthesis of 20 qualitative in-
quiries in 20 qualitative or mixed-research design primary studies. Chen’s (2016) study
covered studies published between 1990 and 2010. The aim of this study is to investigate
technology-supported peer feedback studies in ESL/EFL writing classrooms published
between the years 2011 and 2022. Adopting a similar approach to Chen’s (2016) method,
the authors of this study relied on the constant comparative method of the grounded theory
(GT) to analyze the discussion sections of the selected 20 studies (Glaser and Strauss 1967).
Based on the newly collected evidence and given the use of GT as a research methodology,
the authors developed a new grounded theory as opposed to testing or verifying any
preconceived hypothesis (Glaser 1998).
Therefore, the research questions shaping this article are the following:
(1)
What are the characteristics of technology-supported peer-feedback activities found
in the primary studies from 2011 to 2022?

Languages 2023,8, 114 3 of 19
(2) What are the technologies used in computer-mediated peer interactions, and what are
their advantages and disadvantages? In what ways do these activities affect students’
perceptions and attitudes?
(3) What are the main themes emerging from the GT analysis, and what is the metatheory
for the synthesis?
2. Literature Review
The use of computer technology has been significant in L2 writing instructions during
two major eras. Firstly, in the cognitive era of the 1980s, word processing was acknowledged
as a tool for making revisions (Pennington 1993;Warschauer 2010). Secondly, in the socio-
cognitive era of the 1990s, computer-mediated communication was considered a practical
tool for the social construction of meaning (Kitade 2000;Warschauer 2010). After 2000,
new technology tools such as blogs (Xu and Yu 2018;Lin 2015), Google Docs (Pham 2020),
Turnitin (Li and Li 2017), Moodle (Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes 2012), Office Word
(Ho 2012), Wiki tools (Woo et al. 2013), and Edmodo (Kayacan and Razı 2017) emerged to
enable the teaching and learning of L2 writing. The central question in the studies regarding
the effects of computer-mediated peer feedback is whether using these technologies is better
than the traditional ways of providing peer feedback (Chen 2016). Before explaining further
grounded meta-synthesis on technology-supported peer feedback, an outline of the recent
findings in this field is presented below.
Empirical studies on online peer feedback have shown the effectiveness of technology-
supported peer feedback on students’ writing quality and its ability to provide better
local and global revisions (Huisman et al. 2019;Noroozi and Hatami 2018;Chen 2016;
Novakovich 2016;Pham 2020). Additionally, peer feedback can assist students in acquiring
domain-specific knowledge (Noroozi et al. 2016). Ciftci and Kocoglu (2012) found that
online peer feedback is an efficient way to reflect on students’ writing, and teachers can
benefit from the feedback and design activities that enable students to read, respond to,
and revise their peers’ essays.
Studies on the relationship between online feedback and its influence on revisions
among EFL writers indicate that online peer feedback has the greatest impact on students’
revision quality (Liou and Peng 2009;Tuzi 2004). This is because online peer feedback is
perceived as more welcoming and encouraging, and less intimidating (Ma019). However,
some studies show contradictory findings. For instance, while Chen’s (2016) qualitative syn-
thesis indicated that online peer feedback may not always lead to positive outcomes, other
studies suggest that the effectiveness of online peer feedback is dependent on factors such
as the students’ linguistic limitations (Schultz 2000;Tolosa et al. 2013) and peers’ confidence
and strategies (DiGiovanni and Nagaswami 2001). On the other hand, Pham (2021) found
no statistical differences in the effects of lecturer and peer online comments on student
revisions. Similarly, Vaezi and Abbaspour (2015) found no statistically significant difference
between the effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer-written corrective feedback
in terms of writing achievement. Lastly, some studies indicated that technology-supported
peer feedback may have detrimental effects on students and their writing performance.
The negative impacts of technology-assisted peer feedback on learners, their attitudes, and
perceptions have primarily centered on the absence of in-person interaction and insuffi-
cient language proficiency to give feedback on peers’ writing
(Ho 2012,
2015;Lin 2015;
Kitchakarn 2013;Li and Li 2017). Other challenges encountered include technical difficul-
ties, anxiety, discourteous remarks, reduced engagement in online discussions (compared
to teacher-led discussions), the absence of nonverbal cues (such as tone of voice, gestures,
and facial expressions), and concerns about losing face.
In 2016, Chen conducted a meta-analysis of 95 articles related to computer-mediated
peer review in ESL/EFL that were published between 1990 and 2010. The study’s results
were organized into four categories: computer-mediated peer feedback characteristics,
which encompassed factors such as interaction, language use, discourse patterns, students’
roles, and teachers’ roles, the advantages and disadvantages of computer-mediated peer

Languages 2023,8, 114 4 of 19
feedback, including technical, affective, and practical issues, a comparison of synchronous
and asynchronous computer-mediated peer feedback and their functions, and, lastly, im-
plications for future technology-supported peer feedback research, including pedagogy,
grouping, and training. Chen’s study suggests that the year 2000 marked a significant shift
towards incorporating technology-supported peer feedback activities into ESL/EFL writing
instruction. Incorporating technology into peer feedback activities provided students with
increased access to written discourse, which indirectly enhanced their skills and strategies
for written communication. Furthermore, the issues that are often present in traditional
face-to-face peer writing groups, such as off-topic discussions, individual domination, and
unequal participation, were less significant in computer-mediated interactions.
Chen (2016) predicted that with the emergence of technologies such as Facebook,
Twitter, and Wikis, peer interactions will gradually shift from face-to-face to computer-
mediated platforms after 2010. The level of students’ computer literacy will partially
replace their oral proficiency and affect their involvement in peer interactions in computer-
mediated writing classrooms. As a result, text revision and the quality and quantity of peer
interactions generated from technology-supported peer feedback may differ from those
generated from face-to-face peer feedback. Therefore, more scientific research is necessary
to compare traditional peer feedback with technology-based peer feedback or to compare
different types of technology-supported peer feedback to determine their effectiveness.
Replicating Chen’s (2016) study, this study tries to conduct comparative reviews of the
studies published from 2011 to 2022 on the characteristics of computer-mediated peer
feedback activities in ESL/EFL writing courses.
3. Methodology
3.1. The Data Collection Stage
This meta-synthesis consists of primary research studies selected by the authors after
the conduction of an exhaustive search of the literature through diverse academic sources
from the year 2011 to 2022. The aforementioned search included review articles, references
in studies, computerized bibliographic databases, relevant peer-reviewed journals, and the
World Wide Web.
3.2. Literature Searching Steps
Since the current study aims to replicate Chen (2016), the search process adopted by
the authors started with the adoption of the relevant keywords and subject words.
Step 1: The following relevant keywords and subject words were used for the literature
search:
(1)
Peer feedback/peer response/peer review/peer editing/peer interaction;
(2)
Peer feedback (and the interchangeable items in item (1) + ESL/EFL writing);
(3)
Peer cooperation + ESL/EFL writing;
(4)
Peer feedback (and the interchangeable terms in item (1) + training in ESL/EFL
writing);
(5)
Online (computer-mediated, technology-enhanced, synchronous, and asynchronous)
+ peer feedback (the interchangeable terms in item (1) + ESL/EFL writing).
Step 2: Computerized bibliographic database search.
Based on the authors’ access to resources and the current state of the databases orig-
inally mentioned in Chen’s study, the following databases were used for the literature
search in order to identify eligible studies:
(1)
Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC);
(2)
Social Science Citation Index (SSCI);
(3)
Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI);
(4)
Academic Search Premier (EBSCO HOST);
(5)
Cambridge Core;
(6)
Project Muse;
(7)
JSTOR;

