The Usage of Peer Feedback and its Influence on Afghan EFL Learners’ Academic Achievement at Kandahar University, Afghanistan

London Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences
Volume | Issue | Compilation
Authored by Abdul Nafi Himat , Habib Rahman Nazari
Classification: NA
Keywords: peer feedback, usage, influence, afghan EFL students.
Language: English

Peer feedback is an essential issue in educational context because learners can learn from their classmates. This research investigated the usage of peer feedback and its influence on Afghan EFL students’ academic achievement at Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan. In this study, the quantitative research approach was used to collect data from 150 students through questionnaire and they were selected through random sample. Similarly, the data was analyzed through IBM 24version Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and found out frequency and percentage of demographic data also mean and standard deviation of the items. The findings of this study disclosed that students use peer response because they understand the value of peer assessment. Similarly, students preferred to peer feedback and they desire it. Moreover, the use of peer review abled learners to assess the writing of their peers and also the use of peer feedback reduced learners’ anxiety. Furthermore, the findings also showed that students learn when they receive feedback from their peers. Likewise, peer feedback had positive impact on students’ achievements as well giving and receiving peer response helped with students writing.

               

The Usage of Peer Feedback and its Influence on Afghan EFL Learners’ Academic Achievement at Kandahar University, Afghanistan

Habib Rahman Nazariα & Abdul Nafi Himatσ

____________________________________________

 

ABSTRACT

Peer feedback is an essential issue in educational context because learners can learn from their classmates. This research investigated the usage of peer feedback and its influence on Afghan EFL students’ academic achievement at Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan. In this study, the quantitative research approach was used to collect data from 150 students through questionnaire and they were selected through random sample. Similarly, the data was analyzed through IBM 24 version Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and found out frequency and percentage of demographic data also mean and standard deviation of the items. The findings of this study disclosed that students use peer response because they understand the value of peer assessment. Similarly, students preferred to peer feedback and they desire it. Moreover, the use of peer review abled learners to assess the writing of their peers and also the use of peer feedback reduced learners’ anxiety. Furthermore, the findings also showed that students learn when they receive feedback from their peers. Likewise, peer feedback had positive impact on students’ achievements as well giving and receiving peer response helped with students writing.

Keywords: peer feedback, usage, influence, Afghan EFL students.

Author α: BA English Literature English Department, Education Faculty, Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan.email: habibrahman.nazari97@gmail.com

σ: BA English Literature English Department, Education Faculty, Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan. email: abdulnafi.himat2017@gmail.com

  1. INTRODUCTION

English in Afghanistan is still considered as a foreign language; however, it has become a required subject to be learnt in schools and Universities. Consequently, some learners still have problems in mastering English language and one of the skills in English language that is often claimed problematic is writing. Likewise, writing is one of the four language skills needed for communication besides listening, speaking, and reading. Compared to the three other skills, writing is believed to be the most difficult skill for EFL learners (Defazio, Jones, Tennant, and Hook, 2010; Elander, 2006). This is because when they write, they have to consider various aspects such as the topic, the function of the text, and the readers. In addition, writing contains a number of components, namely content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics (Brown and Abeywickrama, 2004). It is an essential component in the oriented teaching process of English language writing (Kamimura, 2006). According to Kusumaningrum, Cahyono, and Prayogo (2019) writing involves a process which starts from planning, drafting, revising, and editing before the written product is submitted to the lecturers. Hence, EFL learners need to be provided with feedback in the process of drafting as they are still learning to write.

As pointed before, writing is a language skill that is an essential in academic context and it is known one of an active skill of a language. Similarly, writing skill requires thinking that allows the individual to express him or herself ability in the other language or languages and it is a complex activity that wants a certain level of linguistic knowledge, writing convention, vocabulary and grammar (Erkan and Saban, 2011). Furthermore, writing expresses someone idea in a written form and it is a system for interpersonal communication which uses different style of language (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Likewise, there are different views on the levels of writing but Tribble (1996) identifies four stages prewriting, composing, revising, and editing. Prewriting is an activity that a writer brainstorms everything before writing a topic.

