IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Exploring the Impact of Peer Assessment on EFL Students’ Writing
Performance
Eleni Meletiadou
London South Bank University, UK

77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Abstract
Lately, researchers have expressed their concern for EFL students’ poor writing performanceand exam failure. They have indicated that peer assessment (PA) can be successfully
employed to support a better integration of teaching/instruction with assessment of progressin learning. Bearing this in mind, the current study employed a pre-test post-test quasiexperimental design and aimed to explore the effect of PA on 200 Greek Cypriot EFL
students’ writing performance. These adolescent learners attended two writing classes per
week (90 minutes) for a full school year. Teachers received training in PA skills and then had
to train their own students. Students were asked to use a PA rubric which was also devised by
the researcher but negotiated between the students and their teachers during the training
sessions. Paired T-tests were performed to investigate whether students in the control (n=100
students and 10 teachers) and the experimental groups (n=100 students and 10 teachers)
enhanced their writing performance comparing their pre- to post-test scores. The study
outcomes indicated that PA could have a moderately positive impact on students’ writing
performance. The use of PA improved students’ writing performance in 5 aspects: mechanics,
organisation, content, focus, and vocabulary and language use. In response to the need formore experimentation, this study provides recommendations for PA implementation insecondary school EFL writing classes which enable teachers to improve students’ writing
performance.
Keywords: peer assessment, writing performance, secondary education, EFL learning

78

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Peer assessment (PA), as an alternative form of “assessment for learning” which promotes
learner-centered assessment, has drawn considerable attention for more than four decades(Chang & Lin, 2019; Hoffman, 2019; Meletiadou & Tsagari, 2016; Topping, 2018). It is an
educational arrangement where students judge a peer’s performance quantitatively, forexample, by providing a peer with scores or grades, and/or qualitatively, for example, by
providing a peer with written or oral feedback (Topping, 2017). PA has significant pedagogicalvalue because it enables learners to take part in assessment by evaluating their peers’ learning
process and products (Bryan & Clegg, 2019).
According to the literature, PA supports the learning process by providing an intermediatecheck of student performance against the criteria, accompanied by feedback on strengths,
weaknesses, and/or tips for improvement (Panadero, 2016; Topping, 2017). There can also belearning benefits for peer assessors since they are exposed to other ideas and writing samples
and are able to internalise the assessment criteria and standards (Smyth & Carless, 2020).
However, not all types of peer feedback may lead to an improvement in performance.
Researchers describe several conditions under which peer feedback may have a positive
influence on learning (Schünemann et al., 2017). Involving learners in the assessment
procedure is widely acknowledged as vital to effective self-regulation since it allows learners
to identify mistakes and develop strategies to address them (Zamora et al., 2018). However,the development of PA skills is challenging. It requires continuous and repeated practice forlearners to become competent peer assessors (Andrade, 2016). Engagement in PA presupposesthat teachers can inspire learners and involve them in carefully designed tasks (Race, 2019).
Therefore, participation in PA ultimately intends to have a positive influence on their cognitive
development and motivation towards learning (Adachi et al., 2018).
This study aims to explore whether PA of writing can be used to improve adolescent students’
writing performance and present a PA implementation study in the Greek-Cypriot context sinceaction research in secondary education is scarce. Initially, research studies highlighting the useof PA of writing in EFL contexts will be presented to examine some of the findings in theliterature. Then, the methodology of the study will be described, and its findings will be
rigorously discussed. Finally, conclusions will be drawn, the limitations of the study will behighlighted and suggestions for further research as well as recommendations will be provided.
Literature Review
To date, literature that empirically links quality criteria for feedback to performance
improvement in the case of PA is scarce and few studies adopt a quasi-experimental approach
to explore the impact of instructional interventions on PA efficacy and student learning (Double
et al., 2020). The present study intended to explore whether the effectiveness of PA as alearning tool could be raised through an innovative instructional intervention in secondary
education. It also aimed at developing a deeper learning experience enabling learners to engage
with new information in terms of the written assignment, assessment criteria, and theassessment procedure as opposed to repetitive and ultimately unsuccessful learning (Topping,2017).
There are several principles for effective formative PA which is intended to enhance learning.
First, formative PA should aim at self-regulation enabling learners to monitor their learning,set goals, develop suitable strategies, manage resources, and work consistently to achieve thesegoals. Students should be allowed to take responsibility for and take control of their learning(Lee & Hannafin, 2016). Research indicates that teachers should provide information about

