http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No.

1; 2022

The Effects of Trained Peer Feedback for High School Students

Vu Phi Ho Pham1, Truong Chinh Le2, The Hung Phan1 & Ngoc Hoang Vy Nguyen3
1
Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
2
Hoa Minh High School, Tra Vinh Province, Vietnam
3
Institute of Linguistics, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Correspondence: Vu Phi Ho Pham, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Received: June 25, 2021 Accepted: October 11, 2021 Online Published: October 26, 2021
doi:10.5430/wjel.v12n1p27 URL: https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n1p27

Abstract
Peer feedback is proved to be effective in helping enhance students' writing quality, but few studies were employed
to train high school students to be better peer reviewers. The current study involved 64 grade-11 students in a
province in Vietnam to see whether trained peer feedback could be effective for high school students. The
experimental group was trained to conduct peer feedback, while the control group did it naturally. The semester
lasted for 16 weeks. Data collection was from the pre-test, post-tests, and semi-structured interviews. The results
revealed that the most common errors that the students committed were grammar (verbs, articles, repositions),
followed by vocabulary (word order, word choice, word form), and mechanics (capitalization, spelling, punctuation).
In addition, the students in the experimental group who received peer feedback training could significantly reduce
the written errors in the post-test. The students obtained positive attitudes towards peer feedback activities in the
writing classroom.
Keywords: peer feedback, writing errors, writing mistakes, error reduction, students’ attitudes
1. Introduction
Writing is a complex and deliberate action that includes a variety of internal processes and an external environment.
Additionally, writing is frequently self-directed, self-initiated, and self-sustaining (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997).
As a result, it is asserted that the growth of students' writing abilities is contingent upon their level of self-regulation
(Graham & Harris, 2000). One of the most significant problems EFL instructors confront in the classroom is with
writing. In the Vietnamese context, students must be able to comprehend the gist of paragraph writing. They are
expected to write simple paragraphs relating to familiar or personal topics of interest and describe experiences.
However, writing skills are always problematic for Vietnamese students (Pham & Bui, 2021).
Many researchers worldwide have employed peer feedback activities in their writing classrooms (Pham & Nguyen,
2020). Peer feedback on students' writing is critical, and its usefulness has been extensively established in ESL
writing studies (Jacobs, 1987; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992; Tsui & Ng, 2000). Keh (1990) and Pham (2021)
claimed that writing is the process through which many forms of peer criticism may be carried out, including written
comments, discussion of the paper, and checklist use. According to Shrum and Glisan (2000), reacting to writing
simply means that the instructor corrected students' grammar, vocabulary, and other common problems. According to
Jacobs (1987), peer feedback is frequently acknowledged as a way for students to read and constructively evaluate
one another's writing. Especially in large classes, one of the critical factors to consider when providing feedback is
the components of writing that should be emphasized, as well as specific components of writing, such as content,
organization, and language use (i.e., grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) (Pham & Nguyen, 2014), or on a specific
component of writing, such as grammatical errors, diction, or content (Weigle, 2002). In other words, providing
feedback is a process of giving and receiving from peers, emphasizing form and content.
There have been numerous advantages to incorporating peer feedback into writing classrooms (Pham & Nguyen,
2020). Tsui and Ng (2000) have shown that peer comments help students develop an authentic feeling of audience, a
sense of ownership over the piece, and a knowledge of their own writing's flaws. Most importantly, participating in
peer comment sessions enables students to learn from their peers' errors and well-written pieces of writing, allowing
them to grow as writers. As a result, feedback is viewed as an educational tool for enhancing students' writing
abilities. Students do not work alone or keep their thoughts to themselves while they are engaged in writing. Instead,
Published by Sciedu Press 27 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

