The Effectiveness Of Using Peer Correction On Improving Writing Skills To Students In Intensive English Classes.pdf

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

LÃ NGUYỄN BÌNH MINH

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF USING PEER CORRECTION
ON IMPROVING WRITING SKILLS TO STUDENTS
IN INTENSIVE ENGLISH CLASSES
AT HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY
(NGHIÊN CỨU TÍNH HIỆU QUẢ CỦA VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG
PHÁP NGƯỜI HỌC CHỮA BÀI CHO NGƯỜI HỌC NHẰM
NÂNG CAO KỸ NĂNG VIẾT TIẾNG ANH CHO SINH VIÊN CÁC LỚP
TĂNG CƯỜNG TIẾNG ANH – ĐẠI HỌC LUẬT HÀ NỘI)
M.A Minor Thesis

Field: Methodology
Code: 60 14 10

HANOI - 2009


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT

LÃ NGUYỄN BÌNH MINH

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF USING PEER CORRECTION
ON IMPROVING WRITING SKILLS TO STUDENTS
IN INTENSIVE ENGLISH CLASSES

AT HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY
(NGHIÊN CỨU TÍNH HIỆU QUẢ CỦA VIỆC SỬ DỤNG PHƯƠNG
PHÁP NGƯỜI HỌC CHỮA BÀI CHO NGƯỜI HỌC NHẰM
NÂNG CAO KỸ NĂNG VIẾT TIẾNG ANH CHO SINH VIÊN CÁC
LỚP TĂNG CƯỜNG TIẾNG ANH – ĐẠI HỌC LUẬT HÀ NỘI)
M.A Minor thesis

Field
: Methodology
Code
: 60 14 10
Supervisor: Lê Văn Canh, M.A.

HANOI - 2009


iv

TABLE OF CONTENT
Declaration
Acknowledgements
Abstract

List of Abbreviations
Lists of figures, tables and graphs
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1. Identification of the problem ........................................................................................ 2
1.2. The Scope of the Study ................................................................................................ 2
1.3. The Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................. 2
1.4. The Significance of the Study ...................................................................................... 2

1.5. The Organization of the Study ..................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................. 4
2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Approaches to Teaching Writing: Product vs. Process Approach ................................. 5
2.1.1. The product approach ............................................................................................ 5
2.1.2. The process approach ............................................................................................ 6
2.3. Peer correction ............................................................................................................. 9
2.3.1. Definition: What is peer correction? ...................................................................... 9
2.3.2. Why peer correction? ............................................................................................ 9
2.3.3. How to incorporate peer correction into the writing lesson? . Error! Bookmark not
defined.
2.4. Previous study on peer correction ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.5. Summary of the chapter ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.


v

3.1. Research Questions ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2. Research Design ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3. Subjects ........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4. Procedures .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.1. Data collection instrument ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.2. Procedure ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1. Analysis of Students’ general information ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2. Students’ attitudes towards peer correction method .....................................................26
4.2.1. Students’ views on the effectiveness of peer correction ........................................26
4.2.2. Students’ feelings towards the constraints of peer correction ................................35
4.2.3 Students’ preference for peer correction ................................................................38

4.3. Discussion ..................................................................................................................40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................42
5.1. Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................................42
5.2. Limitations and Recommendations for further study ...................................................43
5.2.1. Limitations ...........................................................................................................43
5.2.2. Recommendations for further studies ...................................................................44

Bibliography
Appendices


vi

List of Abbreviations

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

HLU

Hanoi Law University

L1

First Language

L2

Second Language

M

Mean

N

Number

p

Probability

SD

Standard Deviation

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences


vii

List of tables

Page
Table 1:

5 Steps of the Writing Process

7-8

Table 2:

Product vs. Process Approach

8

Table 3:

Codes for peer correction

19

Table 4:

Distribution of summed scores students’ attitudes in pre- and post-

27

questionnaire
Table 5:

Students’ responses to Statements 1 to 12

Table 6:

Means and Standard Deviations of pre- and post-questionnaire (Item

28-29
33

1 – 12)
Table 7:

Comparison of students’ attitudes towards peer correction between

34

pre- and post-questionnaire (Item 1 – 12)
Table 8:

Distribution of summed scores of the items 13-17 in the

35

questionnaires
Table 9:

Mean scores of students’ feelings towards peer correction

36

constraints (Items 13 – 17)
Table 10:

Comparison of students’ attitudes towards some constraints of peer
correction in the pre- and post-questionnaire (Items 13-17)

37-38


viii

List of figures and graphs
Page
Figure 1:

Students’ experience in studying English.

