The Correlation between Online Peer Review and Academic Writing Students’ Learning Styles

Emilia Ninik Aydawati, Dwi Rukmini, Dwi Anggani Linggar Bharati, Sri Wuli Fitriati

Abstract


Peer review studies have been done for years. It has been found that by having these activities, learners will get benefits from the communication with the peer who can give them input to improve their writing performance. Peer review can be done face to face or online.  Face to face peer review is done synchronously where two students are having discussion on their essay, whereas online peer review can be done synchronously or asynchronously. This preliminary study investigates how the application of synchronous online peer review in Academic Writing class can be implemented to help them to do revision and improve their writing skills. The participants of this study is 50 students of academic writing class from two different class.  This is an experimental study where the students were treated to get peer review activities from the software which is uploaded in   web. They did the practice twice with the shuffled questions. This was aimed that they would be ready to give review.  Pre-test and post-test were conducted and Gracian questionnaire to know their learning styles was uploaded in the web for them to fill in order to know their learning styles. it was found out that there are some improvement and there is correlation between their academic skills and the learning styles.

Keywords


Writing Class, online peer review

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aghaee, N., & Hansson, H. (2013). Peer Portal: Quality enhancement in thesis writing using self-managed peer review on a mass scale. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 186-203.

Al-hazmi, S. H., & Scholfield, P. (2007). Enforced Revision with Checklist and Peer Feedback in EFL Writing : The Example of Saudi University Students. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University, 8(2), 237–267.

Altstaedter, L. L., & Doolittle, P. (2014). Students’ perceptions of peer feedback. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 60–76.

Anthis, K., & Adams, L. (2012). Scaffolding: Relationships Among Online Quiz Parameters and Classroom Exam Scores. Teaching of Psychology, 39(4), 284–287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312456629

Aydawati, E. N. (2016). A Study of Students’ Perception on Peer Review Activities in Writing Class. 2nd International Seminar on Education Technology (ISET), 1–30.

Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794

Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer Feedback in Learning English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91–97. doi: https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v3i4.4314

Chiramanee, T., & Kulprasit, W. (2014). Journal Writing with Peer Feedback: A Friend or A Foe for EFL Learners. International Journal of English Language Education, 2(2), 142. doi: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v2i2.6038

Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of Peer E-Feedback on Turkish EFL Students’ Writing Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61–84. doi: https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Jamsen, K. (2012). 7 Tips for making Peer Review Work. Time to Write, 15(1&2).

Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Macleod, L. (1992). Computer-Aided Writing, 87–94.

Martín, E. (2016). How double-blind peer review works and what it takes to be a good referee. Current Sociology, 64(5), 691–698. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116656711

Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414527391

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-dick, D. (2003). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning : A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 37–41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr133oa

Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). An Analysis of Errors in Written English Sentences : A Case Study of Thai EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 10(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p101

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing : Product , process , and students ’ reflections, 14, 153–173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002

Tai, H.-C., Lin, W.-C., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Exploring the Effects of Peer Review and Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on EFL Students’ Online Writing Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284–309. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597490

Thokwane, D. (2011). Using Peer Review to Promote Writing Development in ESL Classes. All Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects. Retrieved from http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/282

Wichadee, S. (2013). Improving students’ summary writing ability through collaboration: A comparison between online wiki group and conventional face-to-face group. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3), 107–116.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v18i2.1246

Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2018 Celt: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature



| pISSN (print): 1412-3320 | eISSN (online): 2502-4914 | web analytics View My Stats