Languages 2023,8, 114 5 of 19
(8)
Directory of Open Access Journals.
After launching several searches, utilizing the relevant keywords and subject words
mentioned in Step 1, the authors obtained a cumulative result of 314 articles from the eight
aforementioned databases.
Step 3: Major ESL/EFL refereed journals search.
The third step consisted of identifying articles published in the 30 following academic
journals, considered major sources based on their significance in the ESL and Technology in
Education fields: the Journal of Educational Technology & Society, the JALT CALL Journal,
the Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, the Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
Computers and Composition, an International Journal for Teachers of Writing, Computer
Assisted Language Learning, CALICO Journal, the Journal of Educational Computing Re-
search, the Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, Journal of Educational
Technology and Society, Computers & Composition, the Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, Educational Technology Research & Development, IJCALLT, the Indonesian
Journal of English Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics, the International Journal Of
Emerging Technologies In Learning, English Language Teaching, the Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, Language Learning & Technology, the ReCALL Journal, System,
TESOL Quarterly, Applied Linguistics, ELT Journal, Language Teaching Research, Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition, TESOL Canada Journal, Language Teaching, IRAL
Journal, and Language Teaching and Learning.
Step 4: World Wide Web Search.
The final step of the search for eligible published studies consisted of browsing the
World Wide Web, notably the Google academic search engine (https://scholar.google.com/
accessed on 1 November 2022) which compiles academic studies, in order to identify
additional journals, such as the TESL-EJ, and studies that were potentially not uncovered
during Step 3.
3.3. The Data Evaluation Stage
Out of the 314 cumulative results from the searches in each aforementioned database,
the authors conducted an initial screening in order to identify studies that met the following
criteria:
(1)
The studies had to be published or completed between 2011 and 2022 and had to take
place in ESL/EFL writing classrooms.
(2) The instructors of the studies had to employ at least one type of technology (computer-
mediated) mode of peer-feedback activities in the writing class.
The authors retained 33 articles which then had to pass a second screening process
consisting of Chen’s inclusion criteria 3 and 4.
(3)
The studies had to use a qualitative or a mixed research design including qualitative
analysis.
(4)
Similar to Chen’s study, the qualitative data found in each article had to meet five
criteria, adopted from the Qualitative Research Guidelines of Journals of Language
Learning and Technology and TESOL Quarterly:
(a)
The articles contained thorough descriptions of the research contexts and
participants.
(b) The procedures of data collection and data analysis had to be fully described.
(c) The articles’ findings, limitations, and implications were described.
(d)
A description of a clear and salient organization of patterns should be included
in the data analysis.
(e)
The findings had to be interpreted holistically, and the writers had to trace
the meaning of patterns throughout all of the contexts in which they were
entrenched.

Languages 2023,8, 114 6 of 19
The evaluation conducted by the three researchers according to the inclusion criteria
led to the retention of 20 studies which formed the body of research for this grounded
meta-synthesis.
Of the 20 studies, 6 studies employed a qualitative research design, and 14 employed
a mixed-method research design (Table 1).
Table 1. The types of research design in the selected studies.
Type of Research Design Studies
Qualitative research design
1. (Ciftci and Kocoglu 2012)
2. (Nguyen 2012)
3. (Lin et al. 2013)
4. (Saeed et al. 2018)
5. (Xu and Yu 2018)
6. (Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022)
Mixed-method research design
1. (Yang and Wu 2011)
2. (Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes 2012)
3. (Chen 2012)
4. (Ho 2012)
5. (Kitchakarn 2013)
6. (Woo et al. 2013)
7. (Lin 2015)
8. (Hussin et al. 2015)
9. (Ho 2015)
10.
(Kayacan and Razı 2017)
11.
(Li and Li 2017)
12.
(Abdullah et al. 2018)
13.
(Colpitts and Past 2019)
14.
(Pham 2020)
3.4. Coding the Literature
Procedures of Coding for the Two Main Coders. In the coding procedure, the constant
comparative method of qualitative analysis by Glaser and Strauss (1967) was employed. To
enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings of the study, the coding was
performed by two of the four researchers, both TESOL specialists and experts in teaching
different English skills in ESL and EFL classes. All four authors are skilled qualitative
researchers and have been previously involved in coding and analyzing qualitative data. In
the first stage of the coding procedure, two of the researchers randomly selected 5 studies
among the 20 studies retrieved from the databases and journals and began the data analysis
procedure separately. This stage consisted of coding, memo writing, and sorting the
categories. Then, the two researchers met face-to-face and discussed the coding procedures
that were conducted separately and independently. During the discussions, they compared
each individual code, the memos written while coding the data, clustered categories, their
various dimensions, and the characteristics of the selected 5 studies. After three face-to-face
discussions that each lasted at least 90 min, the two researchers agreed on and established
a model of coding and analysis to analyze the rest of the 15 studies. The coding procedure
for the rest of the studies was performed independently by the two researchers and lasted
one month. After finishing the coding, analyzing, and sorting of the categories separately,
the two researchers met again and compared their findings (which included codes, memos,
subcategories, and core categories). In case any discrepancies were found between the two
analyses, the two researchers discussed the rationale for the specific code or category and
decided to keep only one. In order to add to the reliability of the findings, the other two
researchers went over all 20 studies and reviewed the core categories and subcategories.
In case of any ambiguity, the four researchers met and discussed the issue and, if needed,
revised the codes or categories.