23

Figure 2:

Students’ self evaluation of their English standard

24

Figure 3:

Students’ perceptions of the difficulty of EFL writing

24

Figure 4:

Students’ interest in EFL writing

25

Figure 5:

Students’ opinions about error correction

25

Figure 6:

Students’ perceptions of peer correction before the experiment

26

Figure 7:

Students’ preference for peer correction

39

Figure 8:

Students’ opinions on whether they use peer correction in the future

39

Figure 9:

Reasons for using peer correction in future

40

Graph 1:

Sampling distribution of sample mean differences (Items 1 – 12)

35

Graph 2:

Sampling distribution of sample mean differences (Items 13 – 17)

38

List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Pre-treatment Questionnaire
Appendix 2: Post-treatment Questionnaire


1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Identification of the problem
Of the four language skills, writing is considered a complex skill that most learners
find difficult to study well. That is because in language teaching, it is a productive and taught
skill. As Penny Ur (1996:11) puts it “it is a skill that is readily picked up by exposure” and that
“requires some forms of instructions”.
Having taught EFL writing for some years, I realize that students face quite a few
problems in learning writing. Worst of all, many learners make mistakes and errors when they
write in the target language, regardless of how competent they are at grammar. Students rarely

proofread their writings before handing in to teacher as she notices quite a few careless
mistakes in grammar as well as spelling which can be avoided if students revise their work. It
is, therefore, essential for teachers to find out effective methods to overcome this problem.
In many countries, particularly in Vietnam, teaching EFL writing is included in the
curricular and the teaching of writing is just to pass exams. The traditional method employed
to teach writing is product-oriented approach. As far as this approach is concerned, teachers
focus on what a final piece of writing will be like and the normal procedure is to assign a piece
of writing, collect it, then return it for further revision with their errors either corrected or
marked for the students to do the correction (Raimes 1983).
In recent years, EFL writing teachers have borrowed techniques from first language
acquisition pedagogy, in particular the process approach to composition, which has been
around since the early 1970s. The process approach identifies four stages in writing: prewriting, composing/ drafting, revising and editing (Tribble). These stages are recursive, or
nonlinear and they can interact with each other throughout the writing process. This approach
emphasizes revision, also feedback from others, so students may produce many drafts with
much crossing out of sentences and moving around of paragraphs.


2

Peer correction is a strategy which has been strongly advised with the process
approach to teaching writing and is a promising teaching tool to overcome the above
mentioned problem. However, its effectiveness has not been sufficiently researched within my
teaching context. This gives the rational for the present study.
1.2. The Scope of the Study
This study limits itself to the examination of the effectiveness of peer correction on
students’ writing in the context of the English language program of a university. The
effectiveness was measured by means of a student questionnaire rather than with a pre-test and
post-test instrument. In other words, the study did not aim to find out the casual relationship
between peer correction as an independent variable and student writing proficiency as a
dependent variable. Rather, the focus of the study was just on the students’ perceptions of the

effectiveness of peer correction on their writing.
1.3. The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is of two - fold. First, this study aims at investigating
students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of peer-correction used as an instructional strategy to
improve the quality of learners’ English writings. Second, the writer of this thesis would like
to suggest some pedagogical implications for teachers in implementing this method teaching
EFL writing and suggestions for further research.
1.4. The Significance of the Study
As stated in the previous part, the purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness
of peer correction on improving learners’ writing skills in the writer’s teaching context.
Therefore, the results of this study will contribute a new implication to teaching EFL writing,
particularly, to the area of error treatment. If peer correction is found to be effective, it will
provide teachers at HLU an alternative method to treat errors in students’ compositions at
small scale, and thus to improve learners’ writing proficiency. The study will also provide a