they are involved in the reaction, assessment, evaluation, and modification processes. The students' peer feedback
and evaluation activities have a significant influence on their writing development. In practice, peer feedback also
aids students in developing their writing abilities by promoting their critical thinking. Another advantage is that it
improves students cognitively by encouraging them to think instead of receiving criticism from the teacher and has
certain social benefits (Damon & Phelps, 1989). In addition, providing peer feedback to students enables them to
express their thoughts and obtain constructive criticism from their peers to improve their writing on each draft. As a
result, students can modify their drafts.
Additionally, students have the opportunity to identify barriers in their writing. According to Lundstrom and Baker's
(2009) study, feedback providers made more substantial advances in their writing than feedback recipients, while
feedback providers with lower language competence made more significant gains than feedback recipients with better
language proficiency. Additionally, their research found that feedback providers improved global (organization,
development, and coherence) rather than local (vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics) elements of second language
writing.
2. Literature Review
Numerous scholars throughout Asia recognized that identifying the students’ written errors would aid them in adjusting
their teaching activities. As they found the students’ comment written mistakes, they knew what to focus on in their
lesson. According to Khansir and Pakdel (2020), issues involving error analysis approaches in English language
acquisition have been frequently studied for more than sixty years. Today, the error analysis approach is still widely
and effectively used in English language learning. Ho (2014) also noted that students frequently struggled with concept
organization, grammatical usage, transitional wordings, and word usage in writing classes.
Many researchers investigated the students' written errors and claimed similar findings. Bahrpeyma and Ostad (2018),
Chan (2010), Darus and Ching (2009), Pham and Pham (2015), Pham and Do (2019), and Salehil and Bahrami (2018)
found that when the students composed their writing, they regularly committed to some common errors, such as tenses,
collocations, spelling, word uses, and verb forms. These studies' four most common errors were mechanics, tenses,
prepositions, and subject-verb agreement.
Rahimi and Tafazoli (2014) analyzed the written mistakes made by undergraduate EFL students at Islamic Azad
University in Iran. According to their findings, Iranian EFL students made mistakes in using articles, verb groups,
prepositions, and incorrect negative constructions. They stated that the most frequent errors in this endeavor were in
the papers. Yousefi, Soori, and Janfaza (2014) studied the prepositional mistakes produced by Iranian EFL learners in
the English language and discovered that prepositional errors were the most often made.
In other words, writing in English is difficult for most Asians who have studied English as a foreign language. Writing
is sometimes touted as the most challenging talent to master compared to the other three: listening, speaking, and
reading. Due to its intricacy, feedback is viewed as a critical component of the writing process since it can improve
students' writing skills. It has been agreed that instructor feedback is impractical in a class with a large number of
students; consequently, peer feedback in the writing classroom faces significant obstacles (Kusumaningrum, Cahyono,
& Prayogo, 2019).
Gielen et al. (2010) conducted comparative research of peer and teacher feedback in a secondary school writing
curriculum and other kinds of peer feedback. The study discovered no significant difference between students who
received substituted peer input on writing projects and those who received instructor feedback in the control group.
This study suggested that peer input can be an effective substitute for instructor feedback. Additionally, the peer
feedback approach improved students' critical thinking, confidence, originality, drive, and writing ability. Farid and
Samad (2012) identified the most prevalent types of feedback, which fall into two broad categories: content feedback
and form feedback. Additionally, research indicates that direct feedback is more beneficial than indirect input.
Cahyono and Rosyida (2016) performed a research study on Indonesian EFL students' peer feedback, self-correction,
and writing competency to determine the efficiency of peer feedback and self-correction based on guideline sheets.
Seventy-one sophomore students who attended an essay writing course participated in this study. Students in all three
classes utilized identical writing materials that were based on a textbook. This study concluded that peer criticism and
self-correction based on guideline sheets benefit the writing process. The students enhanced their writing abilities via
the use of peer criticism based on established guidelines. As a consequence, peer input was helpful in assisting students
in improving the quality of their writing.
Altstaedter (2018) studied the effect of peer feedback on students' written comment kinds and writing quality.
Students in quasi-experimental groups were given a set of rules to follow while offering comments on their partners'
Published by Sciedu Press 28 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

writing. The study's findings indicated a statistically significant difference in the number of comments students
supplied following the training vs. the number of comments made before the training. This demonstrated that peer
criticism has a variety of effects on students' writing abilities.
Similarly, Park (2018) investigated whether teacher and peer feedback can be effectively applied in a university-level
EFL writing classroom. The study examined instructor and peer feedback features and students' actual use of
feedback, and their opinions of its usefulness. The study included twenty students majoring in the English language.
The findings indicated that instructor feedback was more balanced than peer feedback, indicating that both types
have their merits. However, they favored an integrated instructor complements. As a result, peer criticism enhanced
the writing ability of EFL students, particularly in terms of paragraph organization, grammar, and vocabulary.
Kusumaningrum et al. (2019) examined the influence of two different forms of peer feedback on students' writing
performance. The researcher divided the students into two different groups. The first was peer feedback in class, in
which any student may offer comments to another student who presented writing in class. While the other was a
small group activity with peer input, in which students may offer comments to one another in a small group setting.
Prior to students providing input, they were instructed on how to provide feedback to their peers in an in-class or
small group setting. The findings of this study indicated that students improved their writing skills after being
exposed to either in-class peer feedback or small group peer feedback.
Pham, Huyen, and Nguyen (2020) performed research to examine the impacts of peer feedback in writing classes
since this type of feedback may be quite beneficial when teaching L2 writing. There were 92 pupils in all, 45 from
Writing-1 and the remainder from Writing-3. A trainer supported the researcher in working with both groups, and a
coder–rater assisted the researcher in coding and evaluating participants' drafts. The purpose of this study is to
determine the quality of trained written peer criticism and its influence on students' modifications. The findings
indicate that the majority of peer comments were revision-oriented and that the number of accurate comments was
significantly more than the number of miscorrections.
Regarding students' opinions of peer feedback activities, Farrah (2012) asserted that students saw peer feedback as a
beneficial experience since it allowed for social contact while improving students' writing abilities. Yastbaş (2015)
discovered that students had a favorable attitude toward peer feedback and felt that it might help them overcome their
writing fear and increase their confidence in writing classes.
In summary, prior research has revealed that most Asian students routinely commit basic errors in grammar, articles,
prepositions, and word use. Writing teachers should be aware of these difficulties to assist students in developing
their writing abilities. Additionally, peer feedback was a beneficial practice in writing classes to assist students in
correcting such types of mistakes. However, in the research setting, high school instructors frequently overlooked
this issue. They seldom used this type of activity in writing courses, assuming that high school pupils had a limited
degree of English competence. They just could not afford it. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the
effects of peer feedback on high school students' paragraph writing performance, as well as to define how students
improve their writing after receiving peer feedback, as well as students' attitudes toward receiving and providing
feedback on their peers' writing.
Research Questions
In order to investigate the influences of peer feedback on high school students’ paragraph writing performance, two
questions are examined as follow:
1. What are high school students’ most common writing errors as composing a paragraph writing? Are
there any differences in common writing errors between the control and experimental group?
2. To what extent does peer feedback impact high school students' paragraph writing performance? What
are the students’ perspectives towards peer feedback activities?
3. Method
3.1 Research Context and Participants
This quasi-experimental study was conducted at Hoa Minh High School, founded in 2001 on Long Hoa island of
Chau Thanh district, Tra Vinh province. The participants obligatorily chosen for the study were sixty-four students
from two classes studying English in grade 11 with the same curriculum among five courses in the academic year
2019-2020. In this study, students were divided into two groups: The experimental group and the control group. The
experimental group comprised 32 students (divided into eight small groups of four). It worked in peer feedback
activities by using checklists.
Published by Sciedu Press 29 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