Languages 2023,8, 114 7 of 19
Coding Procedures of Grounded Theory. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the
constant comparative method of analysis consists of four main stages: (1) data collection,
(2) coding, (3) comparing, and (4) theory building. The analyst starts with data collection
which involves collecting data from various sources. In this study, the data were collected
from 20 articles about CMC peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes. The second stage is
coding, substantive and theoretically, each incident into the categories to which it potentially
belongs. In the third stage of the analysis, the analyst compares the coded data to identify
the broader categories. Finally in the last stage, based on the patterns and relationships
identified in the previous stage, the researcher builds a theory to explain the data and
make sense of the findings. This theory may be revised as the analysis continues. Figure 1
illustrates the four stages of the grounded theory.
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
reliability of the findings, the other two researchers went over all 20 studies and reviewed
the core categories and subcategories. In case of any ambiguity, the four researchers met
and discussed the issue and, if needed, revised the codes or categories.
Coding Procedures of Grounded Theory. According to Glaser and Strauss (1967), the con-
stant comparative method of analysis consists of four main stages: (1) data collection, (2)
coding, (3) comparing, and (4) theory building. The analyst starts with data collection
which involves collecting data from various sources. In this study, the data were collected
from 20 articles about CMC peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes. The second stage is
coding, substantive and theoretically, each incident into the categories to which it poten-
tially belongs. In the third stage of the analysis, the analyst compares the coded data to
identify the broader categories. Finally in the last stage, based on the paerns and rela-
tionships identified in the previous stage, the researcher builds a theory to explain the
data and make sense of the findings. This theory may be revised as the analysis continues.
Figure 1 illustrates the four stages of the grounded theory.
Figure 1. The four stages of the grounded theory.
Coding, Interpreting, and Building Theory Stages. The substantive coding process refers
to the process of categorizing and organizing data into themes or concepts that relate to
the central phenomenon studied. This study started by identifying the commonalities in
the ‘slices of data’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967) through the open coding process in the find-
ing and discussion sections of the 20 articles. These commonalities are called the ‘catego-
ries’ and have their own specific properties (see Figure 2). During theoretical coding,
which refers to the process of developing a theory based on the data that has been col-
lected and analyzed, the authors interpreted the properties of emerging categories, iden-
tified the ‘relations’ among them, and found the building blocks of the final theory of this
meta-synthesis. The process of open, substantive, and theoretical coding was repeated by
incidents or ‘slices of data’ in the theoretical sampling step until we reached the theoretical
saturation (Glaser and Strauss 1967). The last step before formulating the theory was den-
sifying the concepts from the substantive and theoretical coding in the last steps. The re-
sult is a coherent substantive theory that is applicable to this area of inquiry (Fernandez
et al. 2002). Figure 2 illustrates the steps and processes in building the grounded theory.
Figure 1. The four stages of the grounded theory.
Coding, Interpreting, and Building Theory Stages. The substantive coding process refers
to the process of categorizing and organizing data into themes or concepts that relate to the
central phenomenon studied. This study started by identifying the commonalities in the
‘slices of data’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967) through the open coding process in the finding and
discussion sections of the 20 articles. These commonalities are called the ‘categories’ and
have their own specific properties (see Figure 2). During theoretical coding, which refers to
the process of developing a theory based on the data that has been collected and analyzed,
the authors interpreted the properties of emerging categories, identified the ‘relations’
among them, and found the building blocks of the final theory of this meta-synthesis. The
process of open, substantive, and theoretical coding was repeated by incidents or ‘slices of
data’ in the theoretical sampling step until we reached the theoretical saturation (Glaser and
Strauss 1967). The last step before formulating the theory was densifying the concepts from
the substantive and theoretical coding in the last steps. The result is a coherent substantive
theory that is applicable to this area of inquiry (Fernandez et al. 2002). Figure 2illustrates
the steps and processes in building the grounded theory.
Languages 2023, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
Figure 2. Steps in building a grounded theory (Lehmann 2001; Fernandez et al. 2002 p. 114).
4. Coding Results
In total, the two coders created 297 initial codes, which led to 13 subcategories and 3
core categories as shown in Table 2. The three core categories included: (1) characteristics
of technology-supported peer-feedback activities, (2) perceptions and effects of technol-
ogy-supported peer-feedback activities, and (3) pedagogical implications of technology-
supported peer-feedback activities. In the first core category, the authors identified six
subcategories, which were: the categories of CMC, local and global feedback and revi-
sions, the dichotomy of peer and teacher feedback, revision-oriented and non-revision-
oriented feedback, the importance of collaboration, and the dichotomy of online and face-
to-face peer feedback. In the second core category, the subcategories of the influence of
the (online) audience, effects of blended learning feedback approaches (including sequen-
tial/combined face-to-face and online), the advantages and disadvantages of technology-
supported peer-feedback activities, and the effects of CMC on students’ perception/ai-
tudes were discussed. Finally, in the third core category, the importance of training, con-
textual factors and taking dynamic and recursive perspectives, and the pedagogical im-
plications of technology-supported peer-feedback activities were the subcategories that
the coders discussed.
Of the 20 primary studies, the predominant subcategories included: (1) the categories
of CMC (endorsed by 20 studies), (2) the pedagogical implications of technology-sup-
ported peer-feedback activities (endorsed by 20 studies), (3) the advantages and disad-
vantages of technology-supported peer-feedback activities (endorsed by 18 studies), and
(4) the effects of CMC on students’ perception/aitude (endorsed by 17 studies). The fol-
lowing subcategories included: (5) the importance of contextual factors and taking dy-
namic and recursive perspectives (endorsed by 11 studies), (6) local and global feedback
and revisions (endorsed by 10 studies), (7) the importance of training (endorsed by 7 stud-
ies), and (8) the dichotomy of online and face-to-face peer feedback (endorsed by 7 stud-
ies). These were followed by the less-predominant subcategories: (9) revision-oriented and
non-revision-oriented feedback (endorsed by 6 studies), (10) the dichotomy of peer and
teacher feedback (endorsed by 5 studies), (11) the importance of collaboration (endorsed
by 4 studies), (12) the influence of the (online) audience (endorsed by 3 studies), and (13)
the effects of blended learning feedback approaches (including sequential/combined face-
to-face and online) (endorsed by 3 studies). The core categories, subcategories, and studies
endorsing the categories are listed in Table 2.
Figure 2. Steps in building a grounded theory (Lehmann 2001;Fernandez et al. 2002, p. 114).

Languages 2023,8, 114 8 of 19
4. Coding Results
In total, the two coders created 297 initial codes, which led to 13 subcategories and
3 core categories as shown in Table 2. The three core categories included: (1) characteristics
of technology-supported peer-feedback activities, (2) perceptions and effects of technology-
supported peer-feedback activities, and (3) pedagogical implications of technology-supported
peer-feedback activities. In the first core category, the authors identified six subcategories,
which were: the categories of CMC, local and global feedback and revisions, the dichotomy
of peer and teacher feedback, revision-oriented and non-revision-oriented feedback, the
importance of collaboration, and the dichotomy of online and face-to-face peer feedback. In
the second core category, the subcategories of the influence of the (online) audience, effects
of blended learning feedback approaches (including sequential/combined face-to-face
and online), the advantages and disadvantages of technology-supported peer-feedback
activities, and the effects of CMC on students’ perception/attitudes were discussed. Finally,
in the third core category, the importance of training, contextual factors and taking dynamic
and recursive perspectives, and the pedagogical implications of technology-supported
peer-feedback activities were the subcategories that the coders discussed.
Of the 20 primary studies, the predominant subcategories included: (1) the categories
of CMC (endorsed by 20 studies), (2) the pedagogical implications of technology-supported
peer-feedback activities (endorsed by 20 studies), (3) the advantages and disadvantages
of technology-supported peer-feedback activities (endorsed by 18 studies), and (4) the
effects of CMC on students’ perception/attitude (endorsed by 17 studies). The following
subcategories included: (5) the importance of contextual factors and taking dynamic and
recursive perspectives (endorsed by 11 studies), (6) local and global feedback and revisions
(endorsed by 10 studies), (7) the importance of training (endorsed by 7 studies), and (8) the
dichotomy of online and face-to-face peer feedback (endorsed by 7 studies). These were
followed by the less-predominant subcategories: (9) revision-oriented and non-revision-
oriented feedback (endorsed by 6 studies), (10) the dichotomy of peer and teacher feedback
(endorsed by 5 studies), (11) the importance of collaboration (endorsed by 4 studies), (12)
the influence of the (online) audience (endorsed by 3 studies), and (13) the effects of blended
learning feedback approaches (including sequential/combined face-to-face and online)
(endorsed by 3 studies). The core categories, subcategories, and studies endorsing the
categories are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. The core categories and subcategories.
Core Categories Subcategories Studies Endorsing the Subcategory
Core Category A Subcategories of Core Category A
Characteristics of technology-
supported peer-feedback activities
1. Categories of CMC (20) *
Yang and Wu (2011); Colpitts and Past (2019); Xu and Yu
(2018); Lin et al. (2013); Chen (2012); Pham (2020); Kayacan
and Razı (2017); Ciftci and Kocoglu (2012); Saeed et al.
(2018); Lin (2015); Li and Li (2017); Kitchakarn (2013); Woo
et al. (2013); Nguyen (2012); Saglamel and Çetinkaya (2022);
Abdullah et al. (2018); Hussin et al. (2015); Ho (2015); Ho
(2012); Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes (2012)
2. Local and global feedback and
revisions (10) *
Yang and Wu (2011); Colpitts and Past (2019); Pham (2020);
Kayacan and Razı (2017); Saeed et al. (2018); Li and Li
(2017); Woo et al. (2013); Saglamel and Çetinkaya (2022);
Ho (2015); Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes (2012)
3. The dichotomy of peer and teacher
feedback (5) *
Kayacan and Razı (2017); Lin (2015); Woo et al. (2013);
Abdullah et al. (2018); Hussin et al. (2015)
4. Revision-oriented and
non-revision-oriented feedback (6) *
Saeed et al. (2018); Li and Li (2017); Woo et al. (2013);
Nguyen (2012); Ho (2015); Belén Díez-Bedmar and
Pérez-Paredes (2012)
5. The importance of collaboration (4) * Saeed et al. (2018); Saglamel and Çetinkaya (2022);
Abdullah et al. (2018); Hussin et al. (2015)
6. The dichotomy of online and
face-to-face peer feedback (4) *
Pham (2020); Ciftci and Kocoglu (2012); Saeed et al. (2018);
Ho (2015)