79

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

expectations and aims. Further, assessment criteria should be explained clearly. Teachers
should cooperate with learners to design assessment rubrics and offer opportunities for learners
to provide feedback (marks and comments) to each other in relation to the defined assessment
criteria. They should also use PA with their students because it encourages low-achieving
learners to work hard and overcome obstacles when learning to write. Learners feel that theirpeers, who take part in PA, share their concerns and provide them with continuous support(Barrot, 2016). This study intends to offer recommendations for PA implementation which may
help teachers use PA of writing effectively in their classes.
One of the goals of using PA in EFL classes is that it can guide learners to reflect more carefullyon the same elements of their own written work (Hicks et al., 2016). As learners enhance theirwriting performance, while comparing their writings and receiving feedback from their friends
and teachers, the possibility of engaging in fruitful conversations in terms of which theyexchange ideas, clarify points, ask questions, and examine as well as reflect on their options
increases (Zhu & Carless, 2018). Peer assessment may foster enhanced learning because
students can provide additional feedback. This type of response is different and is possibly
received and understood more effectively than teacher feedback (Rotsaert, Panadero &Schellens, 2018). Revisions initiated by teacher feedback were often found to be less successful
than those related to peer comments although peer feedback sometimes induced uncertainty(Allen & Mills, 2016). This study indicates ways in which PA can be used by adolescentstudents who wish to improve their writing skills and become more autonomous learners.
Teacher feedback, although highly evaluated by learners is often associated with confusion,
misinterpretation and miscommunication (Edwards & Liu, 2018). On the contrary, peer advice
generates discussion and increases reflection as peers ask for clarification and negotiate
meaning (Kuyyogsuy, 2019). Peer assessment enhances learners’ understanding in terms ofwriting, allows for more self-corrections, checking books, and asking teachers for clarifications
as students are encouraged to assume responsibility for their own assignments (Fan & Xu,
2020). It increases mindful reception as well as the frequency, extent and speed of marks andcomments for learners while reducing teachers’ workload (Ashenafi, 2017). The current study
wishes to explore how involving learners in the assessment procedure may increase the amountand number of assessment opportunities and improve their writing performance. Therefore, thepotential lower quality of student feedback may be an acceptable trade-off if PA enhanceslearner engagement and progress.
Conversely, some studies indicate that learners think that PA is aimless because peers are notregarded as experts, tend to provide positive feedback to friends, and teachers make the final
decisions anyway (Wu & Schunn, 2020). It is crucial to remember, however, that formative
assessment methods can enrich learners’ subsequent performance in summative tests (Dixson& Worrell, 2016). Student engagement in assessment also aims to prepare learners for lifelong
learning (Nguyen & Walker, 2016). Consequently, this study seeks to explore ways in which
secondary school students can develop their professional skills (i.e., reflection) which arevalued by employers.
Peer assessment may also be considered as a luxury or a practice which is, in a way, irrelevant
when the aim is enhanced performance in external high-stakes tests (James, et al., 2017). Sincepeers are not experts, the accuracy of PA varies (Reinholz, 2016). Further, peer assessors’
judgement and comments are often challenged by peer assessees as learners do not have thekind of authority and subject knowledge that teachers have (Topping, 2017). However, PA in80

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

this study is used in combination with teacher assessment (TA) as the objective is tocomplement TA and gradually allow students to develop their writing skills.
To sum up, findings in the literature are quite confusing. Although PA may yield various
benefits in relation to student writing performance (Chien et al., 2020), there still seems to bean emphasis on teacher-centred instruction and assessment despite students’ poor performancein formal tests of writing in Cyprus and other countries (Tsagari & Meletiadou, 2015). The
present study aimed at addressing various literature gaps using a semi-experimental design,rarely used by researchers in the field of PA. It also examined the use of PA in secondary
education, a topic which has not been widely explored (Fu et al., 2019). There is still little
research on how to adapt this approach to the school contexts of many countries (Topping,2018).
Therefore, the current study investigated the use of PA as an innovative learning tool which
may enhance EFL students’ writing skills in secondary education. It also provided PA
implementation guidelines for secondary school writing classes. The aim was to enable
teachers to improve student performance, particularly in the field of writing. In the present
study, the researcher investigated the following research question:
1. What kind of an impact does PA have on adolescent EFL students' writing
performance?
Methodology
Participants
The participants in the study were 200, 13-15-year-old students of four public secondary
schools in Cyprus. The participating learners faced considerable problems with their writing
performance and scored relatively low at the end-of-year exams which gradually prepared themfor the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) exams. The learners
randomly formed 20 mixed ability EFL groups which attended two 90-minute writing classes
per week. This was a convenient sample since the researcher had to work with volunteers,
depending on the students and teachers who wished to take part in the study (Mertens &Caskey, 2018).
Participants were all native Greek Cypriots and shared the same cultural and a similar socioeconomic background. These students also had a similar kind of exposure to EFL whichclassified them as intermediate stage (B1) according to the Common European Framework ofReference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001). Participation in the present study was voluntaryand conditional on participants and their guardians signing an informed consent form, which
had been previously approved by the Cypriot Ministry of Education.
Instrument
This study employed a multiple-trait approach (Nodoushan, 2014) to assessing student essay
quality prior to and after receiving training in PA. As for measuring the writing scores of thefirst drafts and final versions, two different scoring methods were employed: holistic andanalytic scoring (Han & Huang, 2017). These two measurements were complementary andprovided sufficient information about the participants’ writing abilities. The PA rubric (Table1) was adapted from two lists in White and McGovern (1994) and Jacobs ESL Composition
Profile (Jacobs et al., 1981) to reflect learners’ errors and their examiners’ preoccupations.

