Measuring Peer Feedback on Writing Class: A Study on Third-Semester Pre-Service English Teachers
Keywords:peer feedback, collaborative writing, problem-solving competence
This research aimed to measure the contributions of students’ peer feedback set in the collaborative writing class. Of 144 population, 55 undergraduate English education students were involved as the participants in a quasi-experimental research design which was conducted through a non-randomized five experimental and five control groups. There were 25 experimental participants attended in the regular classes with the collaborative writing class syntax, namely; genres selection, problem-based learning, genres, and peer feedback practices, while other 30 control participants naturally attended in the same activity. Data were collected through the collaborative writing’s pre- and post-test, and peer feedback instruments within four weeks of the lectures. Data analysis used the Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed rank tests. The findings show that the collaborative writing’s peer feedback positively contributes to students’ writing skills and learning awareness resulted in the post-tests. Peer feedback may correct students’ writing mistakes and contribute a significant difference between the experimental and control groups (Z=-2,471; p≤0,05). Peer feedback socially tightens students’ collaborative writing and promotes a mutual relationship among group members, and reduces lecturer’s feedback.
Ahangari, S., & Babapour, M. (2015). The effect of self-correction and peer-correction on EFL learners’ writing accuracy improvement across proficiency. Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 5(2), 465–473.
Altstaedter, L. L., & Doolittle, P. (2014). Students’ perceptions of peer feedback. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 60–76.
Arslan, R. Ş. (2014). Integrating feedback into perspective English language teacher’s writing process via blogs and portfolios. The Turkish Online Journal Education Technology (TOJET), 13(1), 131–150.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bamberger, P. A., Erev, I., Kimmel, M., & Oref-Chen, T. (2005). Peer assessment, individual performance, and contribution to group processes: The impact of rater anonymity. Group & Organization Management, 30(4), 344–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601104267619.
Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing effective assessment in higher education: A practical guide. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Chen, C. H., Chung, M. Y., & Wu, W. V. (2013). The effects of faded prompts and feedback on college students’ reflective writing skills. Asia-Pacific Educational Research, 22(4), 571–583.
Chen, Y. L., Liu, E. Z. F., Shih, R. C., Wu, C. T., & Yuan, S. M. (2011). Use of peer feedback to enhance elementary students’ writing through blogging. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 1–4. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01139.x.
Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Education Computing Research, 46(1), 61–84. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c.
Comer, D. K., Clark, C. R, & Canelas, D. A. (2014). Writing to learn and learning to write across the disciplines: Peer-to-peer writing in introductory-level MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 26–82.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ekşĭ, G. Y. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 33–48.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gan, M. J. S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/sll251-014-9319-4.
Gardner, J. (2006). Assessment and learning. In Assessment and Learning: An Introduction (pp. 1–25). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ghani, M., & Asgher, T. (2012). Effects of teacher and peer feedback on students’ writing at secondary level. Journal of Educational Research, 15(2), 84–97.
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochya, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143–162. https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902894070.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. B., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835772.
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1.
Jiang, J., & Yu, Y. (2014). The effectiveness of internet-based peer feedback training on Chinese EFL college students’ writing proficiency. 34 International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 10(3), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2014070103.
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6.
Khorasani, M. R., & Sadzadeh, A. (2015). The effect of direct and peer feedback on accuracy of EFL learners’ written performance. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 5(2), 296–308.
Kim, S. H. (2015). Review in the writers’ workshop. The Reading Teacher, 68(8), 599–603. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1358.
Lai, Y. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x.
Lei, Z. (2017). Salience of student written feedback by peer-revision in EFL writing class. English Language Teaching, 10(12), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n12p151.
Lenters, K., & Grant, K. (2016). Feedback loops: Assembling student editors, stories, and devices for multimodal peer feedback. Language Arts, 93(3), 185–199.
Leydon, J., Wilson, K., & Boyd, C. (2014). Improving student writing abilities in geography: Examining the benefits of criterion-based assessment and detailed feedback. Journal of Geography, 113(4), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2013.869245.
Lin, H., & Chien, P. (2009). An investigation into effectiveness of peer feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 3, 79–87.
Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88–103.
Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effectson computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005.
Liu, M., & Chai, Y. (2009). Attitudes towards peer review and reaction to peer feedback in Chinese EFL writing classrooms. TESL Reporter, 42(1), 33–51.
McConlogue, T. (2012). But is it fair? Developing students’ understanding of grading complex written work through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.515010.
McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Writing helpful feedback: The influence of feedback type on students’ perceptions and writing performance. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.5.
Mooney, C. (2004). Beware sound science, its doublespeak for trouble. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2004/02/29/beware-sound-science-its-doublespeak-for-trouble.
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x.
Nguyen, P. T. T. (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, 2(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2012010102.
Pappamihiel, N. E., Nishimata, T., & Mihai, F. (2008). Timed writing and adult English-language learners: An investigation of first language use in invention strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(5), 386–394.
Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41(2), 381–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9236-3.
Philpott, J. (2009). Captivating your class: Effective teaching skills. London: Continuum.
Prastika, W., Setiawati, E. E. D., & Sumekto, D. R. (2018). Analyzing the eleventh-year-students’ descriptive writing skills documented in the academic year of 2017-2018. English Focus: Journal of English Language Education, 1(2), 108–118.
Roberts, T. J., & Shambrook, J. (2012). Academic excellence: A commentary and reflections on the inherent value of peer review. Journal of Research Administration, 43(1), 33–38.
Ruegg, R. (2014). The effect of assessment of peer feedback on the quantity and quality of feedback given. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 3(1), 24–43.
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008.
Sumekto, D. R. (2017). The effectiveness of pre-service English teachers’ collaborative genre based writing feedback. Lingua Cultura, 11(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v11i1.1595.
Sumekto, D. R., & Setyawati, H. (2018). Students’ descriptive writing performance: The analytic scoring assessment usage. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 37(3), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i3.20033.
Taylor, S. M. (2014). Can peer review help Johnny write better? The Journal of Adventist Education, 76, 42–46.
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9.
Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., Simons, P. R. J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003.
Wakabayashi, R. (2013). The effects of the peer feedback process on reviewers’ own writing. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 177–192. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n9p177.
Yu, S. (2015). What factors shape the collaborative patternof group interaction during peer feedback inthe L2 writing classroom? Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 28(2), 618–640. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.28.2.10yu.
Yu, S., Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2016). Revisiting Chinese cultural issues in peer feedback in EFL writing: Insights from a multiple case study. Asia-Pacific Educational Research, 25(2), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0262-1.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC BY-SA)