Languages 2023,8, 114 9 of 19
Table 2. Cont.
Core Categories Subcategories Studies Endorsing the Subcategory
Core Category B Subcategories of Core Category B
Perceptions and effects of technology-
supported peer-feedback activities.
The influence of the (online) audience (3) *
Kayacan and Razı (2017); Ciftci and Kocoglu (2012); Saeed
et al. (2018)
Perceptions and effects of
technology-supported
peer-feedback activities.
Core Categories
1. The effects of blended learning feedback
approaches (including sequential/
combined face-to-face and online) (3) *
Yang and Wu (2011); Colpitts and Past (2019); Pham (2020)
2. The advantages and disadvantages of
technology-supported peer-feedback
activities (18) *
Yang and Wu (2011); Colpitts and Past (2019); Xu and Yu
(2018); Lin et al. (2013); Chen (2012); Pham (2020); Ciftci
and Kocoglu (2012); Saeed et al. (2018); Lin (2015); Li and
Li (2017); Kitchakarn (2013); Woo et al. (2013); Saglamel
and Çetinkaya (2022); Abdullah et al. (2018); Hussin et al.
(2015); Ho (2015); Ho (2012); Belén Díez-Bedmar and
Pérez-Paredes (2012)
3. The effects of CMC on students’
perception/attitudes (17) *
Yang and Wu (2011); Colpitts and Past (2019); Lin et al.
(2013); Chen (2012); Pham (2020); Kayacan and Razı (2017);
Saeed et al. (2018); Lin (2015); Li and Li (2017); Kitchakarn
(2013); Woo et al. (2013); Nguyen (2012); Saglamel and
Çetinkaya (2022); Abdullah et al. (2018); Hussin et al.
(2015); Ho (2015); Ho (2012)
Core Category C Subcategories of Core Category C
Pedagogical implications of
technology-supported peer feedback
activities
The importance of training (7) *
Colpitts and Past (2019); Xu and Yu (2018); Lin et al. (2013);
Chen (2012); Saeed et al. (2018); Lin (2015); Li and Li (2017);
Kitchakarn (2013); Woo et al. (2013); Nguyen (2012);
Saglamel and Çetinkaya (2022)
Pedagogical implications of
technology-supported peer feedback
activities
1. The importance of contextual factors
and taking dynamic and recursive
perspectives (11) *
Colpitts and Past (2019); Xu and Yu (2018); Lin et al. (2013);
Chen (2012); Pham (2020); Kayacan and Razı (2017); Ciftci
and Kocoglu (2012); Saeed et al. (2018); Nguyen (2012);
Saglamel and Çetinkaya (2022); Abdullah et al. (2018)
2. The pedagogical implications of
technology-supported peer-feedback
activities (20) *
Yang and Wu (2011); Colpitts and Past (2019); Xu and Yu
(2018); Lin et al. (2013); Chen (2012); Pham (2020); Kayacan
and Razı (2017); Ciftci and Kocoglu (2012); Saeed et al.
(2018); Lin (2015); Li and Li (2017); Kitchakarn (2013); Woo
et al. (2013); Nguyen (2012); Saglamel and Çetinkaya (2022);
Abdullah et al. (2018); Hussin et al. (2015); Ho (2015); Ho
(2012); Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes (2012)
Note: * the number of studies endorsing this concept embedded in the subcategory.
5. Discussion of Research Questions
Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of technology-supported peer-feedback
activities found in the primary studies from 2011 to 2022?
Among all the technologies used in these 20 studies, blogging platforms were used
the most frequently compared to other CMC platforms. As we can see in Table 2, the
researchers in 9 of the 20 studies used several blogging platforms in their technology-
supported peer feedback activity studies. These blogging platforms include Qzone (Xu and
Yu 2018), Blogger.com (Ciftci and Kocoglu 2012;Kitchakarn 2013), Lang8 (Lin 2015), Opera
blog (Nguyen 2012), and other miscellaneous blogging platforms (Chen 2012;Abdullah
et al. 2018;Hussin et al. 2015;Lin et al. 2013). The second most frequent platform used for
technology-supported peer feedback activities in these 20 studies is Google Docs (Colpitts
and Past 2019;Pham 2020;Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022). The third most frequent platforms
used in the studies are Online Meetings (Ho 2012,2015), an interface simulating a split-
screen protocol specifically designed for synchronous online peer review, and Facebook
(Hussin et al. 2015;Saeed et al. 2018), a social networking website that can be used to
exchange feedback for text revisions and written reflections. Other platforms used for the
technology-supported peer feedback activities in these 20 studies are Diff Engine (Yang
and Wu 2011), Office Word (Ho 2012), Moodle (Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes
2012), a Wiki tool named PBworks (Woo et al. 2013), Turnitin (Li and Li 2017), and Edmodo

Languages 2023,8, 114 10 of 19
(Kayacan and Razı 2017). For further information on how these technologies were used in
the primary studies, refer to Table 2.
The characteristics of the technology-supported peer-feedback activities found in the
20 studies analyzed in this meta-synthesis can be summarized into four different aspects.
The first aspect covers the distinction between global (i.e., organization, development,
and style of a text) and local revisions (i.e., grammatical errors). For example, one study
suggested that an increase in interactions led to more local and global revisions (Yang and
Wu 2011). However, the majority of the intermediate EFL students involved in this study
focused on local revisions, similar to the advanced learners in the study by Colpitts and Past
(2019), the students involved in the study by Saeed et al. (2018), and the young intermediate
to advanced learners involved in the study by Woo et al. (2013) who mainly focused on
spelling, punctuation, and grammar. In blended learning environments, sequencing seems
to influence the type of revisions learners provide. In the article written by Pham (2020),
students were first exposed to written asynchronous computer-mediated communication
and then to oral face-to-face interaction provided more local revisions. However, they
provided more global revisions when oral face-to-face interaction came first. In terms of
feedback, using Turnitin as a technology tool suggests that in all but one writing task,
students provided more local feedback (Li and Li 2017).
Contrary to the other studies analyzed, the study conducted by Kayacan and Razı
(2017) suggested that high school students’ self-review and peer feedback led to both local
and global revisions (i.e., organization, content, grammar, vocabulary, and format). The
study conducted by Ho (2015), which involved college students, suggested that more
revisions in the global area were conducted rather than in the local area. Not only could the
interaction mode (i.e., face-to-face or computer-mediated) influence the type of revisions,
but the nature of the writing assignments (i.e., problem-solution and cause-effect essays)
might also play a role in the nature and type of comments learners give (Ho 2015). Finally,
the study by Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes (2012) observed a predominance of mor-
phosyntactic and lexical language-related episodes among college students. Saglamel and
Çetinkaya (2022) emphasized how experimenting with local or global revisions translated
to learners’ deep involvement in the writing process.
The second aspect is the effect of the existing dichotomy of peer and teacher feedback.
There is an impact on students’ perception of and response to feedback based on who
the author of the feedback is. In the study conducted by Kayacan and Razı (2017), high
school participants in their role of feedback providers noticed the similarity of their role
with that of their teacher. For some students coming from a teacher-centered culture, this
new position leads to overall uncertainty, discomfort when receiving peer feedback, and
worry in terms of providing peer feedback (Lin 2015). In faceless environments, instructors’
immediate feedback is considered essential (Abdullah et al. 2018).
The third aspect is revision-oriented and non-revision-oriented feedback. In a study
conducted by Saeed et al. (2018), college students used Facebook groups to provide both
revision-oriented and non-revision-oriented feedback. This interactive online environment
enabled learners to engage in comments promoting socialization and group cohesion. This
phenomenon was also observed in the study of Woo et al. (2013) following participants’
familiarization with the technology used. In two out of three classes, a majority of revision-
oriented comments, both at the content and meaning level and the surface level, were
observed. Similarly, in the study by Li and Li (2017), most comments were revision-oriented.
When analyzing four assignments, Ho (2015) noticed that 60 to 76% of comments were
revision-oriented comments. In this study, and in both face-to-face and computer-mediated
modes, there was an overall adoption rate of global revision-oriented comments of at
least 70%, except for the fourth paper (59%). However, Nguyen (2012) identified 49% of
comments as revision-oriented, but the authors noted that 90% of the revision-oriented
comments posted by the students were accepted either completely or partially, whereas
comments related to the ideas expressed in the essays were not taken into account.