In contrast, the control group (eight smaller groups) had the same number of participants as the experimental group
without any specifically trained peer feedback. They conducted peer feedback on their skills and knowledge. All
students were required to write the same paragraph writing as a pre-test based on a textbook entitled Tieng Anh 11,
published by the Ministry of Education and Training. In particular, the students had practiced writing paragraphs
based on five genres: descriptive, example, process, opinion, and narrative. The two groups were involved in the
same stages of process writing, commencing from planning, draft, revising, to editing. The students were required to
compose a paragraph of 100 to 120 words; then, they conducted peer feedback activities.
The textbook Tieng Anh 11 was used as an official book for school students in grade eleven in Vietnam. The book
comprises 16 units; each unit consisted of forty-five-minute periods: Reading, Listening, Speaking, Writing, and
Language Focus with many different writing topics. In this present study, the participants have instructed the seven
genres of the book: Describing a celebration; writing a formal letter to express dissatisfaction and satisfaction;
describing location; describing information from the chart; describing the preparation for the coming Asian Games;
writing about a collection; writing a biography. However, the researcher would only choose two units to carry out the
experience on students' paragraph writing performance in this study. The research was carried out through twelve
weeks, including the pre-test and post-test and semi-structured interviews.
3.2 Data Collection
Writing pre-test and post-test were employed in this study to measure their writing outcomes before and after the
treatments. They were asked to write a paragraph of about 100- 120 words on specific topics. The writing topic for
the pre-test was ‘describe your hobbies’, and the writing topic for the post-test was 'describe your last weekend
activities.’
The writing tests of both groups would be scored through a scoring rubric, which was recorded by all the English
teachers in the research context. The scoring rubric was adapted from Weigle (2002), included three main
components of writing to be emphasized: content, grammar, and language use. This rubric scoring was used for the
inter-rater to evaluate the students’ writing paper. The total score is 10, the maximum score is 10, and the minimum
score is 0. In addition, to check whether the students' writing progressed or not, the students’ writing papers were
also measured by counting the number of mistakes in the first and final papers.
The semi-structured interviews were used to gain insights into students’ attitudes toward giving feedback to their
peers’ writings and the expectations of improvement of their writings after receiving written feedback. At the end of
the course, five rich-informant students were invited to participate in the semi-structured interviews to explore
qualitative data about the usefulness of peer feedback in writing classes, the improvement after giving and receiving
peer feedback from their peer' writing, and the interests in peer feedback when implementing peer feedback activities
in writing class.
3.3 Coding Scheme
To evaluate the effects of peer feedback on students’ paragraph writing work on their writing outcome, the pre-test
and post-test papers were encoded by two coders to measure the common errors. The coding scheme was focused on
three major aspects: grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. The encoding for students' mistakes correcting is shown
in Fig. 1 as an example.
Symbols Examples Meaning
WF Original: I go school today. Wrong form
Correction: I went to school yesterday
WO Original: I like very much this. Wrong order
Correction: I like this very much.
AG Original: My hobbies start when I am in ten years old Wrong agreement
Correction: My hobbies started when I am in ten years old.
Original: The hobby I like most are playing my guitar.
Correction: The hobby I like most is playing my guitar.
T Original: I visit my grandparents last week. Wrong tense
Correction: I visited my grandparents last week.

Published by Sciedu Press 30 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

Original: I have had the enjoyable activities last weekend.

Correction: I had the enjoyable activities last weekend.
SP Original: She alway helps me and give good advice Wrong spelling
Correction: She always helps me and give good advice
Symbols Examples Meaning
P Original: I stayed there for only three days. And I was very happy. Wrong punctuation
Correction: I stayed there for only three days, and I was very happy.
Original: I some time go out to chat with my friends
Correction: I sometimes go out to chat with my friends
WF Original: That movie is very well for you to watch in your free time. Wrong form
Correction: This movie is very good for you to watch in your free time.
Original: I like go to the cinema.
Correction: I like going to the cinema.
Art Original: It was a interesting movie to watch at the weekend. Article
Correction: It was an interesting movie to watch at the weekend.
Original: I am a student.
Correction: I am a student
Prep Original: I arrived at Dalat at 7:30 this morning. preposition
Correction: I arrived in Dalat at 7:30 this morning.
Original: On my free time, I do a lot of activities
Correction: In my free time, I do a lot of activities
WW Original: My employment is collecting stamps Wrong word
Correction: My favorite hobby is collecting stamps
Figure 1. The scheme for encoding students’ writing mistakes