In the past, when the numbers of students were smaller, written feedback was a part of a larger corresponding system of teacher-student communication that also involved one-to-one discussion and drafting and redrafting of assignment (Nicol, 2010). Additionally, feedback is a fundamental component of the writing process approach it can be effective for a reader and writer because; it provides information for writing revision. It consists information used by a learner to change the performance in a particular direction, in the context of writing it has the main role of revising for the deepest details in writing draft. As well as, Narciss (2008) defines feedback as all post-response information that is provided by a learner in learning or writing performance. In addition, it also provides written comments on students’ assignments and it is known as a central feature of feedback process in higher education. Generally, giving feedback is commonly accepted as a practice or an activity and it has an effective role in writing process. According to Nelson and Murphy (1993) feedback has five characteristics such as summarization, specificity, explanation, scope, and affective language and all these features used in writing process.

Another, important point is that the use of feedback in writing focuses on the performance of writing quality. Similarly, feedback has many advantages because it pushes the writer to make him/ herself aware from their errors as well as it increases the imagination ability of the writer (Keh, 1990). Similarly, peer feedback is the basic element in writing process (Wang, 2015). It is giving from student to student in the writing process to correct each other mistakes in educational context. It is used in the form of written commentary and unwritten interaction between readers and writers in the introductory and final stage of draft (Hyland, 2003). In addition, peer feedback is an important topic in educational context because Vygotsky’s theory of Zone of Proximal Development stating that the students can learn from their peers (Saville-Troike and Barto, 2016). It is known like an assessment tool for learning (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshal and Wiliam, 2003). The process of peer feedback involves collaborating learning in which students assess or revise one another’s work and provide feedbacks or comments to each other (Somervell, 1993; Topping, Smith, Wanson and Elliot, 2000). Moreover, there are different terms that are used for peer feedback such as peer response, peer revision, peer critiquing, peer evaluation, peer review and peer editing and so on.

1.1  Problem Statement

Peer response is a writing activity in which students want from pairs or groups to read each other’s composition or writing and make suggestions for revision (Mangelsdorf, 1992). In Afghanistan most of the lecturers give feedback on students’ works but peer feedback is used very less from student to student in EFL students’ classes at Kandahar University, Afghanistan. Whereas it is considered that peer feedback is like an assessment tool for learning and peer response is a branch of formative assessment (Black, et al., 2003; Hedge and Tricia, 2000). According to Higher Education Development Program of Afghanistan (2018) mentioned in the examination rules of higher education  in second article that several kinds of assessment are performed during and at the end of semester. In addition, Yang, Badger and Yu (2006) that teacher-student feedback is used more compare to peer feedback on students redrafts. Similarly, Tsui and Ng (2000) observed that ESL learners in their study used more teacher feedback than peer feedback in their redrafts.

Consequently, this study tries to fill up this gap through carrying out a research in this academic field, for there are few studies conducted in this context. Therefore, this study would help with Afghan Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE), teachers and students.  Furthermore, the attention of (MoHE) will return more to active learning because in peer feedback students are involved.  Moreover, lecturers may change the way of giving feedback and apply student-student feedback in EFL students’ classes at Kandahar University. Lastly, students will be able to give and receive comments or feedbacks in writing course from their peers’ more effectively than teacher feedback.

1.2  Research Objectives

  1. To investigate the current status of peer feedback’s usage in Afghan EFL students’ classes at Kandahar University.
  2. To investigate the effects of peer feedback on Afghan EFL students’ academic achievement at Kandahar University.

1.3  Research Questions:

  1. What is the current status of peer feedback’s usage in EFL students’ classes at Kandahar University?  
  2. What are the effects of peer feedback on EFL students’ academic achievement at Kandahar University?
  1. RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

Peer response is a writing activity in which learners form pairs or groups to read each other’s composition and make suggestions for revision (Mangelsdorf 1992). The researchers will present related literature reviews on the usage of peer feedback will presented and its effects of on students.

2.1  The Usage of Peer Feedback

A comparative study conducted by Zhao (2010) in China to find out the use of peer feedback in Chinese English writing classroom. The finding of this study revealed that students used more teacher feedback than peer feedback in their redrafts. Whereas a larger portion of students understand peer feedback than teacher feedback that was used in their redrafts. The study further asserted that for students the feedback of teachers was more important and trustworthy than peer feedback. Likewise, Wakabayashi (2013) carried out a research in Japan to determine the beneficial feedback tasks that can improve the writing of students. These tasks were reviewing peer text and one's own texts. The findings of this study indicated that students who review peer texts improve their writing quality compare to those learners who only review their own texts. Moreover, majority of the students in both groups preferred to receive peer comments; especially, in written form from their classmates. Furthermore, study by Huisman, Saab, Driel and Broek (2018) in Australia to find out students’ perceptions of receiving peer feedback in writing performance. The finding indicated that receiving and providing feedback increases writing performance.

