References

• Abdel-Fattah, M. A. K., & Galal-Edeen, G. H. (2009). Why an interpretive paradigm is needed for evaluating e-government systems. In 9th European Conference on e- Government, 1-10.
• Al-Jamal, D. (2009). The impact of peer response in enhancing ninth graders’ writing skills. Umm Al-Qura University of Educational and Psychologic Sciences.
• Allan, G. (2020). Qualitative research. In Handbook for research students in the social sciences, 177-189. Routledge.
• Allington, R. L. (1983). The Reading Instruction Provided Readers of Differing Reading Abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 548–559.
• Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. (3rd ed.). Phildelphia, Pa.: Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press.
• Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and practice (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Bowtell, E. C., Sawyer, S. M., Aroni, R. A., Green, J. B., & Duncan, R. E. (2013). “Should I send a condolence card?” Promoting emotional safety in qualitative health research through reflexivity and ethical mindfulness. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 652-663.
• Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 13(2), 269– 288.
• Burgess, R. G. (1984). In The Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Allen & Unwin.
• Byrne, B. (2004). Qualitative interviewing. Researching society and culture, 217-236. Sage Publications Ltd.
• Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84
• Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2010). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.
• Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Cresswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
• Crossman, J. M. & Kite, S.L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13 (3), 219- 229.
• De Chesnay, M. (2014). Nursing research using participatory action research: Qualitative designs and methods in nursing. New York, NY: Springer.
• De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.
• Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2015). Assessor or assessee? Investigating the differential effects of online peer assessment roles in the development of students’ problem- solving skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 250–258
• Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292
• Doody, O., Slevin, E., & Taggart, L. (2013). Focus group interviews in nursing research: part 1. British Journal of Nursing, 22(1), 16–19.
• Dowse, R., Melvold, J., & McGrath, K. (2018). Students guiding students: Integrating student peer review into a large first year science subject. A Practice Report. Student Success, 9(3), 79-86.
• Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher Perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234.
• Finlay, L.(2011). Phenomenology for therapists: Researching the lived world. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
• Fraser, S., & Robinson, C. (2004). Paradigms and philosophy. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis. Mukherji, P. &Albon, D. (2015). Research Methods in Early Childhood.
• Ge, Z. G. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75–91
• Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., &Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and various forms of peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162.
• Gorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University.
• Groenewald, T. (2004). A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42– 55.
• Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443– 461
• Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein J. A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed), 487– 508. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in physiology education, 25(3), 167-175.
• Gustafsson, Jertfelt, I. H., Blanchin, A., & Li, S. (2016). Cultural perspective in open ended interviews–The importance of being adaptable. Culture & Psychology, 22(4), 483-501.
• Hammersley, M. (2008), Troubles with triangulation, in (Ed) M. Bergman, Advances in Mixed Methods Research, London, Sage, 22-36.
• Hansen, J. G. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–38.
• Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-based nursing, 16(4), 98-98
• Ho, M. 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(1), 1-15
• Hoffmann, E. A. (2007). Open-ended interviews, power, and emotional labor. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 36(3), 318-346.
• Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55–67.
• Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342.
• Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2009). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371–394.
• Hughes, P. (2010). Paradigms, methods and knowledge in G. MacNaughton, S. Rolfe and I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing Early Childhood Research, (2nd ed.,) Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ibarra Sáiz, M. S., Rodríguez Gómez, G., & Gómez Ruiz, M. Á. (2012). La evaluación entre iguales: beneficios y estrategias para suprácticaen la universidad. Revista de educación.
• Ingadóttir, B. (2006). The lived experience of a chronic illness: challenges, dialogues and negotiations in adherence and non- adherence: a phenomenological study from the perspective of the person with diabetes. Skemman.
• Jensen, W. & Fischer, B. (2005). Teaching technical writing through student peerevaluation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35 (1), 95- 100.
• Kamal, S. S. L. B. A. (2019). Research paradigm and the philosophical foundations of a qualitative study. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 1386-1394.
• Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12-39.
• Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., &Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. Ejifcc, 25(3), 227.
