In addition, based on our categorization, the third sub-category of feedback exchanges, social interaction, is classified into two sub-types: on-task and off-task interactional exchanges.
However, the occurrence of such procedural interactional exchanges seemed to be low in these previous studies.
The off-task social interactional exchanges, however, function as greetings, joking, distraction, laughing, blaming and rejecting blames.
Zhu (2001) reported that the language functions of the ESL learners' interactional exchanges in mixed peer review were restricted compared to those of the native speakers.
The results indicated that the amount or percentage of interactional exchanges incorporated in their text revisions varied among the 14 pairs of learners.
Evidences of the increased engagement of the coached groups are the higher incidences of interactional exchanges: pointing, advising and collaborating as well as clarifying.
The second main category of interactional exchanges in terms of the language functions comprises those procedural comments that are exchanged by learners as means to organizing the process of peer review.
Secondly, we noticed that studies looking into peer feedback interactional exchanges that are published online and accessible are dated back to the early 1990 (e.g. Stanley, 1992; Beason, 1993).
Acting as readers, the ESL students generated a similar amount of oral interactional exchanges, but they encountered difficulties competing for turns and sustaining and regaining them when they were interrupted by the writers.
On the other hand, Hanjani and Li (2014) reported that most of EFL learners' interactional exchanges focused on micro-level issues such as grammar, while a few comments focused on macro-level issues such as content and organization.