Languages 2023,8, 114 11 of 19
The fourth aspect is the importance of collaboration, which seems to occur when
learners create a rapport leading to the formation of a writing community and texts being
constructed and co-constructed (Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022). This rapport can be pre-
existing (i.e., students choose their teammates) but they often praise others’ work and
give feedback in a friendly and accessible manner, show positive attitudes toward group
work interactions, and promote socialization and group cohesion through their comments
(Abdullah et al. 2018;Saeed et al. 2018). This group work interaction was identified as an
essential phase of collaborative writing and a key part of the social-constructivist notion
(Hussin et al. 2015).
Research Question 2: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the technology-
supported peer-feedback activities demonstrated in the primary studies, and what are the
effects of these technology-supported peer-feedback activities on students’ perceptions
and learning?
To answer this second research question, the authors defined three subcategories
identifying the advantages and disadvantages of technology-supported peer-feedback ac-
tivities and students’ perception of these activities: the influence of an online audience and
the effects of blended learning feedback approaches and technology-supported feedback
activities, as well as students’ perception of them. The findings from the primary study
used to answer this second research question are further detailed in Table 3.
Among the 20 primary studies, the research conducted by Chen (2012); Ciftci and
Kocoglu (2012); Nguyen (2012); Lin et al. (2013); Kitchakarn (2013); Lin (2015); Hussin et al.
(2015); Kayacan and Razı (2017); Li and Li (2017); Abdullah et al. (2018); Xu and Yu (2018);
Colpitts and Past (2019); Pham (2020); and Saglamel and Çetinkaya (2022) all mentioned
students’ positive perception of providing feedback in a digital environment, sometimes
even preferring it to face-to-face mode (Saeed et al. 2018), and agreed that it helped them
improve their writing skills, especially in grammar and vocabulary development, organi-
zation, coherence, and punctuation (Abdullah et al. 2018) as well as reduce their writing
anxiety (Hussin et al. 2015;Abdullah et al. 2018). Blogging was considered new, interest-
ing (Colpitts and Past 2019;Nguyen 2012), fun, user-friendly, time-independent, and a
tool offering useful features (i.e., using photos or other materials) (Lin 2015), all of which
contributed to enriching the learners’ essays (Ciftci and Kocoglu 2012). Learners believed
that it positively contributed to their writing skill improvements (Xu and Yu 2018;Lin
2015), enhanced their schema (Hussin et al. 2015), and led to increased motivation (Lin
2015;Hussin et al. 2015) and self-confidence in their writing (Hussin et al. 2015). Providing
peer feedback on others’ blog samples also helped learners reflect on their own work (Xu
and Yu 2018). Technology-supported peer feedback was also described as a convenient and
refreshing alternative to traditional ESL writing classes (Lin et al. 2013). Some learners felt
comfortable using an online peer review process and perceived it as a positive experience
(Chen 2012). After becoming familiar with the technology tool used (i.e., Wiki PBwork),
students started posting playful comments, creating group cohesion (Woo et al. 2013). Being
exposed to others’ work was considered beneficial since they were able to learn from each
other’s mistakes (Kayacan and Razı 2017;Kitchakarn 2013). Some of the features perceived
as beneficial by students were related to the possibility of anonymity in the review process,
though a potential lack thereof seems to worry some learners. However, the different ways
of providing feedback in a suitable manner, spell checks, and other tools were believed to
reduce the cognitive load and enable the students to focus on the content (Nguyen 2012;Li
and Li 2017;Woo et al. 2013). While the features offered by technology tools might explain
the types of feedback used by learners, Ho (2015) suggests that overall, students preferred
typing their comments rather than handwriting them as the track changes or highlighting
features were deemed more helpful.

Languages 2023,8, 114 12 of 19
Table 3. Platforms used in the technology-supported peer-feedback research.
Study No. Author (Year) Name of Platforms Function of the Platforms
1(Yang and Wu 2011) Diff Engine Diff Engine highlights newly added words and crosses out
newly deleted words in the system to show revisions.
2Colpitts and Past (2019) Google Docs Google Docs allows easy access to writing critiques, editing,
and sharing peer feedback.
3Xu and Yu (2018) Qzone
A popular blog platform in China used to post student blogs.
4Lin et al. (2013) BALL Used for blog-assisted language learning.
5Chen (2012) Blogging platform A blog-based platform for peer-reviewing
(no specific names).
6Pham (2020) Google Docs Google Docs allows easy access to writing critiques, editing,
and sharing peer feedback.
7Kayacan and Razı (2017) Edmodo
Edmodo is an educational technology platform for K-12
schools and teachers. Edmodo enables teachers to share
content and distribute quizzes and assignments
8Ciftci and Kocoglu (2012)Blogger (http://www.blogger.com
accessed on 28 December 2022)
Blogger is an American online content management system
founded in 1999 that enables multi-user blogs with
time-stamped entries.
9Saeed et al. (2018) Facebook Groups A social networking website that can be used to exchange
feedback for text revisions and written reflections.
10 Lin (2015) Lang8 A free language blogging website, Lang8 allows users to
create their own blogs.
11 Li and Li (2017) Turnitin
Turnitin offers features such as PeerMark that give students
the ability to browse, analyze, score, and assess the papers
that their classmates have turned in.
12 Kitchakarn (2013) Blogger.com (website)
Blogger, an online website, serves as a platform for peer
feedback exercises. Blogger is an American online content
management system founded in 1999 that enables multi-user
blogs with time-stamped entries.
13 Woo et al. (2013) Wiki tool (PBworks)
A wiki application called PBworks enables students to
engage together in writing courses, co-create their writing on
PBworks pages made specifically for each group, and
exchange helpful criticism and comments on the platform.
14 Nguyen (2012)Blog (www.opera.com accessed on
28 December 2022)
Users of a class blog (www.opera.com accessed on 28
December 2022) have access to a free blog service site where
they can submit details on grammatical constructions,
writing conventions, and reading texts.
15 Saglamel and Çetinkaya
(2022)Google Docs Peer reviews can be written, edited, and shared using
Google Docs.
16 Abdullah et al. (2018) CMC (online Blog forum) An online platform (CMC blog) that allows peer feedback
exercises.
17 Hussin et al. (2015) Blog and Facebook CMC applications (blog and Facebook) improve writing
ability through peer involvement and interaction.
18 Ho (2015) Online Meeting
The CMPR involves OnlineMeeting, an interface simulating a
split-screen protocol specifically designed for synchronous
online peer review.
19 Ho (2012) Online Meeting and Word
Word allows students to directly type comments on the
computer, track changes, and highlight important features.
The OnlineMeeting system automatically generates web links
allowing users access to online chat rooms.
20 Belén Díez-Bedmar and
Pérez-Paredes (2012)Moodle
Moodle is a Course Management System (CMS) or learning
platform designed to provide educators, administrators, and
learners with a single robust, secure, and integrated system
to create personalized learning environments.
The ability to reflect and provide delayed feedback or revision in asynchronous tools
was also perceived as a valuable feature (Li and Li 2017). The study conducted by Saeed
et al. (2018) suggested that the delayed time between reading peer feedback and responding