81

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Table 1The PA Rubric
Criteria/Weighting

Excellent/
Very Good

Good

Average

Poor

Very Poor

A. Content (sample statements for all categories)
1. The main ideas are clear.
B. Organization
1. The writer uses simple linking devices.
C. Vocabulary and language use
1. There are subject/verb agreement errors.
D. Mechanics
1. There are punctuation errors.
E. Focus
1. There is a clear sense of audience.
Analytic score:Content: __(out of 4)
Organization: __ (out of 4)
Vocabulary and language use: __ (out of 4)
Mechanics: __ (out of 4)
Focus: __ (out of 4)
Total score: __ (out of 20)
Holistic score:
Excellent/Very Good

Good

Average

Poor

Very Poor

Students had to read their peers’ essays and reflect on the statements for each category-content,
organisation, focus, mechanics, vocabulary, and language use. They had to assign marks foreach category (ranging from 0 to 4 marks) and then add them to get a final grade (0-20).
Learners were instructed to read the essay under consideration and identify three strengths,
three areas for improvement and provide three suggestions for revision. The aim was tointroduce learners to PA and help them understand how they could reflect on their peers’ andtheir own essays and offer suggestions to improve their work by carefully editing andproofreading it. The aim was to help students assume a more active role by providing metacognitive comments which would allow their peers to revise their work accordingly. The
validity of the PA rubric was explored by consultation with experts, including 8 headteachers,
one inspector, and 10 qualified EFL teachers who had taught at this level for at least 6 years.
Procedure
The study was divided into three phases (Figure 1). In the pre-implementation phase, allinstruments were piloted, and a diagnostic pre-test was administered to ensure that all students
who participated in the study were at the intermediate level. Students were provided with amark but no comments or peer feedback. All essays were marked by their class teachers andan external assessor after a rater calibration session and appropriate training, and 20% of theessays were marked by the researcher.

82

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Figure 1
The Procedure of the Study

1. Pre-implementation phase (October-November)
Piloting of the instruments

1. Pre-implementation phase (December-January)
Administration of the pre-test

Teacher and student training

2. Implementation (January)
1st draft of the 1st essay
Feedback (PA or TA)

2nd draft for the 1st essay - Feedback(TA)

2. Implementation (February)
1st draft of the 2nd essay
Feedback (PA or TA)

2nd draft for the 2nd essay - Feedback(TA)

2. Implementation (March-April)
1st draft of the 3rd essay (PA or TA)
Feedback

2nd draft for the 3rd essay - Feedback(TA)