To respond to each research question, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed. The
quantitative data (pre-test and post-test) were collected and analyzed by the SPSS vs. 26 to compare the differences
between and within the groups by running the independent sample t-test and paired sample t-test. Qualitative data
from the semi-structured interviews were transcribed and organized into themes of content.
4. Findings & Discussion
To evaluate the effects of peer feedback on the students’ paragraph writing performance, the students of the two groups
did the pre-test to check whether the students’ level of writing performance in the two groups before implementing
the peer feedback technique on teaching writing. Two raters rated sixty-four writing papers of the students in the two
groups. An Independent sample t-test of SPSS vs. 26 was run to compare. The inter-rater reliability of the pre-test of
the experimental group was .994, and that of the control group was .98. Table 1 presents the comparison of the pre-tests
between the two groups before the treatment.

Table 1. Comparison of the students’ writing in the pre-test of the two groups
Writing test Groups N M SD MD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pre-test Experimental 32 3.77 1.31 -.0.56 -0.048 62 0.934
Control 32 3.78 1.31
* Independent sample t-test

Table 1 shows that the homogeneity test for the results of pre-test from the two groups indicated that the students’
pre-test scores were homogeneous. The mean score in the control and experimental groups was 3.78 (M = 3.78; SD =
Published by Sciedu Press 31 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

1.31) and 3.77 (M = 3.77; SD = 1.31), respectively. There was no significant difference in individual writing skills
between two groups (-t(62) = .048; p = .934; p >.05). Therefore, the writing skills of students in the two groups were
considered equal.
In order to illustrate more clearly the students' paragraph writing performance in terms of common mistakes in both
pre-test, all the students' writing errors were counted. The main aim was to focus on some students’ common
mistakes, Especially, these mistakes related to three main components of writing to be emphasized: grammar (the use
of verbs, articles, repositions); vocabulary (words order, words choice, word form); and mechanics (capitalization,
spelling, punctuation). An independent sample t-test was run to check the equality of the students’ writing skills. The
results of students' paragraph writing performance of all of the component mistakes in the pre-tests of the two groups
are illustrated in table 2 and a brief summary of three aspects of mistakes.

Table 2. Summary of three aspects of mistakes at pre-test of the two groups

Students’ mistakes in the Components of Sig.
first drafts mistakes N Mean SD t df (2-tailed)
Pre-test (E-G) Grammar 7.19 2.16
Pre-test (C-G) 64 7.13 2.46 0.11 62 0.91
Pre-test (E-G) 4.34 1.54
Vocabulary
Pre-test (C-G) 64 4.47 2.11 -0.27 62 0.79
Pre-test (E-G) 2.50 1.27
Mechanics
Pre-test (C-G) 64 3.22 1.66 -1.95 62 0.06
Overall students’ mistakes in the first drafts of the
experimental group 14.03 4.11
Overall students’ mistakes in the first drafts of the 64 14.81 5.41 -.651 62 .518
control group
* Independent sample t-tests

As can be seen in Table 2, most of the mistakes at the pre-tests of the two groups related to the three aspects include
grammar (the use of verbs, articles, repositions); vocabulary (word order, word choice, word form); and mechanics
(capitalization, spelling, punctuation) which showed that the two groups made the number of students' mistakes in
each paragraph. The total mean score at the pre-test in the experimental group was 14.03 (M= 14.03, SD= 4.11)
while it was 14.81 ( M= 14.81, SD= 5.41) in the control group (-t(62)= -.65, p= .52; p > 0.05). The p-values of the
statistics reveal that mistakes in grammar and vocabulary were not significantly different. In general, the result
showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the mean score of the two groups. Therefore, it could
be confirmed that the students of the two groups had similar levels of error mistakes before any intervention.
Research question 1: What are high school students’ most common writing errors as composing a paragraph writing?
Are there any differences in common writing errors between the control and experimental group?
To respond to this research question, all the students’ writing errors or mistakes of the students’ writing tests were
tallied and compared. Inter-coders, who were also the inter-raters, were employed to code the students’ written errors.
The reliabilities of the inter-coders were .99 (pre-tests) and .98 (post-tests). First, we used the paired-sample t-tests to
compare the students’ writing errors in the paragraphs between the pre- vs. post-tests of the two groups to see if there
were any differences within the groups. Then, the independent sample t-test was run to compare the post-tests between
the two groups. Table 3 shows the comparison between the pre and post-test of the control group in terms of written
mistakes in three major aspects, including grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics. It had no significant difference
compared to the pre-test.