3

great opportunity for language teachers to review and to reconsider effective ways of
responses to various writings, and so pave the way for a better teaching of writing at different
scales. More importantly, as being an alternative method, it may require revision of the
currently used materials/ textbooks in order to incorporate peer correction in the writing
lesson.
1.5. The Organization of the Study
This minor thesis consists of five chapters. In this chapter, the challenge as well as
approaches to EFL writing is briefly discussed; scope and rational of the study stated. The
purpose and organization of the study are also mentioned. Chapter two is the review of
literature which attempts to put the study in a proper context. Chapter three describes method
and procedure. Chapter four reports and analyzes quantitative and qualitative findings. The
last chapter presents the pedagogical implications of the study and points out its limitations

and suggestions for further research.


4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

As stated in Chapter 1, the purpose of this study is to explore the effects of a new
approach to L2 writing pedagogy, peer correction. To help contextualize this study, we will
briefly examine a variety of relevant literature that addresses the challenges of EFL writing,
product and process approaches to teaching writing, and previous studies on peer feedback.
We will also examine the possible advantages of peer correction and how to incorporate peer
correction into the writing lesson.
2.1. Introduction
Challenges of EFL writing. Writing is considered a complex skill in foreign language
learning in general and in EFL learning in particular. EFL teachers and students face certain
problems in teaching learning writing. As many teachers of English have noted, acquiring the
writing skill seems to be more laborous and demanding than acquiring the other three skills. In
fact, Nunan (1999) considers it an enormous challenge to produce “a coherent, fluent,
extended piece of writing” in one’s second language. This is magnified by the fact that the
rhetorical conventions of English texts – the structures, style, and organization – often differ
from the conventions in other languages. It requires effort to organize and manage these
differences (Leki, 1991).
Teaching EFL writing is rather complex because of many dimensions of writing that
need attention. For example, consider the accuracy of what is written, the originality of the
ideas that are expressed, the organization of those ideas, the attention to the purpose of the
writing, including the tone and various needs of the audience, and so on. These and other
important dimensions of writing may compete for the attention of the teacher and student
throughout the writing process.
For many students, the reason to practice writing is to pass exams or to get a good

grade in the class because the education systems in their countries emphasize writing for


5

taking tests. This focus on writing to pass exams reduces writing to producing a product and
receiving a grade from the teacher. This is not likely to make students interested in writing,
which become decontextualized and artificial, giving students no sense of purpose.
These challenges of EFL writing require an innovation in the teaching method to
motivate students to learn and improve their writing proficiency at the same time.
2.2. Approaches to Teaching Writing: Product vs. Process Approach

2.1.1. The product approach
The product approach is the traditional approach to teaching writing which focuses on
the end result of the act of composition, that is, the final draft of a paragraph, letter, an essay,
story and so on. The writing teachers who subscribe to the product approach are more
concerned to see what a final piece of writing will be like and measure it against criteria of
“vocabulary use, grammar use, and mechanical considerations such as spelling and
punctuations”, as well as content and organization (Brown, 1994: 320). Students in the classes
adopting the product approach typically are provided a model and encouraged to mimic it in
order to produce a similar product. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the normal
procedure is to assign a piece of writing, collect it, then return it for further revision with their
errors either corrected or marked for the students to do the correction (Raimes 1983). A model
for such an approach is outlined below:
Stage 1:
Model texts are read, and then features of the genre are highlighted. For example, if
studying a formal letter, students' attention may be drawn to the importance of paragraphing
and the language used to make formal requests. If studying a story, the focus may be on the
techniques used to make the story interesting, and students focus on where and how the writer
employs these techniques.

