Concerning the CAPR mode, there are 18 studies that identified the focus areas of learners' revision-oriented interactional comments.
In response to specific feedback from learners, revisions were made annually to curricular content and website design/function was enhanced.
On the other hand, in the asynchronous and synchronous CAPR peer review mode, out of the total revision-oriented comments (N = 300), 257 comments were integrated into learners' text revisions.
However, the rate of synchronous comments integrated into learners' text revisions differed among the groups of learners according to the tasks, which is discussed below as one factor affecting interactions and text revisions in peer review.
Finally, the findings of previous studies reviewed in this paper were coded in terms of the integration of peer feedback into learners' text revisions and the factors affecting such interactional feedback.
This study reported that the higher rate of feedback comments incorporated into learners' text revisions in the CAPR mode implies that, as opposed to the FFPR mode where feedback comments are oral, in the CAPR, the comments are written and learners have enough time to read and understand them well and consequently, integrate their peers' suggestions into their text revisions.
However, since the interests of individual researchers vary, and reporting each study in detail is not necessary, the focus of the review is on the patterns of peer interactional feedback, the role of interactional feedback in improving learners' text revisions and major factors affecting learners' interactional feedback in peer review.
When learner feedback was incorporated into curricular revision, learner satisfaction with the instructive value of the curriculum (1 = not instructive; 5 = highly instructive) increased from 3.8 to 4.1 (p < 0.001), and knowledge gains (i.e., post test scores minus pretest scores) increased from 17.0 % to 20.2%% (p < 0.001).
Moreover, it engages learners more in revision-oriented feedback that targets issues in their written texts.
Zimmerman (2000) posited that learners make more revisions when they are writing in their L2 than in their L1; hence, providing pre-task planning might help decrease the number of revisions made in L2 writing.
Using the learner verification and revision [ 22] interview procedure (one on one with the project coordinator: SM) this team then verified the suitability, particularly the cultural appropriateness, of the health information.