Languages 2023,8, 114 13 of 19
to it facilitated learners’ reflection on global and local issues. Asynchronous computer-
mediated communication was also perceived as less face-threatening by learners involved
in the study by Pham (2020).
This positive perception was confirmed by the findings of some of the studies selected.
In the study by Ciftci and Kocoglu (2012), participants in the blog group had significantly
higher scores in their second drafts, which suggests that the use of blogs as an instructional
tool made a difference and enabled them to improve their writing skills. Participants
in the study by Kitchakarn (2013) improved their writing abilities after using blogs for
learning. In the study by Woo et al. (2013) on university students engaged in technology-
enhanced group work, it was observed that the students tended to generate comments at
the content meaning level more frequently than surface-level comments, as compared to
face-to-face discussions. Additionally, Nguyen (2012) found that the use of asynchronous
computer-mediated communication led to more revisions than traditional face-to-face
interaction, implying that the feedback provided in online settings was more effective
for facilitating learning. The study by Lin (2015) showed that participants experienced
enhanced motivation, self-efficacy, and significant improvements after attending the blog-
supported writing instruction.
Some studies identified several drawbacks of technology-supported peer-feedback
activities such as students’ lack of time to engage in such activities, lack of training (Xu
and Yu 2018), and lack of motivation to go beyond teachers’ requirements (Lin et al. 2013;
Lin 2015). In blogging environments, some learners’ motivation could be affected by
the overwhelming task of reading and writing blogs in a foreign language (Lin 2015) or
providing good peer feedback (Kitchakarn 2013) or by the increased anxiety stemming from
having their writings made public and open to peer criticism (Kitchakarn 2013;Lin et al.
2013). Students’ perception of the technology tools used for academic purposes can also
affect their perception of the effectiveness of said tool (Ciftci and Kocoglu 2012). In addition,
technical difficulties and potential glitches, such as problems with connection, play a role in
learners’ perception of TSPR (Ciftci and Kocoglu 2012;Li and Li 2017). When using Turnitin
some learners also mentioned the inability of communicating with the writer face-to-face,
something that they considered as facilitating the peer review process. Another drawback
was that while some participants positively perceived the chat feature of OnlineMeeting
and the possibility of having online conversations, others mentioned the inefficiency of
online chat as opposed to face-to-face talk (Ho 2012,2015), the latter making expressing
learners’ thoughts and negotiating meanings easier.
The sequential approach used by the teachers in blended learning also influenced
the effects of TSPR. As Pham (2020) demonstrated, when students are first exposed to a
face-to-face environment, followed by an online environment, they tend to provide more
local revisions. When they are first exposed to an online environment, followed by a
face-to-face environment, more revisions were performed at the global level.
Finally, when considering motivation, technology-supported peer-feedback activities
can lead to more online interaction, which seems to lead to more local and global text
revisions (Yang and Wu 2011).
Research Question 3: What are the main themes emerging from the GT analysis and
what is the metatheory for the synthesis?
The main themes elicited from the research are concerned with the effects of incorpo-
rating technology into peer-feedback activities and the importance of factors affecting the
successful implementation of computer-mediated peer feedback in writing courses. The
following main themes emerged:
•
The way students’ learning, perceptions, and attitudes are affected by technology-
supported feedback activities should be considered.
•
The benefits and drawbacks of using computer-mediated feedback (compared to
face-to-face feedback) should be considered when applying them in the classes.
•
The instructors should provide proper training for the students (both in terms of
giving helpful feedback and utilizing the online platforms).

Languages 2023,8, 114 14 of 19
•
Considering contextual factors in peer feedback activities plays an important role in
successfully integrating technology in giving feedback.
Based on the four mentioned emerged themes, the meta-theory of this study can be
structured as follows:
Understanding the students’ preferences, capabilities, and attitudes regarding using
technology features in learning, as well as considering the contextual factors, the advan-
tages and disadvantages of each online platform, and the instructors’ ability in providing
training on giving proper feedback and using technology determine the extent to which
implementing technology-supported peer feedback activities would be successful.
The successful implementation of technology and computer-mediated peer feedback
in ESL and EFL classes depends on several factors including providing the students with
proper and enough training on how to use the online platforms effectively and efficiently
and ensuring that the giving and receiving of feedback is achieved in a constructive and
helpful manner. Contextual factors, such as students’ linguistic competence and computer
literacy, culture and power dynamics, technical difficulties, and students’ perceptions and
attitudes towards using technology in giving and receiving peer feedback, are among the
most important factors determining the effectiveness of utilizing technology and computer-
supported peer feedback.
6. Implications
The implications for future research drawn from the 20 primary studies can be dis-
cussed in the following aspects: (1) the characteristics and effects of technology-supported
peer feedback activities on the students’ perceptions of the activities, (2) the importance of
providing efficient training, and (3) the pedagogical implications.
The reported effects of technology-supported peer feedback on learners fall into two
main groups: positive and negative impacts. In terms of positive effects, the majority of
the studies reported positive effects from using technology-supported peer feedback on
learners. Most of the participants in the 20 primary studies describe their experiences as
positive and inspiring (Yang and Wu 2011;Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes 2012;
Chen 2012;Ciftci and Kocoglu 2012;Ho 2012;Nguyen 2012;Kitchakarn 2013;Ho 2015;
Hussin et al. 2015;Lin 2015;Li and Li 2017;Kayacan and Razı 2017;Xu and Yu 2018;
Pham 2020;Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022;), reliable, practical, fast, and useful (Ciftci and
Kocoglu 2012;Nguyen 2012;Ho 2015;Kayacan and Razı 2017;Colpitts and Past 2019).
Technological developments increased motivation and self-efficacy for writing content and
made writing classrooms more creative, autonomous, and collaborative (Kitchakarn 2013;
Lin 2015). Furthermore, they helped students improve their writing abilities both in the
local and global aspects of writing (Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes 2012;Ciftci and
Kocoglu 2012;Chen 2012;Lin 2015;Nguyen 2012;Ho 2015;Hussin et al. 2015;Kayacan and
Razı 2017;Xu and Yu 2018;Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022;Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022).
One of the factors that tended to hinder writing skill improvements is second language
writing anxiety (SLWA, Fattahi Marnani and Cuocci 2022). It was shown that one of the
effects of technology-supported peer feedback on the students was lowering the stress
and anxiety level in their writing through using computer-mediated peer feedback since it
offers a friendlier and less threatening environment, especially in anonymous platforms
(Belén Díez-Bedmar and Pérez-Paredes 2012;Hussin et al. 2015;Ho 2015;Lin 2015;Li and
Li 2017). All in all, the participants revealed that they had an increased awareness regarding
opportunities to use the Internet for academic purposes and developed critical thinking
and their ability to take responsibility for their learning process (Chen 2012;Kayacan and
Razı 2017;Li and Li 2017, Xu and Yu 2018). Some expressed great willingness to undergo
more of these types of experiences in the future since it showed them their strengths and
weaknesses and gave them a real challenge to deal with their language learning process
(Lin 2015;Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022).