Stage 2:


6

This consists of controlled practice of the highlighted features, usually in isolation. So
if students are studying a formal letter, they may be asked to practise the language used to
make formal requests, practising the 'I would be grateful if you would…' structure.
Stage 3:
Organisation of ideas. This stage is very important. Those who are in favour of this
approach believe that the organisation of ideas is more important than the ideas themselves
and as important as the control of language.
Stage 4:
The end result of the learning process. Students choose from a choice of comparable
writing tasks. Individually, they use the skills, structures and vocabulary they have been taught
to produce the product; to show what they can do as fluent and competent users of the
language.
2.1.2. The process approach
Process approach to the teaching of English writing is an idea that began to flourish 30
years ago as a result of extensive research on first language writing and has been advocated in
contrast with the traditional product-oriented method of teaching writing, and has been
generally accepted and applied by English teachers in their classroom teaching of English
writing. In process writing, the teacher moves away from being someone who sets students a
writing topic and receives the finished product for correction without any intervention in the
writing process itself. Nunan (1991) clearly states that the process approach focuses on the
steps involved in creating a piece of work and the process writing allows for the fact that no
text can be perfect, but that a writer will get closer to perfection by producing, reflecting on,
discussing and reworking successive drafts of a text. He adds that while the product-oriented
approach aims at developing the learner’s writing skill at sentence level, process approach
aims at developing the learner’s writing skill at discourse level.

As the name of the method suggests, process approach to teaching writing requires
learners to undergo certain steps before producing a final product. Houpt advocates a threestep process to writing: 1) in-class conversations, 2) a written draft, and 3) student editing of


7

her/his own draft. According to Oshima and Houge (1991), the writing process embraces
essentially four steps: pre-writing, planning (outlining), writing, and revising drafts.
Meanwhile, Hedge (1990) supposes that the process consists of different stages which can be
illustrated as followed: “being motivated to write – getting idea together – planning and
outlining – making notes – making a first draft – revising – replanning, redrafting – editing
and getting ready for publication”. All the ideas above share one common thing, that is,
process approach undergoes certain steps which require learners to fulfill different tasks in
order to construct a good piece of work. Here in this thesis, the writer introduces the basic
process scheme: prewriting  drafting  revising  editing  publishing. The steps
involved in this process are described in the table below with some suggested strategies to
achieve each step:
STEP

DESCRIPTION

STRATEGIES

An activity that causes the writer to

Drawing

think about the subject.

Talking

understands
Prewriting

the

The writer

purpose

of

the

writing, discovers the topic, thinks
about

the

information

audience,
and

gathers

organizes

his

thoughts before he begins to write.

Drafting

Brainstorming
Graphic organizers
Research
Listing
Field Trips

The process of putting ideas down on

Taking notes,

paper. The focus is on the content and

Organizing thoughts

fluency of the writing, and the writer

into paragraphs,

is not preoccupied with grammatical

Writing a first draft

accuracy or neatness of the draft.

Revising

The process of refining the piece of

Peer editing

writing. The writer adds to a writing

Conferencing

piece. The writer reorganizes a piece

Share Chair or Author’s

of writing. The writer shares his story

Chair


8

and gets input from peers or teacher.

Editing

Mechanical, grammatical and spelling

Checklists

errors are fixed in the writing piece.

Editing Checklists

Proofreading

The writing piece is prepared in final
Publishing

form, including illustrations.

Reading aloud

The

Reading to a group

writer shares his writing with others.

Displaying in the room

Table 1: 5 Steps of the Writing Process

The process approach to teaching writing brings about quite a few pedagogical
benefits. To begin with, it helps writers develop skills to write on their own as well as develop
thinking skills and learning strategies. Moreover, the approach emphasizes the individual
learner’s development of the ability to assess and manage his own learning through the use of
strategies and a feeling of self-efficacy.

Product vs. Process Approach

Product Approach

Process Approach

•

Model text to be imitated.

•

Model text as resource for comparison.

•

Emphasis on organization of

•

Emphasis

ideas.

on

ideas

and

idea

development.

•

One draft.

•

Multiple drafts.

•

Emphasis on end product.

•

Emphasis on process.

•

Teacher as audience.

•

Various audiences according to type of
writing.

•

Teacher as authority.

•

Peer feedback as valuable tool.