Published by Sciedu Press 32 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

Table 3. Students’ mistakes in 3-major aspects in the pre-and post-test of the control group
Sig.
Components of mistakes N Mean SD Correlation MD t df (2-tailed)

Pre-test (CG) 7.13 2.46

Post-test (CG) Grammar 32 5.97 2.13 .78 .13 4.17 31 .000

Pre-test (CG) 4.47 2.11

Post-test (CG) Vocabulary 32 4.34 1.98 .98 .13 1.68 31 .103
Pre-test (CG) 3.22 1.66
Post-test (CG) Mechanics 32 3.13 1.58 .98 .09 1.79 31 .083
* Paired sample t-tests

Table 3 reveals the control group students’ written mistakes or errors in three major aspects: grammar, vocabulary,
and Mechanics in the pre and post-tests. In total, 32 written paragraphs in the pre-test had 288 errors in grammar
(verbs, articles, repositions), while 32 written paragraphs in the post-test 32 written paragraphs committed to 191
errors in grammar. Regards to errors in vocabulary (word order, word choice, word form), 32 written paragraphs in
the pre-test had 143 errors, whereas those post-test paragraphs were slightly reduced to 139 errors in vocabulary.
Regarding mechanical errors such as capitalization, spelling, and punctuation, 32 pre-test papers committed to 103 in
mechanical errors, and 32 post-test papers remained similar to 100 mechanical errors.
Table 3 also reveals that of 32 paragraph writings, each paragraph writing of the pre-test, on average, made seven
errors in grammar (M=7.13; SD = 2.46), while it had made six grammatical errors (M=5.97; SD=2.13) in the
post-test. Relating to errors in vocabulary, each paper in the pre-test made four errors in vocabulary (M=4.47; SD =
2.11), and it had the same number of errors in the post-test (M=4.34; SD=1.98). With regards to errors in mechanics,
each pre-test paper had three errors in mechanics (M=3.22; SD=1.66), and it made a similar number of errors in the
post-test (M=3.13; SD=1.58). The results of the paired sample t-tests indicate that only grammatical errors were
statistically significantly different (t(31)= 4.17, p = .00; p < 0.01); mistakes in both vocabulary and mechanics were
not different statistically. In other words, the students in the control group, without any training of peer feedback,
could help each other reduce grammar mistakes, but not in vocabulary and mechanics. Table 4 presents the
comparison of the students’ written errors between the pre and post-test of the experimental group.

Table 4. Students’ mistakes in 3-major aspects in the pre-and post-test of the experimental group
Writing performance in Components of Sig. (2-tailed)
Experimental Group mistakes N Mean SD t df
Pre-test (EG) 7.19 2.16
Post-test (EG) Grammar 32 2.41 1.66 14.14 31 .000
Pre-test (EG) 4.34 1.54
Post-test (EG) Vocabulary 32 1.83 .859 10.13 31 .000
Pre-test (EG) 2.50 1.27
Post-test (EG) Mechanics 32 1.34 .61 4.67 31 .000
* Paired sample t-tests

As presented in table 4, 32 written paragraphs of the pre-test of the experimental group had 230 errors in grammar
relating to verbs, articles, and repositions. However, 32 post-test papers reduced remarkably to 77 errors in grammar.
Regards to errors in vocabulary, such as word order, word choice, and word form, 32 pre-test papers made 139 errors,
whereas the 32 post-test papers made only 58 errors. Next, relating to mechanical errors (capitalization, spelling,
Published by Sciedu Press 33 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

punctuation), 32 written papers committed to 80 errors in the pre-test, while they reduced to nearly a half, 44 errors
in mechanics.
Of 32 paragraph written papers of the experimental group in the pre-test, each written paper in the pre-test made
seven errors in grammar (verbs, articles, prepositions) (M=7.19; SD=2.16). However, these kinds of errors reduced
significantly to 2 errors in grammar (M=2.41; SD = 1.66). Relating to errors in vocabulary (word order, word choice,
word form), of 32 written papers in the pre-test, each paper made four errors (M=4.34; SD=1.54), while each in the
post-test had two errors in vocabulary (M=1.83; SD=.86). With regards to the errors in mechanics (capitalization,
spelling, punctuation), each pre-test paper was committed to 2.5 errors (M=2.50; SD=1.27), whereas each paper in
the post-test had approximately 1 error in mechanical aspects (M=1.34; SD=.61). The results of the paired sample
t-tests showed that there were statistically significant differences in the written errors between the pre-test and
post-test of the experimental group. The p-values, in term of grammatical mistakes (t (31) = 14.14, p = .000 < 0.05),
vocabulary (t(31) = 10.13, p = .00 < 0.05), and mistakes of mechanics (t(31) = 4.67, p = .00 < 0.05) indicate that
there were remarkable reductions. It could be confirmed that the students of the experimental group had a remarkable
improvement on paragraph writing performance, especially, they had been highly improved on grammar, vocabulary,
and mechanics. Table 5 presents the comparison of the post-tests between the two groups.

Table 5. 1comparison of the post-tests between the two groups

Components of Sig.
Groups N Mean SD t df
mistakes (2-tailed)
Experimental group Grammar 64 2.41 1.66 -7.45 62 .00
Control group 5.97 2.13
Experimental group Vocabulary 64 1.81 1.66 -6.64 62 .00
Control group 4.34 1.98
Experimental group Mechanics 64 1.38 0.61 -5.84 62 .00
Control group 3.13 1.98
Overall mistakes of the
64 5.6 2.64 -7.96 62 .00
experimental group
Overall mistakes of the control
13.5 4.96
group
* Independent sample t-tests

