The results of these studies indicate that learners engaged more in revision-oriented feedback than non-revision-oriented feedback.
It is intended also as a means to improve accountability for decision-making and may require revision as feedback and circumstances require.
The process of deliberate practice involves allocating multiple sessions for relevant instruction, increasingly complex activities, and frequent revision and feedback opportunities as a means to improve students' performance (Ericsson et al., 1993; van Gog et al., 2005).
Moreover, it engages learners more in revision-oriented feedback that targets issues in their written texts.
Regarding this, five studies identified the focus areas of revision-oriented feedback in FFPR as in Table 3.
Especially with the use of synchronous and asynchronous tools, learners become less shy of their peers and more confident to offer more revision-oriented feedback that focuses on more global issues.
Table 3 A Summary of the Revision-Oriented Feedback Exchanges in FFPR and CAPR Source Findings Beason (1993) Micro- (focus, organization and development of ideas and macro- focus, organization and developmacro- focuss acrorganization pandgraphs) more than surface features (mechanics & grammar).
The focus group questions were open-ended, worded neutrally and developed by the research team with revisions and feedback from a PQA collaborator.
However, e-feedback had a greater impact on revision than oral feedback, implying that e-feedback might be more useful.
In addition, the scheduling module includes role allocation and feedback revision.