Languages 2023,8, 114 15 of 19
Nonetheless, certain drawbacks were mentioned in several studies. The negative
effects of technology-supported peer feedback on learners’ and students’ perceptions
and attitudes were mostly concerned with the lack of face-to-face communication and
inadequate language skills to provide feedback on others’ writings (Ho 2012,2015;Lin
2015;Kitchakarn 2013;Li and Li 2017). Experiencing technical glitches, anxiety, impolite
comments, limited attention to online discussions (compared to teacher-led discussions),
lack of paralinguistic features (such as intonation, gestures, and facial expressions), fear of
losing face—a common trigger of anxiety among English learners (Cuocci and Arndt 2020;
Pappamihiel 2002), and lack of confidence and interest in giving feedback or participating
in online discussions beyond the minimal requirements are also mentioned as the factors
negatively affecting the students (Chen 2012;Nguyen 2012;Kitchakarn 2013;Lin et al. 2013;
Ho 2015;Li and Li 2017). In two studies, some students felt the exchange of face-to-face
comments was more efficient than synchronous online chats because they could easily
express thoughts and negotiate meaning face-to-face. It was indicated that face-to-face peer
feedback led to more peer-triggered revisions (Ho 2012,2015).
These advantages and disadvantages perceived by students seem to reflect the ongoing
debate researchers have regarding the effect of technology on learners (Cuocci and Marnani
2022). However, it has been mentioned that students’ attitudes toward a given activity and
their learning experience may change in the long run (Colpitts and Past 2019).
Regarding the implications concerning the effects of technology-supported peer feed-
back activities, it can be suggested that when selecting the most suitable online platform
to implement in the writing classes, instructors need to consider several technological
aspects of the platforms and their students’ capabilities and preferences; instructors need
to provide them with the most suitable platforms based on the students’ preferences,
contextual factors, and technical considerations. In terms of combining face-to-face and
computer-mediated feedback, it is suggested that having face-to-face peer feedback first
and then engaging in computer-mediated feedback increases the efficiency of the feedback
activities (Pham 2020).
The second implication involves the necessity of giving effective and efficient training.
The findings suggest that by giving sufficient training and purposeful explanation in terms
of both giving helpful and appropriate feedback and utilizing the online platforms, students
are able to give the most useful, relevant, and efficient feedback to their peers (Lin et al.
2013;Xu and Yu 2018;Colpitts and Past 2019;Saeed et al. 2018;Xu and Yu 2018).
The third group of implications includes the pedagogical implications. Though more
research needs to be completed to identify the reason why some students provided more
local/global comments/revisions, it seems that the participants in the 20 primary studies
relied more on local revisions, especially intermediate/advanced (adult/young) learners.
When providing peer feedback, students tend to adopt the role of a teacher, which can lead
to potential issues when they are culturally more used to teacher-centered approaches. It
can also lead to some students not considering their peers qualified enough (Kayacan and
Razı 2017).
Moreover, while revision-oriented feedback was the noticeable majority throughout
the studies analyzed, which tended to be acknowledged by students, some findings from
the 20 primary studies revealed the important role of the existence of non-revision-oriented
comments as well as the promotion of group cohesion via comments to promote social-
ization (Woo et al. 2013). Added to an environment promoting collaboration, such as the
creation of groups based on pre-existing rapport, the provision of praises and the use of
friendly and accessible feedback are all elements that were essential to co-construct texts
of improved quality. Therefore, educators should keep in mind that not all peer feedback
needs to be revision-oriented. Familiarity with the technology used in class and a positive
perception of said technology might lead to the production of a non-academic type of work
(i.e., non-revision-oriented feedback), which may positively influence learners’ skills.
Finally, the trend of peer feedback activities through blogging was noticeable. Blogging
seems to be perceived as a fun tool educators can use to improve their learners’ writing skills.

Languages 2023,8, 114 16 of 19
Google Docs and Turnitin are also among the most efficient platforms recently implemented
in writing classes (Colpitts and Past 2019;Pham 2020;Saglamel and Çetinkaya 2022).
7. Conclusions
The combination of technology-supported peer feedback activities and other contex-
tual factors such as socialization opportunities can lead to increased interaction and thus
feedback; both influential factors in learning (Cuocci 2022). Although the types of feedback
seem to vary based on factors such as synchronicity, the type of assignments, and students’
cultural background, an increase in feedback will likely lead to writing improvement. Edu-
cators must keep in mind the effects of some key functionalities offered by technology such
as anonymity, spell check, convenience, clarity of typed comments (i.e., Google Docs), and
access to online resources to assist learners in reducing their cognitive load, resulting in the
potential improvement in writing skills as well as potential opportunities to create group
cohesion. The optimal conditions prior to the integration of technology in the classroom
are: (1) student training in the efficient use of the technology, (2) student training in the
provision of proper feedback—specifically for beginners as they tend to mainly provide
surface comments, and (3) the selection of a technology tool, which will likely lead to a
manageable workload for the teachers.
As this meta-synthesis was replicated, an observation must be made regarding the
evolution of emerging themes pertaining to this study and the study conducted by Chen
(2016). Based on their work on 20 primary studies published between 1990 and 2010, Chen’s
findings revealed a positive effect on students’ interaction when peer feedback activities
were supported by technology due to the flexibility offered by technology interactions,
the less controlling role teachers had in such environment, and the influential role of the
dichotomy between synchronous and asynchronous activities. Some findings in this current
study support Chen’s findings, such as students’ ability to reflect on their responses and
the existence of features facilitating students’ feedback provision. Other findings revealed
novel trends related to the evolution of technology tools that educators now have access
to. The focus seemed to be less on the difference between synchronous and asynchronous
activities and more on the importance of training, students’ perceptions, contextual factors
influencing students’ learning experience, and the potential benefits offered by specific tools
promoting CMC such as blogs. Future research should focus on identifying the necessary
features and other covariates that potentially impact the likelihood of students producing
local or global feedback and revision so that educators can be aware of the tools they need
to choose based on the type of feedback and revision their students could most benefit from
(Xu and Yu 2018).
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, S.C. and P.F.M.; methodology, S.C. and P.F.M.; validation,
S.C. and P.F.M., I.K. and S.R.; formal analysis, S.C. and P.F.M.; resources, S.C., P.F.M. and I.K.; writing—
original draft preparation, S.C., P.F.M., I.K. and S.R.; writing—review and editing, S.C., P.F.M., I.K.
and S.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data are available upon request to the first or the second author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Abdullah, Mohamad Yahya, Supyan Hussin, and Mohanaad Shakir. 2018. The effect of peers’ and teacher’s e-feedback on writing
anxiety level through CMC applications. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 13: 8448. [CrossRef]
Ahmed, Rashad, and AL-KAD˙
I Abdu. 2021. Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences.
Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7: 169–201.

Languages 2023,8, 114 17 of 19
Anson, Chris M., Deanna P. Dannels, Johanne I. Laboy, and Larissa Carneiro. 2016. Students’ perceptions of oral screencast responses
to their writing: Exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 30: 378–411.
Belén Díez-Bedmar, María, and Pascual Pérez-Paredes. 2012. The types and effects of peer native speakers’ feedback on CMC. Language
Learning & Technology 16: 62–90.
Chen, Kate Tzu-Ching. 2012. Blog-based peer reviewing in EFL writing classrooms for Chinese speakers. Computers and Composition-An
International Journal for Teachers of Writing 29: 280. [CrossRef]
Chen, Tsuiping. 2016. Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted
Language Learning 29: 365–97. [CrossRef]
Chew, Esyin, Helena Snee, and Trevor Price. 2016. Enhancing international postgraduates’ learning experience with online peer
assessment and feedback innovation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 53: 247–59. [CrossRef]
Ciftci, Hatime, and Zeynep Kocoglu. 2012. Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of
Educational Computing Research 46: 61–84. [CrossRef]
Colpitts, Bradley D. F., and Travis Hunter Past. 2019. A Comparison of Computer-Mediated Peer Corrective Feedback between High
and Low-Proficiency Learners in a Japanese EFL Writing Classroom. JALT CALL Journal 15: 23–39. [CrossRef]
Cunningham, Kelly J. 2019. Student perceptions and use of technology-mediated text and screencast feedback in ESL writing. Computers
and Composition 52: 222–41. [CrossRef]
Cuocci, Sophie. 2022. The Effect of Written and Audiovisual Interactivity on Teacher Candidates’ Application of Instructional Support
Practices for English Learners in an Online TESOL Course. Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL,
USA. Available online: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd2020/1369 (accessed on 28 December 2022).
Cuocci, Sophie, and Padideh Fattahi Marnani. 2022. Technology in the classroom: The features language teachers should consider. Journal
of English Learner Education 14. Available online: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/jele/vol14/iss2/4/ (accessed on 28 December 2022).
Cuocci, Sophie, and Rebeca Arndt. 2020. SEL for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of English Learner Education 10: 4.
DiGiovanni, Elaine, and Girija Nagaswami. 2001. Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal 55: 263–72. [CrossRef]
Dochy, Filip J. R. C., Mien Segers, and Dominique Sluijsmans. 1999. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A
review. Studies in Higher Education 24: 331–50. [CrossRef]
Er, Erkan, Yannis Dimitriadis, and Dragan Gaševi´c. 2021. A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: A theoretical
framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46: 586–600.
Fattahi Marnani, Padideh, and Sophie Cuocci. 2022. Foreign language anxiety: A review on theories, causes, consequences and impli-
cations for educators. Journal of English Learner Education 14. Available online: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/jele/vol14/iss2/2/?
utm_source=stars.library.ucf.edu%2Fjele%2Fvol14%2Fiss2%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages (accessed
on 28 December 2022).
Fernandez, Walter D., Hans Lehmann, and Alan Underwood. 2002. Rigour and relevance in studies of IS innovation: A grounded
theory methodology approach. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Information Systems, Gdañsk, Poland,
June 6–8. Information Systems and the Future of the Digital Economy. pp. 110–19.
Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. 2013. Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Glaser, Barney. G. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney. G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Hansen, Jette G., and Jun Liu. 2005. Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal 59: 31–38. [CrossRef]
Hedgecock, John. S. 2005. Taking stock of research and pedagogy in L2 writing. In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and
Learning. Edited by E. Hinkel. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Ho, Mei-Ching. C. 2012. The efficiency of electronic peer feedback: From Taiwanese EFL students’ perspectives. International Journal of
Arts & Sciences 5: 423.
Ho, Mei-Ching. C. 2015. The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 31. [CrossRef]
Huisman, Bart, Nadira Saab, Paul van den Broek, and Jan van Driel. 2019. The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education
students’ academic writing: A Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44: 863–80.
Hussin, Supyan, Mohamad Yahya Abdullah, Noriah Ismail, and Soo Kum Yoke. 2015. The Effects of CMC Applications on ESL Writing
Anxiety among Postgraduate Students. English Language Teaching 8: 167–72. [CrossRef]
Hyland, Ken, and Fiona Hyland. 2019. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kayacan, Ayten, and Salim Razı. 2017. Digital self-review and anonymous peer feedback in Turkish high school EFL writing. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies 13: 561–77.
Kelly, Alison, and Kimberly Safford. 2009. Does teaching complex sentences have to be complicated? Lessons from Children’s Online
Writing. Literacy 43: 118–22.
Kim, Victoria. 2018. Technology-Enhanced Feedback on Student Writing in the English-Medium Instruction Classroom. English
Teaching 73: 29–53. [CrossRef]
Kitade, Keiko. 2000. L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted
Language Learning 13: 143–66. [CrossRef]