As shown in Table 5, of 32 written paragraphs in the post-test, each paper of the students in the experimental group
made six mistakes, on average, in grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics (M= 5.60, SD = 2.64). However, each paper
of the control group made 13 errors, on average (M=13.5; SD=4.96). The p-value of the independent sample t-test
revealed a statistically significant difference in written errors between the two groups in the post-tests. In other words,
the students in the experimental group who received peer feedback training could obtain great reductions of written
errors in the post-test. In other words, the students in the experimental group could produce better writing products
after they received the treatment. This finding confirmed the effects of peer feedback training by previous studies
such as Berg (1999), Tuzi (2004), Pham and Usaha (2016), Pham et al. (2020), and Pham (2021).
The findings of the present study were also consistent with some previous studies such as Tsui and Ng (2000),
Lundstrom and Baker (2009); Farid and Samad (2012); Yastıbaş (2015). For instance, Tsui and Ng (2000) reported
that peer feedback improved their students' writing skills and ideas. In addition, their students felt comfortable while
exchanging ideas in the peer feedback process, and they felt much more comfortable in the writing class.
Research question 2: To what extent does peer feedback impact high school students' paragraph writing performance?
What are the students’ perspectives towards peer feedback activities?
To seek answers to these research questions, I would compare all the students’ written paragraphs of the pre-tests to
those composed in the post-tests. All the scores rated by the inter-raters were used to compare the paired sample
t-tests and independent sample t-tests of SPSS vs. 26. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the inter-raters for the control group
Published by Sciedu Press 34 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

was .97, and that of the experimental group was .96. Table 6 shows the comparison of the two groups between the
pre-tests and post-tests.

Table 6. Comparison between the pre and post-test of the two groups
Writing performance N M SD MD Correlation t df Sig.(2-tailed)
Control group Pre-test 32 3.78 1.31 -0.28 0.79 -1.96 31 .059
Posttest 32 4.06 1.13
Experimental group Pre-test 32 3.77 1.31 -1.59 0.679 -8.91 31 .000
Posttest 32 5.36 1.20
* Paired sample t-test

Table 6 displays the comparison of the scores rated by the inter-raters between the pre-tests and post-tests of the two
groups. As can be seen, each of the students' written paragraphs gained 3.78 scores in the pre-test (M=3.78; SD =
1.31), and those in the post-test received 4.06 (M=4.06; SD=1.13). There seemed to be an increase in the scores
gained by the students in the post-test. However, the paired sample t-test (t(31)=-1.96; p=.059; p >.05) indicates that
there was no statistically significant difference in the scores between the pre-test and post-test in the control group. In
other words, the students who conducted peer feedback without any specific training from the teacher did not
improve their writing outcome much.
Also, as illustrated by table 6, of 32 pre-test written paragraphs of the experimental group, each paper received 3.77
scores in the pre-test by the inter-raters (M=3.77; SD=1.31). In the post-test, each paper gained 5.36 scores (M=5.36;
SD=1.20). The mean difference was -1.59. The p-value of the paired sample t-test (t(31)=-8.91; p = .00; p <.01)
indicates that there was a statistically significant difference between the pre and post-test scores of the experimental
group. That is, the students in the experimental group who conducted peer feedback with guideline training could
produce better versions of paragraph writing after the treatment. Table 7 presents the comparison of the post-tests
between the two groups.

Table 7. Comparison of writing outcomes of the post-tests between the two groups
Writing outcomes Groups N M SD MD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Post-test Experimental 32 5.36 1.20 1.14 4.44 62 .00
Control 32 4.06 .83
* Independent sample t-test

In order to see whether treatment was more effective or to confirm previous studies (Berg, 1999; Tuzi, 2004; Pham &
Usaha, 2016, Pham et al., 2020, and Pham, 2021) that the trained peer feedback really influenced the students'
writing outcomes, post-tests of the two groups was compared. Table 7 reveals that each paper of the experimental
group gained 5.36 scores rated by the inter-raters (M=5.36; SD=1.20), whereas each paragraph writing of the control
group received 4.06 scores (M=4.06; SD=.83). The independent sample t-test (t(62)=4.44; p = .00; p<.01) shows that
there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the post-tests. The students in the
experimental group improved their written paragraphs far better than those in the control group.
The following session was the qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews. The purpose of the interview was
to gain more insights into participants' attitudes towards giving and receiving peer feedback. After taking the writing
post-tests, five participants in the experimental group were invited to participate in the interviews. Five students
stated that their friends’ feedback was understandable because they shared similar levels of English proficiency, and
peer feedback helped them to interact with each other in a positive way.
Most of the students confirmed that they were happy to receive peer feedback to correct their errors in their papers.
Receiving feedback from peers could reduce their anxiety in writing in English. They felt more confident in writing
in English.
… I think that my writing is not perfect, and it needs to be corrected, so my friend corrects me; I have
appreciated my friends very much for pointing out those mistakes. I am confident to write better.
Published by Sciedu Press 35 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