Research by Mendonca and Johnson (1994) in Pennsylvnia to find out the discussions that occur in ESL students’ peer review and the ways these discussions shape students’ revision activities. The findings of this study showed that there is need to include peer feedback in second language writing. Research conducted in China to find out the use and effect of peer feedback among Chines students. The finding indicated that most Chinese learners like to get feedback from their classmates and they think it is useful. In addition, students are already understand the effects of peer revision, which can also motivate self-revision (Junhua, 2005). Study by Nguyen (2016) in two English writing classes at a university in Vietnam. The findings asserted that peer feedback was informally used in two EFL writing classes. Majority learners were unwilling to utilize peer response outside class. Yet, they understand the advantages of the feedback method in their writing development. The results of this research indicated more that despite being aware of the potential value of peer assessment, the students could not teach themselves nor prioritize it as a strategy in their own time unless it became a part of the syllabus and formal assessment processes. Additionally, peer evaluation was advised to use by the lecturer in a class at the beginning of the semester, but it was not in serious practice. As well as, it was not formally implemented in other class on a regular basis. This study further stated that the learners expected for modification in peer response usage in their writing classes.

Shulin (2013) carried out a study on twenty six Chinese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the use and role of peer feedback in second language writing classes. The findings indicated that most of the participants (20/26) used peer feedback in their classes. These teachers always required their students to work in pairs or small groups to comment on each other’s second language writing. Mostly they implemented such activities in the classroom and they asked the students to give peer response outside the class. Similarly, teachers always presented explicit instructions as to how to give comments and for each round of peer evaluation they usually asked the students to focus on one aspect of their writing, such as tense, subject-verb agreement, and the use of conjunctions. Findings more revealed that teachers included peer feedback as one part of the students’ final scores of the course. Most of the teachers used peer feedback twice or three times during a semester. One teacher has not often used peer feedback in her classes due to the limited in-class time. Similarly, educators do not train their students to give comments. Moreover, the lecturers worked as trainers, organizers, demonstrators and models as well as checkers and commentators. Although some of the teachers did not train their students as to how to give effective feedback, most of them tended to intervene in the peer feedback process or give instructions and training before peer feedback and summarize the problems involved in peer feedback when students finished the activities. In addition, six participants stated that they had never used peer reviewing as an activity in the teaching and learning of second language writing. The findings of the study suggested that EFL lecturers may not be aware from the value and potential of peer feed-back for their students’ learning.

2.2  The Influence of Peer Feedback

Gielen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghena and Struyven (2010) carried out a research in Belgim to investigate the effects of peer feedback in a secondary education field. The results of this study indicated that the use of peer feedback is an effective way for learning. Ho and Duong (2014) conducted a research in Vietnam to find out peer feedback revision processes and useful instructional activity in academic teaching writing. The finding indicated that peer feedback activity is effective and helpful for teachers and graduate students. Furthermore, peer review is awareness and an effective way for teaching academic writing and especially for revision process. A study carried out on EFL students in Indonesia to find the impacts of two types of peer feedback provision on EFL students’ writing performance. The finding of this study revealed that both in-class peer feedback was providing and small group provision led to the students’ better an effective writing performance (Kusumaningrum et al., 2019). Farrah (2012) in Palestine conducted a research to investigate student's attitudes toward peer feedback process of writing classes and to assess the effectiveness of this teaching technique. Findings of this study indicated that students viewed peer feedback as valuable and it offered students opportunity for social interaction. This study further indicated that it enhanced students' critical thinking, confidence, creativity and motivation.

In Korea by Suh (2005) research conducted to find out the effects of two different types of peer feedback activities such as written and oral feedback. The finding revealed that both types of peer feedback activities played as a facilitative role in improving writing attitude and writing skills, and it promotes and enhance students writing interest and writing ability in second language writing. Moreover, Diaz Pizarro (2017) a study to find out the effects of peer feedback on students’ writing production and their perception toward the use of these strategies in Santiago. The finding illustrated that peer feedback provides information about where learners were, considering the learning goals and it progresses their writing ability. Research conducted to find out the effects of peer feedback on students writing anxiety. The findings revealed that the peer response group experienced significantly less writing anxiety than the teacher feedback group (Kurt and Atay, 2007).