• Kivunja, C. &Kuyini, A.B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education. 6(5).
• Kuehner, A., Ploder, A., & Langer, P. C. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: European
• Lai, Y. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essay: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Education Technology, 41(3), 432-454.
• Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2).
• Larkin, M.(2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Introduction.
• Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of Historical and Methodological Considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35.
• Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008a). Constructing Trust Between Teacher and Students Through Feedback and Revision Cycles in an EFL Writing Classroom. Written Communication, 25(4), 506–537
• Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. SAGE publications.
• Liu, J., & Hansen Edwards, J. (2002). Ebooks Corporation. Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
• Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193– 227.
• Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.
• Ma, J. (2010). Chinese EFL learners' decision- making while evaluating peers' texts. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 99-120.
• Mantzoukas, S. (2005). The inclusion of bias in reflective and reflexive research: A necessary prerequisite for securing validity. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(3), 279-295.
• McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. Journal of advanced nursing, 48(2), 187-194.
• McMurry, A. I. (2004). Preparing students for peer review. Unpublished master’s project. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
• Merriam, S.(2009). Qualitative research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: John-Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308.
• Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141.
• Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 285– 305.
• Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99
• Mulligan, A. (2005). Is peer review in crisis?. Oral Oncology, 41(2), 135-141
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
• Ozogul, G. & Sullivan, H. (2009). Student performance and attitudes under formative evaluation by teacher, self and peer evaluators. Education Tech Research Development, 57, 393-410.
• Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67–89.
• Reiners, G. (2012). Understanding the Differences between Husserl’s (Descriptive) and Heidegger’s (Interpretive) Phenomenological Research. Journal of Nursing & Care, 01(05).
• Ren, H. W., & Hu, G. W. (2012). Peer review and Chinese EFL/ESL student writers. English Australia Journal, 27(2), 3-16
• Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30.
• Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguisticsand Education, 29, 73–82.
• Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 39–54.
• Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2007). Interprtative Phenomenological Analysis
• Smythe, E., & Spence, D. (2012). Reviewing literature in hermeneutic research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(1), 12-25.
• Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75.
• Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). 9. PEER-PEER DIALOGUE AS A MEANS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.
• Swanson-Kauffman, K.M., & Schonwald, E. (1988). Phenomenology. In B. Sater (Ed.). Paths to knowledge: Innovative research methods for nursing. 97-105. New York, NY: National League for Nursing.
• Teo, A. K. (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners. The CATESOL Journal, 18, 160–178
• Thomas, G., Martin, D., Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning, 8 (1).
• Thompson, C. (2002). Teaching critical thinking in EAP courses in Australia. TESOL Journal, 11, 15–20.
• Todd, V. & Hudson, J.C. (2007). Using graded peer evaluation to improve student’s’ writing skills, critical thinking ability, and comprehension of material in a principle of public relations course. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4 (10), 39-46.
• Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer Assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
• Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.
• Triangulation, D. S. (2014, September). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. In Oncology nursing forum, 41(5)
• Vagle, M. D. (2014). Crafting phenomenological research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
• Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., &Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: the role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280-290.
• Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Sage.
• Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 221–230.
• Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2013). Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 698–720
• Walsham, G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information systems research, 6(4), 376-394.
• Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives.
• Warwick, P., & Maloch, B. (2003). Scaffolding speech and writing in the primary classroom: A consideration of work with literature and science pupil groups in the USA and UK. Reading Literacy and Language, 37, 54–63.
• Wilkins, E. A., Shin, E. & Ainsworth, J. (2009). The effects of peer feedback practices with elementary education teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly.
• Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based onconstructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational technology, 35(6), 5- 23.
• Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. London: Sage.
• Wojnar, D. M., & Swanson, K. M. (2007). Phenomenology. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25(3), 172–180.
• Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.
• Yang, Y. (2010). Students’ self-reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55, 1202-1210.
• Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2011). Interpretive Approaches to Research Design: Concepts and Processes. Netherlands: Routledge.
• Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17
• Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher- supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155–168
• Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251–276
• Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in Peer Response as Activity: An Examination of Peer Response Stances From an Activity Theory Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386