•

Importance of teacher-corrected

•

Importance

papers.

of

conferencing

interactive feedback.
Table 2: Product vs. Process Approach

and


9

2.3. Peer correction
2.3.1. Definition: What is peer correction?
Peer correction is a fundamental element of a process approach to writing in which
students read each other’s writings and give comments or suggestions. Peer correction can
simply mean correction from fellow students, compared to correction by teachers. Liu and
Hansen define it in a more detailed way: “the use of learners as sources of information and

interactants for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities
normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting on and critique
each other’s drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing” (2002:1). If
students are working on the same assignment as another student, peer correction can mean
exchanging drafts and comments on each others' drafts. Here in this study, it refers to any
changes made on students’ compositions after the process of students’ exchanging their
compositions and proofreading them on their own. Throughout the process of peer correction,
students make corrections without teacher’s slightest interference.

2.3.2. Why peer correction?
As mentioned in the previous section, teachers are usually the one who provides
correction models for students to follow. They are, therefore, the sole evaluator of learners’
writing. Over the past years, peer correction has been applied to replace the traditional method
of error correction. This new strategy has brought about quite a few advantages to both
teachers and learners themselves.
For teachers, peer correction is obviously advantageous because it frees them from the
heavy workload of correcting students’ writing errors, which is a time-consuming, “tedious
and unrewarding chore” (Hyland, 1990). They therefore can spend more time preparing lesson
plans carefully, developing teaching materials to suit learners’ need, and doing scientific
research to improve their teaching method and quality. Students themselves are the one who
benefit from this.


10

Peer feedback is no doubt beneficial to students for various reasons. First and
foremost, peer correction is the source of motivation and encouragement for students to write.
It is clear that writers need to write for audiences, preferably those that can give more or less
immediate feedback. The students themselves know that they write for more than just the
teacher. That their friends are going to read their composition encourages them to devote more

time and effort to produce good work. Furthermore, peer audiences are more sympathetic than
the more distant and judgmental teacher audiences, that makes learners self-confident in their
writing. Peer correction also provides a change from the one-way interaction between teacher
and students, so students may find interests in the new learning environment. As well, peer
correction is considered a task-based learning. In task-based learning, students are motivated
because there are specific tasks’ outcomes for them to fulfill; hence, knowing that they have
achieved the goals, they can enjoy the satisfaction.
Second, peer correction provides more chance for students’ social interaction and
collaboration. According to Larsen-Freeman (2000: 164), cooperative or collaborative
learning essentially involves students learning from each other in pairs or in groups. Students
benefit from the givens of the socio-cultural approach to teaching and learning as it is through
the promotion of interaction with peers and teachers that new meaning is constructed and
conveyed. Vygotsky’s (1978: 57) work has shown us that cooperative interaction allowed
students to progress. As Johnson (1994: 4) suggests, cooperative learning can be described as
a process with the following qualities:
Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals. Within cooperative
situations, individuals seek outcomes beneficial to themselves and all other group
member. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups through which
students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning. It may be
contrasted with competitive learning in which students work against each other to achieve
an academic goal such as a grade of “A”.
Additionally, through group work and pair work, learners can build up confidence and
progress more quickly than those who can only learn directly from teachers (Haines, 1995).
Peer interaction is actually one of the means facilitating knowledge construction both formally


11

and informally as from the constructivist view of learning, people actively construct
knowledge for themselves and knowledge is based on categories derived from social

interaction but not observation (Biggs and Moore, 1993:22). Therefore, peer interactivity can
be applied to promote learning.
Last but not least, a lot of research findings prove that students can help and get help
from peer writers and readers. On the one hand, peer readers can provide useful feedback.
There is some research evidence supporting this. For example, Rollinson (1998) found high
levels of valid feedback among his college-level students: 80% of comments were considered
valid, only 7% were potentially damaging. Caulk (1994) had similar results: 89% of his
immediate/ advanced FL students made comments he felt were useful, 60% made suggestions
that he himself had not made when looking at the paper. He also found little bad advice. Caulk
added that peer comments were more specific compared to teacher feedback. On the other
hand, peer writers can and do revise effectively on the basis of comments from peer readers.
Rollinson (1998) found higher levels of uptake of reader feedback and 65% of comments were
accepted either completely or partially by readers. Mendoca and Johnson’s (1994) study
showed that 53% of revisions made were incorporations of peer comments. It may be that
becoming a critical reader of others’ writing may make students more critical readers and
revisers of their own writing.
All in all, the advantages of doing peer correction in L2 writing class lie in one side of
students’ benefits which mean to practice and improve students’ writing skills. This is the
right purpose that all teachers have been working towards.