Likewise, Anjarwati (2017) carried out a study in Indonesia to investigate the impacts of peer feedback on students’ writing achievement. The findings indicated that peer feedback have significant effect on students' writing. Furthermore, the implementation of this kind feedback is beneficial for both students and lecturer. Study was conducted in Indonesia to find out the effects of corrective peer written feedback in writing course. The finding revealed that the implementation of corrective peer feedback can increase and keep the students to learn the materials more effectively (Nilam, 2018). In addition, Zhang (2018) implemented a study to investigate the effect of peer feedback on EFL students’ English writing performance in China. The finding indicated that peer review activities have positively and significantly influence on students' writing achievement. Moreover, Maarof, Yamat and Li (2015) implemented a study in Malaysia to find out students’ thinking of the role of mutual use of teacher feedback and peer feedback. The findings revealed many of the students think that both teacher feedback and peer feedback play a greater role and enhancing their writing. Besides, research carried out by Chen, Liu, Shih, Wu, and Yuan (2011) in Taiwan to investigate the effects of using peer feedback on elementary students’ writing. The findings asserted that using peer feedback is an effective way to improve the quality of elementary students’ writing, and students are able to write meaningful content. This study furthermore indicated that peer feedback improve students' writing skills.

Study investigated by Sotoudehnama and Pilehvari (2016), in Iran to find out the beneficial effects of peer review on EFL learners’ writing development. The findings illustrated that peer response cannot be considered as a replacement for teacher feedback, but it is a significant complementary source of feedback in EFL writing classrooms. As well as, study carried out by Kitchakarn (2013) in Thailand to investigate the influence of peer feedback activity on students writing ability. The finding showed that peer feedback can help to improve students writing abilities. Furthermore, it plays a significant role in refining their written work. Besides, Min (2006) in Taiwan to find out the impact of trained peer feedback on EFL college students’ revision. The finding indicated that trained peer review has a positive impact on refining reviewers’ comments and communication strategies and writers’ next revision. Also, a study conducted by Bijami, Kashef and Nejad (2013) in Malaysia. The finding of this study revealed that peer feedback in writing classrooms is useful because peer feedback has social benefits. Furthermore, it can develop students’ knowledge and opportunities to think critically and it is the part of instruction.

A qualitative case Study conducted by Shulin (2013) on Chinese EFL educators’ beliefs and practices regarding the use and role of peer feedback in writing classrooms.  The finding       of interview data indicated that most of the teachers think peer feedback is useful, but they also show concerns about its use in classes. For the majority of teachers, peer feedback is helpful for their students to become aware of the common errors in their writing, to learn from their peer’s writing, to raise the audience’s awareness, to enhance their own writing quality, to stir self-reflections, and to promote interest and motivation in second language writing. For some teachers, peer feedback is a peer interactive process that can progress their learning. In addition, some teachers think that peer feedback could benefit feedback givers rather than feedback receivers. Some teachers never/seldom use peer feedback as for them the value of peer feedback is limited. One teacher was not aware from the effectiveness of peer response because he was stated that it is a waste of time. Furthermore, Lin and Chien (2009) in Taiwan, Republic of China to find out the effects of peer feedback in English writing course. The finding of this study revealed that most participants believed that peer feedback positively assisted their learning in English writing.

  1. METHODOLOGY

3.1  Research Design and Population

This study investigates the implementation of peer feedback and its effects on EFL students’ achievement at Kandahar University. The present study uses a quantitative, descriptive survey method using a questionnaire. According to Fraenkel, Wallen and Hyun, (2016) in a survey method the researcher collect information from a large group of participants through their response to the questionnaire items. Furthermore, quantitative research, describing a topic or phenomenon through gathering data in numerical form and analyzing with the assist of mathematical approaches (Aliaga and Gunderson, 2002).  For this research 150 learners selected from Education and Languages and Literature faculties and they were from all four levels, freshmen, sophomore, junior and senior.

3.2  Sample and Instrument: 

The present study used random sampling method and the data were collected from the respondents through questionnaires. The instrument of this study consists from three parts: demographic data of the learners, usage of peer response and influence

of peer assessment on students with a choice of four likerts scale ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree". Moreover, statements for the first objective were developed by the researchers and last part of the instrument is an adaption from Farrah's (2012) study.