(Student 1)
… Feedback activities in writing class can help me with developing my writing skills. More than that, I
can find the mistakes by myself, and then I can correct them quickly. … It helps me identify the
mistakes in my writing, and then I can correct them based on the guideline sheet or the checklist.
(student 5)
Most students agreed that receiving and giving feedback to their friends enabled them to correct their own mistakes
in writing. They mentioned that most of their peers made similar mistakes, so it was easy for them to provide
comments to their peer papers and correct their own mistakes.
I feel very happy when my friends give comments on the mistakes in my paragraph writing, and since
then, I have known how to correct my mistakes in writing. As I find similar mistakes or errors on my
peer papers, I can also give suggestions to my friends to correct them because some of my classmates
also make these similar mistakes. (student 2)
Most students expressed their preference for utilizing peer feedback activities in their writing classroom. They
reported that they liked using peer feedback in writing classes because it helped them to learn different writing styles
from their friends' comments and writing. They felt more motivated in writing with the support of the comments
from teachers and friends. Besides, they admitted that the peer feedback technique in writing helped them facilitate
their writing, and they thought it was very interesting and motivated them to write. For instance, students 3 and
student 4 perfectively answered
… I like using peer feedback activity in the writing classroom because I can have many different
opinions and can discuss with each other. I feel… I can know how my friends express their ideas and
thinking in different ways, and know more useful information. (Student 3)
… using peer feedback activity in the group makes me excited to write naturally and makes me think
more. (student 4)
All five students realized that peer feedback is a useful activity and brought them some beneficial aspects, such as
engaging in the lesson, increasing their interaction between group members, having more motivation in the learning
process, and improving their language achievement.
… I find using peer feedback a lot of benefits while I am learning to write… I feel that my classmates
also give out many good ideas to help me write better complete sentences (student 4).
… I think that giving feedback to my friends has many benefits, such as it can help me improve my
vocabulary, and I also learn new words from my friends to help me understand and remember longer.
(Student 5)
… I have more ideas, and then I write. I have friends to support words and grammar. Sometimes there
are very simple errors that I do not detect, but when my friends read, they immediately discover them
(student 1)
… I had improved more than before because I edited and presented the ideas logically. Also, I also
learn many new words from my friends (student 2).
In addition, some of the students expressed their attitude toward the usefulness of peer feedback. They considered
their peer feedback to be as effective as the teacher’s feedback.
… I think that peer feedback works just as well as the teacher's feedback to correct our homework, but
I can easily correct it because we work together to fix it to help me remember the lesson longer, and I
also learn from friends. (Student 2)
… I think that my peer feedback is very effective, and it helps me a lot. I find it is as effective as the
teacher’s feedback because we have a checklist to easily find errors (Student 1).
The findings of the current study were also in agreement with previous studies such as Shrum and Glisan (2000);
Yang et al. (2006); Lundstrom and Baker (2009); Farrah (2012); Park (2018). For example, Ferris (1995) stated that
students enhance their critical thinking skills and confidence as a result of reading text written by peers on
similar tasks. Yang et al. (2006) reported that peer feedback has distinct learning advantages and qualified
learners to be independent thinkers and creative writers. Another example, Wakabayashi (2008) and Farrah
(2012) found that peer feedback strategy makes students receive comments from the student's perspective, enhances
critical reading and critical thinking skills, and involves sharing ideas and receiving feedback. It also gains students'
Published by Sciedu Press 36 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

audience awareness. In other words, students are thinking as a reader that will improve their writing as well.
The qualitative data in the current study also claimed that the students had a positive attitude toward the
improvement after receiving peer feedback from their peers. This was in line with some previous studies such as
Jacobs (1981); Ferris (1995); Weigle (2002); Farrah (2012); Cahyono and Rosyida (2016); Park (2018);
Kusumaningrum et al. (2019); Pham et al. (2020). For example, Kusumaningrum et al. (2019) evaluated the influence
of two types of peer feedback provision on the students’ writing performance. The result revealed that the students
improved their writing performance after being exposed to either in-class peer feedback or small group peer feedback.
Farrah (2012) found that students viewed peer feedback as a worthwhile experience; it offered an opportunity for
social interaction. It also improved students' writing skills. Moreover, the technique enhanced students' critical
thinking, motivation, creativity, and confidence and helped improve their assignments.
Some previous studies, such as Farrah (2012), Yastıbaş and Yastıbaş (2015), indicated that the students who used
peer feedback in the writing class decreased their writing anxiety, increased their confidence, and improved their
writing by collaborating with and learning from each other. Farrah (2012) asserted that students viewed peer
feedback as a worthwhile experience; it offered an opportunity for social interaction. It also improved students'
writing skills. Moreover, the technique enhanced students' critical thinking, motivation, creativity, and confidence
and helped improve their assignments.
4. Conclusion
The present study aimed to examine whether peer feedback had any effects on high school students’ paragraph
writing performance among students grade 11 at Hoa Minh High School. The study setting was at two classes at the
same school with sixty-four students to participate in this research near the end of the second semester of the
academic year 2019-2020. Data collection was from the pre-test, post-test, and semi-structured interviews. The
pre-test and post-test results showed that after 16 weeks of implementing the peer feedback activities in the teaching
writing classes, the mean score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group in the post-test.
The results indicated that the most common errors that the students committed were grammar (verbs, articles,
repositions), followed by vocabulary (word order, word choice, word form), and mechanics (capitalization, spelling,
punctuation). In addition, the students in the experimental group who received peer feedback training could greatly
reduce the written errors in the post-test. There were significant differences between the mean score of the pre-test
and post-test in the experimental group. Especially, there was an improvement in the quality of paragraph writing
performance of the students in the experimental group compared with those in the control group. Additionally, the
students in the experimental group reduced mistakes in writing text after implementation of the peer feedback in
comparison with those in the control group. This confirmed that the students in the experimental group gained better
improvement in their writing skills. Their written errors or mistakes were reduced significantly in the post-tests.
Moreover, the participants in the experimental group agreed that they liked this treatment and thought that peer
feedback should be introduced and applied in the teaching context of high schools.
References
Altstaedter, L. L. (2018). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 137-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052
Bahrpeyma, M., & Ostad, O. (2018). Error analysis of composition writing: A case of Iranian EFL learners.
International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 7(2), 101-112.
https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2017.1694
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
Cahyono, B., & Rosyida, A. (2016). Peer feedback, self-correction, and writing proficiency of Indonesian EFL
students. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 7(1), 178-193. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol7no1.12
Chan, A. Y. (2010). Toward a taxonomy of written errors: Investigation into the written errors of Hong Kong
Cantonese ESL learners. Tesol Quarterly, 44(2), 295-319. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.219941
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International journal
of educational research, 13(1), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90013-X
Darus, S., & Ching, K. H. (2009). Common errors in written English essays of form one Chinese students: A case
study. European Journal of social sciences, 10(2), 242-253.