3. Post-implementation (April-June)
Post-test83

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

The same test was administered at the end of the study. Students had to write the same type of
essay on a different but very similar topic. The aim was to evaluate whether students made any
progress after one school year and which groups made more progress, if any, the control or theexperimental.
Students took part in writing workshops prior to engaging in PA of their writing assignments.
During these workshops, they were instructed how to use the rubric, used it with three sample
papers, and received feedback from the instructor on how their comments and marks alignedwith the instructor grades and comments on the same essays. These hopefully contributed to alevel of comfort and proficiency with the rubric and assignment criteria and possibly enhanced
their ability to provide accurate and reliable PAs. Teachers also received extensive training andhad to attend weekly sessions because the researcher wanted to check the progress of theimplementation. Training and clarity hopefully promoted a trusting environment in theclassroom, which had conferred positive outcomes with PA in the literature so far (Hoffman,2019).
Learners wrote five essays, including a pre-test, 3 essays in two drafts and a post-test. Students
in the experimental groups received peer feedback and teacher feedback once each whilestudents in the control groups received teacher feedback twice (Figure 1). All student groups
were engaged in the experiment once a week for two teaching sessions (45 minutes each) which
added up to approximately 50 teaching sessions. Five compositions (two informal letters as
pre- and post-tests, a narrative essay, a descriptive essay, and an argumentative essay) were
written in class without disrupting the regular programme to exclude variables such as theamount of time spent on task at home and help from others.
Students wrote the three types of essays after being introduced to the specific genre.
Experimental group students received peer feedback and a mark based on the PA rubric andhad to assess one of their peers’ essays. Students in the control groups received teacher
feedback (comments and some corrections of major mistakes) and a grade. Students thenreceived some remedial teaching depending on the challenges they faced in their first draft.
Additionally, they were asked to write a second draft. Teachers were instructed to support theirstudents during the whole procedure but not to intervene with their writing. They provided
corrections, marks, and comments to students’ second draft and after some more remedial
teaching they taught the next genre. The researcher collected students’ drafts immediately after
learners completed each step of the procedure to ensure that teachers followed the researcher’s
instructions regarding the corrections and comments they provided to their students.
Essays were about 4-5 paragraphs (120-150 words each) long. Instructors monitored thestudents but were not involved in the actual editing of the essays. Teachers assumed the role ofa facilitator by explaining any difficult terms or acting as a consultant by offering advice whenneeded. All teachers were asked to avoid overcorrecting students’ work and provide only
occasional basic corrections and comments.
During the feedback sessions, the teacher and student/assessors offered feedback to theirstudents/peers which consisted of both marks and comments based on the PA rubric. In moredetail, all experimental group learners devoted 20 minutes of their normal teaching sessions
using the PA rubric to assess their peers, while the control groups received teacher feedback.
Students were assigned with the correction of their peers randomly and changed every timethey had to assess a new draft. The identity of the student/assessor and the student/assessee

84

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

were not disclosed to avoid conflicts and bitterness. Anonymity and change ofstudent/assessors also ensured the reliability of the assessment process.
Next, students were asked to re-draft their work. Teacher and peer feedback were provided
with a view to improving successive drafts and prompting more revision. Moreover, thefeedback sessions were structured tightly regarding time to avoid considerable variation amonggroups and to increase student concentration. The time between drafts (usually two week) was
regarded as sufficient for learners to redraft without feeling undue pressure ensuring thereliability of the assessment process. Additionally, students were asked to peer assess only one
draft to avoid any resistance from students.
Learners received remedial teaching depending on their errors. Essentially, the teachers were
instructed to use selected parts with significant errors from students’ essays and encouragethem to identify them and indicate solutions. Teachers also asked students to study theirgrammar book and the handouts they used to self-correct errors in class at home.
Findings and Discussion
The current study explored the way PA influences student writing performance. Paired T-tests
were performed to explore whether students in the control (n=100 students) and theexperimental groups (n=100 students) improved their writing performance comparing theirpre- and post-test scores (George & Mallery, 2016). These revealed that experimental groupstudents improved their writing performance by 3 marks (out of 20) while control groupstudents improved their performance by only .2 marks. This difference was statisticallysignificant (Table 2). It indicated that students who received PA together with TA showed
considerable improvement. This finding was confirmed by previous research (Wanner &Palmer, 2018) which indicated that PA significantly improved the quality of learners’ end
product from draft to final version.
Table 2Findings from the Paired T-tests of the Experimental versus Control Groups (overall score)
M
Pairedtests

T- Control
groupsExperimentalgroupsIndependent Control
T-test (post- groups
test score)
ExperimentalgroupsPosttest
PretestPosttest
PretestSDt

11.73 3.01 .42

p

Cohen’s d.674>.0005

11.59 3.5
11.
3.01 .42
73
10.37 3.22

674 >.0005

11.
3.01 3.9
73
13.38 2.95

.000

.55

This study also concluded that PA was not only suitable for adult learners (Baker, 2016). Its
adolescent participants provided marks for their peers and improved the marks they received
for their own essays through their involvement in the practice of PA and due to the insight they85

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

gained into their peers’ work. This allowed them to reflect on their own work and eventually
improve it. Taking into consideration that learners can only process feedback for which they
are developmentally ready, teacher feedback may often be ineffective. Therefore, teachers
should tailor their feedback to student needs but since this is practically impossible especiallyin large classes, this study has demonstrated a way in which feedback can be individualised foreach learner by combining PA, which is more student-friendly, and TA, which is regarded as
more precise.
An independent t-test was also performed to explore differences between the post-test scoresof both experimental and control groups. On average, in the post-test, experimental groupstudents outperformed control group students (Table 2). Both the difference, which wasstatistically significant, and Cohen’s d indicated that there was a moderately positive impact of
PA on students’ writing performance (George & Mallery, 2016; Cohen et al., 2013).
Paired t-tests were also performed to explore how improvement spread across the fivecategories included in the PA rubric (content, organisation, mechanics, focus, vocabulary, andlanguage use) (George & Mallery, 2016). Students were assigned an analytic score per category(0-4 marks). The aim was to further explore which aspect(s) of their writing performanceexperimental group students improved (Table 3).
Table 3Findings from the Paired T-tests of the Five Categories (Analytic Scores)