3.3  Reliability and Validity of the Questionnaire: 

According to Heale, and Twycross (2015) reliability measure the quality or accuracy of the tool in a quantitative study or the extent to which a study instrument consistently has the same results if it is implemented in the same situation on repeated occasions. The reliability of the instrument was calculated and it was (0.7) Cronbach’s Alpha which is excellent. The reliability values among .75 and 1.00 are considered excellent, .60-.74 is good .40-.59 is fair and below .40 is poor (Madan and Kensinger, 2017). Before collecting data from students the researchers shared the questionnaire with the adviser lecturer for better improvement to check and revise the variables of the instrument. Validity is the extent to which a concept is accurately measured in a quantitative research (Heale, et al., 2015).

3.4  Data Collection and Analysis Procedures:

Before collecting the data, the researchers took the consent forms from the deans of faculties (Education and Languages and Literature) then the data were collected in four days. When the data collected from the respondents then it analyzed by IBM 24 version of SPSS and found out the frequency, and percentage of the demographic data as well as mean, and standard deviation of the statements.

  1. FINDINGS

4.1  Characteristics of the Respondents 

Table 11:  Shows the demographic information of the respondents in categories of gender, level of education, age, and faculty.

Table 1.1. Demographic data

Distribution of respondents by demographic information

Characteristics

Frequency

Percentage

Gender:

Male

123

88.0

Female

18

12.0

Level

of Education:

Freshmen

58

38.7

Sophomore

30

20.0

Junior

30

20.0

Senior

32

21.3

Age:

Between 18 and 20

57

38.0

Between 20 and 25

88

58.7

Upper 25

3

2.0

Upper 28

2

1.3

Faculty:

Education Faculty

73

48.7

Languages and Literature Faculty

75

50.0

Table 1.1: shows the demographic data of the participants. Out of one hundred and fifty (88.0%) are male and (12.0%) are female students. Depending to their level of education, freshman are (38.7%), sophomore (20.0%), junior (20.0%) and senior (21.3%). Likewise, the age between 18-20 years old are (38.0%), between 20-25 are (58.7%), upper 25 are (2.0%) and upper 28 were (1.3%) students. In addition, (48.7%) students are from Education and (50.0%) are from Languages and Literature Faculties.

Research Question 1: What is the current status of peer feedback’s usage in EFL students’ classes at Kandahar University?  

Table 1.2:  Current Status of the Usage of Peer Feedback

No

Items

Mean

Std. Deviation

2

I use peer feedback in writing subject.

2.96

.818

9

The use of peer feedback enables me to evaluate the assignment of my peer.

2.96

.818

3

The use of peer feedback decreases my anxiety in writing class.

2.79

.869

1

I use peer feedback partially in the classroom.

2.76

.792

4

I don’t know about peer feedback compared to the feedback of teachers.

2.53

.903

10

I am uncertain when I give feedback to my peers.

2.50

.903

6

The use of peer response in writing classroom is difficult for me.

2.50

.896

5

I do not completely prefer peer feedback.

2.43

.862

7

I am not willing to give and receive feedback from my peer.

2.41

.977

8

I don’t trust to receive feedback from my classmates.

2.41

.876

Likert Scales: 1. Strongly Disagree       2. Disagree            3. Agree                4. Strongly Agree

Table 1. 2:  indicates the current status of the implementation of peer feedback and the above table show the items from high to low. The first item that got the highest mean score is 2 (M= 2.96, SD=818) that students use peer response in their writing subject because the mean score is near to the “3. Agree” as well as the remaining majority findings are also the same.  Similarly, the item that got second highest position is item number 9 that the implementation of peer evolution able students to assess the works of their classmates (M=2.96, SD=818). Likewise, item number 3 (M=2.79, SD=869) that the use of peer assessment help with students to decrease their anxiety as well as, the item number 1 (M=2.76, SD=792) means that they implement peer feedback partially in their classroom. Moreover, the next item number 4 indicated that students do not know about peer feedback than teacher feedback (M=2.53, SD=903).

Similarly, item number 10 (M=2.50, SD=903) show that students are sure when they give feedback to their classmates. Item number 6 (M=2.50, SD=896) demonstrates that the use of peer response in writing classrooms is sophisticated for students. The next item number 5 (M=2.43, SD=862) revealed that students entirely prefer to peer feedback and they desire it. Another item number 7 (M=2.41, SD=977) that the students were ready to give and receive feedback from their peers. Finally, the result of number 7 (M=2.41, SD=876) indicated that students are trustworthy when they receive feedback from their peers.