Languages 2023,8, 114 18 of 19
Kitchakarn, Orachorn. 2013. Peer feedback through blogs: An effective tool for improving students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education 14: 152–64.
Ko, Myong-HeeH. 2019. Students’ reactions to using smartphones and social media for vocabulary feedback. Computer Assisted
Language Learning 32: 920–44. [CrossRef]
Kostopoulou, Stergiani, and Fergus O’Dwyer. 2021. “We learn from each other”: Peer review writing practices in English for Academic
Purposes. Language Learning in Higher Education (Berlin, Germany) 11: 67–91. [CrossRef]
Lantolf, James. P. 2000. Introducing sociocultural theory. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning 1: 1–26.
Lehmann, Hans P. 2001. A Grounded Theory of International Information Systems. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of
Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Li, Mimi, and Jinrong Li. 2017. Online peer review using Turnitin in first-year writing classes. Computers and Composition 46: 21–38.
[CrossRef]
Lin, Ming Huei. 2015. Learner-centered blogging: A preliminary investigation of EFL student writers’ experience. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society 18: 446–58.
Lin, Ming Huei, Nicholas Groom, and Chin-Ying Lin. 2013. Blog-assisted learning in the ESL writing classroom: A phenomenological
analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 16: 130–39.
Liou, Hsien-Chin, and Zhong-Yan Peng. 2009. Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System 37: 514–25. [CrossRef]
Liu, Jun, and Randall W. Sadler. 2003. The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes 2: 193–227. [CrossRef]
Noroozi, Omid, Harm Biemans, and Martin Mulder. 2016. Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of
written argumentative essay. The Internet and Higher Education 31: 20–31. [CrossRef]
Noroozi, Omid, and Javad Hatami. 2018. The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based
learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 56: 548–57. [CrossRef]
Novakovich, Jeanette. 2016. Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning 32: 16–30. [CrossRef]
Nguyen, Phuong Thi Tuyet. 2012. Peer feedback on second language writing through blogs: The case of a Vietnamese EFL classroom.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT) 2: 13–23. [CrossRef]
Pappamihiel, Eleni N. 2002. English as a second language students and English language anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom.
Research in the Teaching of English 36: 327–55.
Pennington, Martha C. 1993. Exploring the potential of word processing for non-native writers. Computers and the Humanities 27:
149–63. [CrossRef]
Pham, Ha Thi Phuong. 2020. Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 35: 2112–47. [CrossRef]
Pham, V. P. Ho. 2021. The effects of lecturer’s model e-comments on graduate students’ peer e-comments and writing revision.
Computer Assisted Language Learning 34: 324–57. [CrossRef]
Ravand, Hamdollah, and Abbas Eslami Rasekh. 2011. Feedback in ESL writing: Toward an interactional approach. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research 2: 1136. [CrossRef]
Saeed, Murad Abdu, Kamila Ghazali, Sakina Suffian Sahuri, and Mohammed Abdulrab. 2018. Engaging EFL learners in online peer
feedback on writing: What does it tell us? Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 17: 39–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Saglamel, Hasan, and Sakire Erbay Çetinkaya. 2022. Students’ Perceptions towards Technology-Supported Collaborative Peer Feedback.
Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 6: 189–206. [CrossRef]
Schultz, Jean Marie. 2000. Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In Network-Based Language Teaching:
Concepts and Practice. Edited by M. Warschauer and R. Kern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Storch, Neomi. 2018. Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching 51:
262–77. [CrossRef]
Tajabadi, Azar, Moussa Ahmadian, Hamidreza Dowlatabadi, and Hooshang Yazdani. 2020. EFL learners’ peer negotiated feedback,
revision outcomes, and short-term writing development: The effect of patterns of interaction. Language Teaching Research.
[CrossRef]
Thompson, Riki, and Meredith J. Lee. 2012. Talking with students through screencasting: Experimentations with video feedback to
improve student learning. The Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy 1: 1–16.
Tolosa, Constanza, Martin East, and Helen Villers. 2013. Online peer feedback in beginners’ writing tasks: Lessons learned. IALLT
Journal of Language Learning Technologies 43: 1–24. [CrossRef]
Tuzi, Frank. 2004. The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition 21:
217–35. [CrossRef]
Vaezi, Shahin, and Ehsan Abbaspour. 2015. Asynchronous online peer written corrective feedback: Effects and affects. In Handbook of
Research on Individual Differences in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 271–97.
Van den Berg, Ineke, Wilfried Admiraal, and Albert Pilot. 2006. Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of
written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education 11: 135–47. [CrossRef]
Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich, and Michael Cole. 1978. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Languages 2023,8, 114 19 of 19
Warnock, Scott. 2008. Responding to Student Writing with Audio-Visual Feedback. In Writing and the iGeneration: Composition in the
Computer-Mediated Classroom. Edited by T. Carter, M. A. Clayton, A. D. Smith and T. G. Smith. Southlake: Fountainhead Press.
Warschauer, Mark. 2010. Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning & Technology 14: 38.
Woo, Matsuko Mukumoto, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, and Xuanxi Li. 2013. Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated
collaborative writing. Educational Technology Research and Development 61: 279–309. [CrossRef]
Xu, Qi, and Shulin Yu. 2018. An action research on computer-mediated communication (CMC) peer feedback in EFL writing context.
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 27: 207–16. [CrossRef]
Yang, Yu-Fen, and Shan-Pi Wu. 2011. A collective case study of online interaction patterns in text revisions. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society 14: 1–15.
Yu, S., and C. Liu. 2021. Improving student feedback literacy in academic writing: An evidence-based framework. Assessing Writing.
[CrossRef]
Zamel, Vivian. 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly 16: 195–209. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.