Control
Paired T- groups
tests
Experimentalgroupstp

Cohen’s dMechanics
Organisation

.00
.42

1.000>.0005.675>.0005

Focus

2.41

.018>.0005

Content(6.16.000>.0005

Vocabulary and -.420
language use
Mechanics
7.16
Organisation
5.5.675>.0005.000 <.0005.000<.0005

.74
.59

Focus
Content

6.16
7.08.000<.0005.000<.0005.86.6

Vocabulary and 8.03
language use.000<.0005.74

Paired t-tests of the pre- versus post-tests scores control group students received revealed that
there was no improvement, which was statistically significant, for mechanics, organisation,
focus, content, and vocabulary and language use (Table 3). The same paired t-tests were
performed for the experimental groups (George & Mallery, 2016). These revealed that there
was improvement which was statistically significant, for mechanics and organisation.
However, there was no improvement which was statistically significant for focus, content andvocabulary and language use (Table 3).
Students in the experimental groups improved their vocabulary more than any other aspect ofwriting (Table 3). This indicates that PA may have a positive impact on different aspects of86

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

students’ writing performance. Students read their peers’ essays and learnt new words which
they then used in their own essays. Learners also improved the content of their essays (t=7.08).
They possibly located new ideas in their peers’ work and added new content to their own
essays. Several studies have investigated the revisions made by learners after receiving PA or
TA. These reported that PA leads to more meaning-level revisions while TA leads to more
surface-level revisions (Rotsaert et al., 2018). However, none of these studies have indicatedthat students successfully improved almost all aspects of their writing performance.
In addition, other researchers (Choi, 2013) reported that students, when using peer feedback,mostly concentrated on surface level errors, involving grammatical and spelling mistakes,
instead of deep or semantic level issues such as content. In the current study, the impact of peer
feedback was detected more on deep and semantic level issues rather than surface level issues
possibly because students received training prior to the implementation. This study confirmed
some findings from previous research (Lee, 2015) suggesting that peer feedback mightultimately lead to more language improvement, because students are possibly more willing toparticipate in assessment and learn more easily from their peers since they understand peer
feedback better than teacher feedback.
Students, who participated in this study, also managed to upgrade the mechanics of theirwriting (Table 3) supporting previous research (Yaghoubi & Mobin, 2015). Therefore, they
confirmed that the use of PA can cognitively impact how students organise their thoughts asthey write. Students had the opportunity to reflect on their work, edit and proofread their essays
more carefully after providing feedback to their peers. The findings of this semi-experimental
study about mechanics contradict previous research indicating that there are no significant
gains for EFL students in terms of mechanics when students use PA (Wanner & Palmer,2018). These clearly indicate that PA can have a positive impact on students’ writing byhelping them edit and proofread their work more carefully taking into consideration theirpeers’ comments.
Additionally, students enhanced aspects of their essays related to focus (Table 3). PA allowed
students to better understand the texts including the schematic structure and linguisticfeatures of the genre. It successfully raised students’ awareness of the context, the reader andfacilitated the interpretation of the writer’s intended meaning since experimental groupstudents in this study conformed more to the conventions of the genre in hand. The deliberate
focus on genres, which were included in the PA rubric, helped learners become more awareof the requirements of the different genres and take them into serious consideration whenwriting their essays. Consequently, they developed their meta-cognitive skills since they
were asked to improve their work relying on two kinds of feedback.
However, students were able to refine their language use and organisational skills (Table 3)
less than the other aspects of their writing. Although students looked at their work again, they
did not manage to improve their use of grammar and their organisational skills as more timeand effort is required to improve these aspects of writing. Previous researchers (Edwards &Liu, 2018) reported that a combined focus on both language form and content leads to greater
gains than either focus on form or focus on content alone. This was also confirmed by thecurrent study which showed that feedback on both form and content can result in
improvement in all aspects of writing.
When comparing students’ performance in the post-test, experimental group students seemed
to have improved their performance more in terms of vocabulary, language use and focus(Table 3) rather than in other aspects of writing. This finding indicates that students who used87