2.3.3. How to incorporate peer correction into the writing lesson?
The advantages that peer correction brings about to teachers and learners are obvious.
For teachers, peer correction helps reduce their heavy grading workload, especially when they
teach large classes. For students, it can give constructive information about their writing.
Therefore, peer correction is considered a common tool to optimize learning opportunities
from mistakes learners make in written compositions and to encourage the editing stages of


12

process writing. In order to make peer correction work, there are two important things that
instructors must do. First, it is of great importance to make students aware of the benefits of
peer correction, so that they will responsibly take part in the peer correction process. Second,
modeling or training learners on how to do peer correction. It is advisable to use worksheets or
forms to guide responders to give appropriate and useful responses.
There are a variety of ways to implement this learning strategy. Students can exchange
their work within their pre-assigned pairs. The exchange can happen in or out of class.
Students can exchange with a neighbor in class or papers can be collected by the instructor and
then re-distributed. An in-class correction will allow students immediate feedback and the
instructor can expect the finished assignments at the next class meeting time. Some
complicated assignments would require an out-of-class peer correction in order that students
have enough time to complete the task well.
It should be noticed that peer correction is included in the revising step. Therefore, it
can only be implemented in the writing lesson once students have finished writing the first
drafts. Depending on different lessons and schedules, learners’ compositions may be
completed in the class time or at home. Hence, peer correction can be integrated in the writing
lesson following this procedure:
 Procedure


Set the writing task. After completing the first step, teachers ask students to write the
first draft. Ask learners to double-space or leave a clear margin to reserve space for
correction.



Ask students to exchange their compositions with a partner, or teachers collect the
work and re-distribute it to all the students in the class to correct it using the correction
code. Learners underline the mistakes their partner made in his/her writing and add the
codes, either underneath or in the margin.



Ask students to return the work and revise it on the basis of peer correction. If there is
not enough class time, teachers can allow them to do the revisions at home, then
submit both the draft with the improved version in the next class, so that teachers can
make a comparison of students’ before and after peer correction performance.


13

During collaborative work, it is important for instructors to touch base with each pair
in order to give help or advice promptly.
2.4. Previous study on peer correction
Lyster and Ranta (1997) point out that the research that has focused on the issue of
error treatment in second language classrooms in the past 20 years has continued to pose the
questions framed by Hendrickson in his 1978 review of feedback on errors in foreign language
classrooms. These questions are:
• Should learners' errors be corrected?
• When should learners' errors be corrected?
• Which errors should be corrected?
• How should errors be corrected?
• Who should do the correcting?
Research on this area has pointed out different correction methods to tackle learners’
writing errors, such as teacher feedback and peer feedback. In fact, teachers alone cannot sort
out the problem, so student-student collaboration comes into play.
Peer correction is becoming more popular nowadays as it “operates on a more informal
level than teacher response” (Rollison, 2005). Research findings show positive results of this
strategy to tackle learners’ writing errors (Karegianes et al, 1973:203; Jacob, 1988; Keh, 1990;
Mangelsdorf, 1992, Storch, 1998; De Guerrerro & Villamil, 2000).

In the research conducted by Karegianes et al (1973:203), a quasi-experimental design
was employed to determine the effects of a highly-structured peer editing treatment on essay
writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. After the ten-week period, the peer
editing group had significantly higher writing proficiency than those students whose essays
were edited solely by teachers.
Jacob (1988) did an experiment on the third-year Thai students majoring in English.
They were asked to rewrite their drafts after considering peer comments on grammar. The
study concluded that there was relatively small amount of miscorrection and peer feedback