The Effect of the Peer-Review Technique on Students’ Writing Ability

Martin Kustati, Yuhardi Yuhardi


The  aim of this  study  was  to investigate  if  there could be a  significant positive effect by using Peer-Review Technique (PRT) on students‟ ability in writing  English. An experimental research  method  was used in this study. A writing test based on the indicators of Jacobs et al. (1981) was completed by 65  undergraduate  students  in  English  from  the  English Department  at  the Faculty  of Education and Teacher Training in the  State Institute for Islamic Studies “Imam Bonjol‟  at  Padang.  The students  were divided into two groups:  an  experimental group (n=33) and  a  control group (n=32). Both groups  were similar in terms of academic level,  the  given writing task and their  target language  [English]   proficiency. The experimental participants were introduced to  Peer-Review  Technique in  essay writing sessions whilst the control group participants were taught through the teacher’s traditional feedback (TTF) whereby  students worked individually to produce their texts. The findings  showed that PRT gave  a  significant  improvement  effect on  the students‟ writing abilities. This study is expected to serve as (1)  data  for further  developing PRT; (2) input for  lecturers  in  writing  to  develop more effective and innovative learning; and (3)  additional  material  for  the development of critical and cooperative learning theories in teaching writing.


Peer-Review Technique; Writing; Writing ability; EFL teaching

Full Text:



Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy, 5th ed. New York: Pearson Education.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL Peer Response Group Interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1): 1-19.

Cho, K., & MacArthur, K. (2009). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 1, 1-11.

Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23: 260-294.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Respond to students’ writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, 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.

Hansen, J., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59: 31–38.

Harris, M. (1992). Collaboration is not collaboration: Writing center tutorials vs. Peer response groups. College Composition and Communication, 43: 369-83.

Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3): 321-342.

Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S.A., Wormouth, D.R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowely, MA: Newbury House.

Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentaries on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10: 1-4.

Liu, J. and Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(2): 100-115.

MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Best practice in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds). Best practice in writing instructions (pp. 141-162). New York: Guilford.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer review in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3): 274-84.

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers. New York: Longman.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1): 23-30.

Richardson, J. C., Ertmer, P. A., Lehman, J. D., & Newby, T. J. (2007). Using peer feedback in online discussions to improve critical thinking. In M. Simonson (Ed). Proceedings of The Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.

Schultz, J. M. (2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language classroom. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Suprajitno, S. (1998). Electronic Peer Review. In C. S. Ward, & W. A. Renandya (Eds). Computers and language learning (pp. 167-179). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Teo, A. K. (2006). Using a peer assisted writing activity to promote ESL/EFL students’ narrative writing skills. TESL Journal, 7(8): 12-25.

Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68: 249–276.

Topping, K., Smith E., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2): 149-169.

Vygotsky, L. S. (2000). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussions in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 14(2): 7-26.

Wood, D., & Freney, M. (2007). Collaborative peer review: A model for promoting reflective practice, improving quality of feedback and enhancing learning outcomes. Proceedings of HERDSA 2007 International Conference: Enhancing Higher Education, Theory and Scholarship, Adelaide, Australia.

Wooley, R. S. (2007). The effects of web-based peer review on student writing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kent State University, Kent.

Xu, Y. (2007). Re-examining the effects and affects of electronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 7(2): 4-18.

Zamel, V. (1985).Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19: 79-101.

Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4): 251-276.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

View Journal Stats