Investigating the Effectiveness of Peer Reviewing in a Moroccan University EFL Writing Class
Abstract
Although the effectiveness of peer reviewing has been established in some second language (L2) and foreign language (FL) writing contexts, its effectiveness in the Moroccan EFL context remains unexplored. The present paper reports on a quasi-experimental study designed to investigate the effectiveness of peer reviewing activity in Ibn Zohr University in Agadir, Morocco. The study aimed at (a) examining the effect of peer reviewing on the writing quality of the students’ revised drafts, (b) evaluating the validity and relevance of feedback provided by peers, (c) and surveying the students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the peer reviewing activity. Participants were 60 Moroccan freshmen who were enrolled in a spring semester composition course. The participants had been taught a twelve-session paragraph writing course, during which they received instruction and training on peer feedback practice. A pre-test post-test research design was used to collect data, which included the first drafts of participants’ paragraphs, their revised drafts, the written comments and suggestions provided in checklists, and the participants’ responses to a post-task questionnaire. The findings of both quantitative and qualitative analyses showed that peer reviewing is an effective activity in the Moroccan university EFL context: the paired t-test results revealed that significant improvements (p<.005) were made in the revised drafts; the quantitative analysis of the completed checklists proved the participants’ ability to provide valid feedback, and the qualitative analyses of the questionnaire revealed a general acceptance of peer reviewing as a useful and appropriate pedagogical activity for Moroccan university students. The findings of the study are interpreted with regard to some limitations it involves as well as some research areas that need to be investigated by future studies.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Al-Hazmi, S., & Schofield, P. (2007). Enforced revision with checklist and peer feedback in EFLWriting: The example of Saudi university students. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University (Humanities and Management Sciences), 8(2), 237-267.
Aoun, C. (2008). Peer-assessment and learning outcomes: Product deficiency or process defectiveness? In Proceedings of the 34th International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) Conference, September 2008, Cambridge.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”. College English, 4(7), 635-652.
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.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
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.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 38(2), 83-101.
Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12-39.
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-17.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.
Lundstrom, 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.
Maarof, N., Yamat, H., & Li, K. L. (2011). Role of teacher, peer and teacher-peer feedback in enhancing ESL students’ writing. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15, 29-35.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on eflstudents’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118-141. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
Ministry of National Education, Morocco. (Ed.). (2007). English language guidelines for secondary school: Common core, first year and second year baccalaureate. Rabat: Ministry of National Education, Morocco.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESl students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.
Panahandeh, E., & Asl, S. E. (2014). The effect of planning and monitoring as metacognitive strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative writing accuracy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1409-1416.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT journal, 59(1), 23-30. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci003
Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013) Peer review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it in L2 writing? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1349-1354.
Santrock, J. (2011). Educational psychology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renyanda (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Tsui, A. B. M., & NG, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. C. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
Wakabayashi, R. (2008). The effect of peer feedback on EFL writing: Focusing on Japanese university students. On CUE Journal, 2(2), 92-110.
Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/n
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 Abdallah GHAICHA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Share us to: 
Reminder
- How to do online submission to another Journal?
- If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:
1. Register yourself in Journal B as an Author
- Find the journal you want to submit to in CATEGORIES, click on “VIEW JOURNAL”, “Online Submissions”, “GO TO LOGIN” and “Edit My Profile”. Check “Author” on the “Edit Profile” page, then “Save”.
2. Submission
- Go to “User Home”, and click on “Author” under the name of Journal B. You may start a New Submission by clicking on “CLICK HERE”.
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases:
caooc@hotmail.com; hess@cscanada.net; hess@cscanada.org
Articles published in Higher Education of Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).
HIGHER EDUCATION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE Editorial Office
Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net Http://www.cscanada.org
E-mail: caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net
Copyright © 2010 Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures 