Published by Sciedu Press 37 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

Farid, S., & Samad, A. A. (2012). Effects of different kind of direct feedback on students’ writing. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 232-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.265
Farrah, M. (2012). 4 The impact of peer feedback on improving the writing skills among Hebron university students.
An-Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities), 26(1), 179-210.
Ferris, D. (1995). Students reactions to teacher response in multiple draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,
29, 33-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902894070
Graham, S., & R. Harris, K. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing
development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_2
Ho, P. V. P. (2014). Những hạn chế trong phương pháp dạy và học môn viết tại khoa ngoại ngữ trường Đại học Mở
Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. KHOA HỌC XÃ HỘI, 9(1), 127-140.
Jacobs, G. (1987). First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: Student and teacher reaction. System, 15(3),
325-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(87)90006-6
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4),
294-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
Khansir, A. A., & Pakdel, F. (2020). A Study of Written Errors of Iranian Learners: A Systematic Review. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 10(8), 982-987. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1008.18
Kusumaningrum, S. R., Cahyono, B. Y., & Prayogo, J. A. (2019). The Effect of Different Types of Peer Feedback
Provision on EFL Students' Writing Performance. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 213-224.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12114a
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, 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1(3), 235-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90005-A
Park, T. (2018). Effectiveness of Teacher and Peer Feedback: Through the Lens of Korean Tertiary Writing Classroom.
15(2), 257-565. https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.11.429
Pham V. P. H., Luong, T. K. P., Tran, T. T. O., & Nguyen, Q. G. (2020). Should Peer E-Comments Replace
Traditional Peer Comments? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 295-314.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13120a
Pham, V. P. H. (2021). The Effects of Collaborative Writing on Students’ Writing Fluency: An Efficient Framework
for Collaborative Writing. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244021998363
Pham, V. P. H. (2021). The Effects of Lecturer’s Model e-comments on Graduate Students’ Peer e-comments and
Writing Revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3), 324-357.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1609521
Pham, V. P. H., & Bui, T. K. L. (2021). Genre-based Approach to Writing in EFL Contexts. World Journal of English
Language, 11(2), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v11n2p95
Pham, V. P. H., & Do, T. P. T. (Dec. 2019). High School Students’ Common Errors in Writing Essays. International
Journal of English Linguistics, 9(6), 309-319. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n6p309
Pham, V. P. H., & Nguyen, N. H. V. (2020). Blogging for Collaborative Learning in the Writing
Classroom. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 10(3), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2020070101
Pham, V. P. H., & Nguyen, T, B, (2014). The Effects of Communicative Grammar Teaching on Students’
Achievement of Grammatical Knowledge and Oral Production. English Language Teaching (ELT), 7(6), 74-86.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n6p74
Pham, V. P. H., & Pham, N. T. D. (2015). Common Errors in Writing Journals of the English-Major Students at HCMC
Open University. Journal of Science – HCMC Open University, 2(14), 52- 61.
Published by Sciedu Press 38 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692

http://wjel.sciedupress.com World Journal of English Language Vol. 12, No. 1; 2022

Pham, V. P. H., & Siriluck, U. (2016). Blog-based Peer Response for L2 Writing Revision. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 29(4), 724-748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355
Pham, V. P. H., Huyen, L. H., & Nguyen, M. T. (2020). The incorporation of quality peer feedback into writing
revision. Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 45-59. Retrieved from
https://caes.hku.hk/ajal/index.php/ajal/article/view/732
Rahimi, A., & Tafazoli, D. (2014). Error Analysis In Technology-Mediated Communication: Focus On EFL Writing
In Synchronous And Asynchronous Modes Of Communication. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136,
66-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.289
Salehi1, M., & Bahrami, A. (2018). An error analysis of journal papers written by Persian authors. Cogent Arts &
Humanities, 5, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2018.1537948
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2002), Teacher’s Handbook: contextualized language instruction. Heinle & Heinle
college foreign language.
Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers
and composition, 21(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
Wakabayashi, R. (2008). The effect of peer feedback on EFL writing: Focusing on Japanese university students.
OnCUE Journal, 2(2), 92-110.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Ernst Klett Sprachen. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732997
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing
class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Yastıbaş, G. Ç., & Yastıbaş, A. E. (2015). The effect of peer feedback on writing anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as
a foreign language) students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 530-538.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.543
Yousefi, S., Soori, A., & Janfaza, A. (2014). Common Preposition Errors Committed by Iranian Students. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.1
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive perspective.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 73-101. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1997.0919

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Published by Sciedu Press 39 ISSN 1925-0703 E-ISSN 1925-0711

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4820692