Abstract
Numerous studies support peer-reviewing as beneficial for second language learners, enhancing writing quality, critical thinking, and overall English proficiency. However, there is still a limited number of research on how this technique influences students' ability to produce well-structured academic writing. Peer-reviewing and traditional writing instruction have quite different learning goals. Peer-reviewing aims to make students actively engage in evaluating and providing feedback on peers' work, developing their analytical skills and writing awareness. Meanwhile, traditional writing instruction emphasizes teacher-centered feedback and individual writing practice. This research aims to examine the effect of peer-reviewing strategies on students' ability to improve their writing skills among EFL undergraduates. The method used in this research is experimental by using "One Group Pretest-Posttest Design." This design requires conducting a pre-test before implementing the treatment, then followed by conducting a post-test once it is completed. The results of this study indicated that the peer-reviewing strategy applied to class A of the English Education Study Program for one semester can significantly improve the quality of students' writing skills. This improvement can be seen from the results obtained in the pretest and post-test which have been conducted before and after treatment (Peer-Reviewing). By conducting peer-reviewing activities, it can bolster students' academic writing scores by cultivating deep-seated writing competence, vocabulary breadth, grammar awareness, and critical thinking skills. Through consistent engagement in evaluating and providing feedback on diverse peer texts, students enhance their overall writing proficiency, fostering a solid foundation for improving academic performance.
References
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Longman.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press.
Lundstroms, 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.
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.
Ningsih, R., Syafi'i, M., & Mukminin, A. (2021). Improving students' writing skills through collaborative writing strategy. Journal of English Language Teaching, 5(2), 87-96.
Rahmawati, D., Sukirlan, M., & Sudirman, S. (2022). The implementation of process-genre approach to improve students' writing skill. Journal of English Education Program, 3(1), 45-54.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Sugiyono. (2016). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R&D. PT Alfabet.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
Wijaya, K. F. (2020). The correlation between students' reading habit and their writing skill. Journal of English Education Program, 1(2), 101-110.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.