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

PA enriched their vocabulary and comprehended the requirements of the specific genre usedin both the pre-test and post-test (informal letter) even better. Various measures of text
improvement have been employed in different studies, that is, some researchers considered
improved grammar as a characteristic of enhanced text quality (Liao, 2016). Other researchers
also reported that trained students can provide specific and relevant feedback on global featuresof writing, such as genre, which in turn may result in better quality in their revised drafts(Subaşı, 2014).
Students also improved certain aspects of their writing, for example, mechanics, content, andorganisation (Table 3) slightly less than other aspects. Experimental group students used PA
for a few months with only three types of essays. Previous studies deemed organisation of
information as an important factor in determining text quality as they have shown that PA canimprove students’ organisational skills in writing (Hwang, Hung & Chen, 2014). Previous
research has also indicated that intermediate EFL students improved their texts significantly inorganisation, cohesion and vocabulary when using PA of writing from pre-test to post-test(Ebadi & Rahimi, 2017). However, adolescent intermediate EFL students, who were
inexperienced in PA, needed more time and exposure to this approach to improve these aspectsof their writing performance.
To sum up, the findings of the present study indicated that students who used PA improved
their overall writing performance by 3 marks out of 20, a statistically significant finding, whilestudents who received only TA improved their performance by .14. Finally, students who
employed PA improved their writing performance by at least half a mark out of 4 for each oneof the categories included in the PA rubric, that is content, organisation, vocabulary andlanguage use, mechanics, and focus. These findings revealed that students, who used PA in
their writing classes received multiple benefits in all domains included in the EFL essay rubric.
Consequently, since PA-related learning seems to provide multiple benefits to adolescentlearners in terms of their final summative assessment, it might be a worthwhile exercise.
Therefore, teachers should consider engaging their learners in PA during their classes toenhance their writing performance.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Few studies adopt a quasi-experimental approach to study the impact of instructional
interventions on PA effectiveness and learning (Saito, 2012). Previous studies relied only onmarks to make claims for the potential benefits of PA. Moreover, the absence of a control grouphas been the main weakness of longitudinal studies on feedback in writing (Bitchener et al.,2012). The current study relied not only on students’ overall marks but also on their analytic
scores on five important writing aspects, content, organisation, vocabulary and language use,mechanics, and focus to explore whether PA can have a positive impact on students’ writing
performance. It used both control and experimental groups in a semi-experimental design to
explore in what aspects and to what extent PA could have an impact on intermediate adolescent
EFL students’ writing performance.
For many instructors, the most viable alternative to teacher feedback would be peer feedback.
This has become almost as common as teacher feedback in writing classes (Lee et al., 2016).
The current study suggests that the introduction of PA in EFL classes from an early age may
improve students’ writing performance even more as learners can receive extensive training
and devote a considerable amount of time, that is several years, to learn how to use PA
effectively. It also recommends the use of PA in combination with TA to maximise the benefits

88

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

of PA and allow students to be exposed to multiple types of feedback. These will allow learners
to reflect on various aspects of their writing.
Peers and teachers tend to focus on different aspects of writing, when asked to provide
feedback, leading to potential differences in improvement in students’ writing. For example, it
has been suggested that teachers may focus on surface-level issues while peers may focus moreon meaning-level issues (Baker, 2016). The positive impact that PA can have on all aspects ofstudents’ writing should be taken into consideration by EFL teachers who face considerable
challenges as they try to help their students improve their writing performance. Such an
outcome conforms to what has been reported by previous studies, namely that PA can engage
students in making reﬂections when they assume the role of tutor as well as tutee (Wang et. al.,2017).
However, while instructive, the findings of this study may not be representative enough toallow generalizations, a challenge to be undertaken in future studies. Although positive effects
were found, it became apparent that the training could have been much more systematic and of
longer duration than was feasible to organise in the available context and time span of thecurrent study. This study focused only on short-term effects of PA training. Therefore, morestructured PA training for both teachers and students and critical reflection on assessment might
have had a more powerful effect on students’ writing performance.
PA needs to be elaborate and frequent as well as focused on learners’ performance, theirlearning needs, and the actions under learners’ control rather than on the learners themselves.
PA should also be timely so that learners can reflect on it and use it in their work or ask forhelp if they need any clarifications. Its goal should be to aid with the assignment at hand andallow learners to understand the assessment criteria even better. It also needs to be suitable tolearners’ conception of learning and previous knowledge as well as attended to and acted upon.
This study also supports research which suggests that students may ignore or misuse teacher
commentary when revising drafts and thus profit when they receive more (peer) feedback (Yu,2019). More importantly, PA is seen by many researchers as a way of giving more control andautonomy to students. It involves them actively in the feedback process as opposed to a passive
reliance on teacher’s feedback to ‘fix’ up their writing (Alzaid, 2017). The findings of thisstudy confirmed that PA can improve EFL learners’ writing skills by allowing them to assume
responsibility for other students’ and their own learning which is in line with previous research(Topping, 2017).
These findings contribute to linguistic theory by suggesting that PA is anticipated to make asignificant contribution to the field of education if sufficient training and support is provided
to all participants and carefully designed tools are used to familiarize learners with the PAprocess. Moreover, PA should be introduced gradually and used on a regular basis as early as
possible, that is even in primary education, and the emphasis should be on the formative use of
PA as an innovative learning-oriented tool employed by teachers to enhance students’ skills.
The present study indicated that PA can be a promising alternative assessment method for EFL
teachers in secondary education. PA may be used to raise a more open assessment culture andempower adolescent students by involving them in assessment. Finally, it assisted in generating
an evidence-based argument regarding the quality of PA as a tool for enhancing EFL writing
skills (Wanner & Palmer, 2018).

89

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

PA reflects the attempt of the education reform initiatives in many countries, i.e., England andHong Kong, to move from a testing culture to an assessment culture and promote all roundeducation and life-long learning. Within the sociocultural context of countries like Cyprus,
where the stress on measurement and accountability has existed for a long time, the successful
implementation of PA in the way it is intended needs promotion of conversations about
assessment, teaching and learning among all stakeholders, parents, students, teachers, andsenior educational management to promote change, advocate reform, advocate assessment
literacy and define the new aims and associated roles.
Research continues to characterize teachers’ assessment and evaluation practices as largely
incongruent with recommended best practice (Tsagari, 2016). Teachers’ assessment il-literacy
has resulted in inaccurate assessment of students causing them to fail to reach their fullpotential. In an article published by Deluca et al. (2016), the lack of assessment literacy waspresented as professional suicide. Assessment literacy (AL) is seen, therefore, as a sine qua
non for today’s competent educator (Levi & Inbar-Lourie, 2020). As such, AL must be a pivotal
content area for current and future staff development endeavours. This will allow teachers tofamiliarise themselves and experiment with a variety of promising alternative assessment
methods, such as peer assessment, in their effort to help their students improve their writing
performance.

90

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

References
Adachi, C., Tai, J. H. M., & Dawson, P. (2018). Academics’ perceptions of the benefits andchallenges of self and peer assessment in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluationin Higher Education, 43(2), 294 –306.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775
Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer
feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498–513.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814561902
Alzaid, J. M. (2017). The effect of peer assessment on the evaluation process ofstudents. International Education Studies, 10(6), 159–173.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v10n6p159
Andrade, M. S. (2016). Effective organisational structures and processes: Addressing issuesof change. New Directions for Higher Education, 173, 31–42.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20177
Ashenafi, M. M. (2017). Peer-assessment in higher education–twenty-first century practices,challenges and the way forward. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1100711
Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing
process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
Barrot, J. S. (2016). Using facebook-based e-portfolio in ESL writing classrooms: Impact andchallenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 286–301.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2016.1143481

Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (Eds.). (2019). Innovative assessment in Higher Education: A
handbook for academic practitioners. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429506857
Chang, C., & Lin, H. C. K. (2019). Effects of a mobile-based peer-assessment approach on
enhancing language-learners’ oral proficiency. Innovations in Education andTeaching International, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1612264
Chien, S. Y., Hwang, G. J., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2020). Effects of peer assessment within thecontext of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-Speaking
performance and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 146, 103751.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103751
Choi, J. (2013). Does peer feedback affect L2 writers’ L2 learning, composition skills,
metacognitive knowledge, and L2 writing anxiety? English Teaching Forum, 68(3),187-–213. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.3.201309.187
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. New York:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720967
Council of Europe. (2001). Common european framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deluca, C., Lapointe-Mcewan, D., & Luhanga, U. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy: A
review of international standards and measures. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 28(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9233-6

91

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in theclassroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessmenton academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational
Psychology Review, 32(2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using google
docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods study. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787–815.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
Edwards, J. H., & Liu, J. (2018). Peer response in second language writing classrooms.
University of Michigan Press.
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775
Fu, Q. K., Lin, C. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2019). Research trends and applications of technologysupported peer assessment: A review of selected journal publications from 2007 to
2016. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 191–213.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00131-x
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide andreference. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545899
Han, T., & Huang, J. (2017). Examining the impact of scoring methods on the institutional
EFL writing assessment: A Turkish perspective. PASAA: Journal of Language
Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 53, 112–147.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1153666.pdf
Hicks, C. M., Pandey, V., Fraser, C. A., & Klemmer, S. (2016). Framing feedback: Choosing
review environment features that support high quality peer assessment.
In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 458 –469). https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858195
Hoffman, B. (2019). The influence of peer assessment training on assessment knowledge andreflective writing skill. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 863–
875. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-01-2019-0004
Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements,
motivations, and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based gamedevelopment approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2),129–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfield, V., & Hughey, J. (Eds). (1981). Testing ESL
composition: A practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
James, S., Lanham, E., Mak-Hau, V., Pan, L., Wilkin, T., & Wood-Bradley, G. (2018).
Identifying items for moderation in a peer assessment framework. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 162, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.032
Kuyyogsuy, S. (2019). Promoting peer feedback in developing students' English writing
ability in L2 writing class. International Education Studies, 12(9), 76–90.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p76

92

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Lee, M. K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary
students' perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.08.003
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in
student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in thewriting classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 248–269.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815581007
Levi, T., & Inbar-Lourie, O. (2020). Assessment literacy or language assessment literacy:
Learning from the teachers. Language Assessment Quarterly, 17(2), 168–182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1692347
Liao, H. C. (2016). Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWEassisted process approach. System, 62, 77–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.007

Mertens, S. B., & Caskey, M. M. (Eds.). (2018). Literature reviews in support of the middle
level education research agenda. IAP.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2020.1787750
Meletiadou, E., & Tsagari, D. (2016). The washback effect of peer assessment on adolescent
EFL learners in Cyprus. In D. Tsagari (Ed.), Classroom-based assessment in L2
contexts. (pp. 138-160). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Nguyen, T. T., & Walker, M. (2016). Sustainable assessment for lifelong
learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 97–111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.985632
Nodoushan, M. A. S. (2014). Assessing writing: A review of the main trends. Studies inEnglish Language and Education, 1(2), 116–125.
https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v1i2.1831
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer
assessment. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of Human and Social
Conditions in Assessment, (pp. 247-266), Routledge.
Race, P. (2019). The lecturer's toolkit: A practical guide to assessment, learning andteaching. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429060205
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer
assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold inpeer assessment: Its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’
perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, 33(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8
Saito, K. (2012). Effects of instruction on L2 pronunciation development: A synthesis of 15
quasi-experimental intervention studies. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 842–854.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.67

93

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Schünemann, N., Spörer, N., Völlinger, V. A., & Brunstein, J. C. (2017). Peer feedback
mediates the impact of self-regulation procedures on strategy use and reading
comprehension in reciprocal teaching groups. Instructional Science, 45(4), 395–415.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9409-1
Smyth, P., & Carless, D. (2020). Theorising how teachers manage the use of exemplars:
Towards mediated learning from exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1781785
Subaşı, G. (2014). What are the effects of written peer feedback training on Turkish ELT
students' ability to comment on peer writing? Pinnacle Educational Research andDevelopment, 3(9), 1–15. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHAT-ARE-THEEFFECTS-OF-WRITTEN-PEER-FEEDBACK-ON-TOSuba%C5%9F%C4%B1/1429d9b7e7b6c95bb320ad23380dda9f1495cc12
Topping, K. J. (2018). Using peer assessment to inspire reflection and learning. Routledge.|
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351256889
Topping, K. J. (2017). Peer assessment: Learning by judging and discussing the work of otherlearners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.31532/interdiscipeducpsychol.1.1.007
Tsagari, D. (2016). Assessment orientations of state primary EFL teachers in two
Mediterranean countries. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6(1), 9–30.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303276727_Dina_Tsagari_Assessment_Ori
entations_of_State_Primary_EFL_Teachers_in_Two_Mediterranean_Countries
Tsagari, D., & Meletiadou, E. (2015). Peer assessment of adolescent learners' writing
performance. Writing and Pedagogy, Special Topic Issue: Writing Assessment, 7(2),305–328. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v7i2-3.26457
Wang, S. M., Hou, H. T., & Wu, S. Y. (2017). Analyzing the knowledge construction andcognitive patterns of blog-based instructional activities using four frequent interactive
strategies (problem solving, peer assessment, role playing and peer tutoring): A
preliminary study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 301–
323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9471-4
Wanner, T., & Palmer, E. (2018). Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student
learning: The crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1032–1047.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020). When peers agree, do students listen? The central role offeedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of
feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101897.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101897
Yaghoubi, A., & Mobin, M. (2015). Portfolio assessment, peer assessment and writing skill
improvement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(12), 25042511.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.10
Yu, S. (2019). Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices fromMaster's students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing, 40, 42–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.03.004

94

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 9 – Issue 3 – 2021

Zamora, Á., Suárez, J. M., & Ardura, D. (2018). Error detection and self-assessment asmechanisms to promote self-regulation of learning among secondary education
students. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(2), 175–185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1225657
Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification andnegotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
Corresponding author: Eleni Meletiadou
Email: elenim@outlook.com

95