Research Question 2: What are the effects of peer feedback on EFL students’ academic achievement at Kandahar University?

Table 1. 3:    The Effects of Peer Review on Students’ Academic Achievement

No

Items

Mean

Std. Deviation

20

I like my writing to be revised by my classmates again because I can learn more.

3.32

.772

11

As a learning tool, peer feedback was very useful.

3.25

.695

12

I learn when I receive feedback from my classmates.  

3.17

.755

15

The reviews helped me to improve my assignments.

3.15

.833

14

I think that I improve my writing work when I receive comments from my peers.

3.11

.728

18

The peer feedback process increased my motivation.

3.11

.913

16

I feel confident when ask to make suggestions about my peers work.

3.09

.830

13

I think that my peers do a good job in providing me with critical feedback on my work.

2.95

.822

19

The process of peer feedback provides me an opportunity of social interaction.

2.95

.830

17

The peer feedback process enhanced my creativity.

2.94

.779

Likert Scales: 1. Strongly Disagree       2. Disagree            3. Agree                4. Strongly Agree

Table 1. 3. asserts the effects of peer feedback on students’ achievement. All of the items had the mean scores between ranges of two to three. The item number 20 (M=3.32, SD=772) indicates that students like when their work revised by peer because learners learn when they receive comments. Moreover, the item number 11 (M=3.25, SD=695) that peer feedback has positive effects because it is useful for learning. The next item number 12 (M=3.17, SD=755) shows that students learn when they get peer feedback. Besides, the item number 15 (M=3.15, SD=833) that checking the works of my classmates assist with my work. In addition, other item number 14 that students improve their writing ability when they seek peer feedback (M=3.11, SD=728).

Likewise, item number 18 (M=3.11, SD=913) that the process of peer feedback increase students motivation and it give inspiration to them. The item number 16 (M=3.09, SD=830) “I feel confident when ask to make suggestions about my peers work.” The item number 13 that students are not sure about their classmates peer feedback (M=2.95, SD=822). Similarly, the item number 19 (M=2.95, SD=830) shows that peer feedback process do not provide occasions to interact and communicate with their classmates. Moreover, the final item number 17 (M=2.94, SD=779) “The peer feedback process enhanced my creativity.”

V.    DISCUSSION

5.1  The Usage of Peer Feedback in Afghan EFL Students’ Classes

In this study, the participants who were Afghan EFL students’ at Kandahar University stated that they use peer feedback in their classes (M= 2.96, SD=818). Through this finding it can be inferred that learners implement peer response in their classes. This finding is not in line with a comparative study conducted by Zhao (2010) in China that students used more teacher feedback than peer feedback in their redrafts. Whereas a larger portion of students understood peer feedback than teacher feedback that was used in redrafts. The study further asserted that for learners the feedback of teachers were more important and trustworthy than peer feedback. Moreover, the next finding revealed that the usage of peer assessment abled students to evaluate the writing of their peers. It can be said that learners right now can assess their classmates’ works because right now they know the value of peer feedback as well as peer feedback improve their writing. This finding is supported by Huisman, et al., (2018) that there is need to understand EFL students about the value and implementation of peer feedback activities in second language writing classes. Furthermore, receiving and providing feedback increases the writing performance of the students. Also, students learn more from peer feedback then teacher feedback.

Likewise, finding of this study revealed that the use of peer feedback decreased learners’ anxiety. This finding is in harmony with Kurt, et al., (2007) who carried out a study in Turkey that the group of peer response experienced significantly less writing anxiety than the teacher feedback group. In addition, EFL students reported that we use peer feedback partially in classrooms (M=2.76, SD=792) which means that they do not use peer feedback completely in classes. This finding is against with Shulin (2013) who carried out a study on twenty six Chinese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding the use and role of peer feedback in second language writing classes. Findings of Shulin’s study indicated that most of the participants used peer feedback in their EFL classes. These teachers always required their students to work in pairs or small groups to comment on each other’s second language writing.

5.2  The Influence of Peer Feedback on Afghan EFL Learners’ Achievement

The findings of this study revealed that students like when their writing is revised by classmates because the learners reported that we learn when we receive comments from our peers. This finding is in line with (Wakabayashi, 2013; Junhua 2005) that majority of the students in both groups preferred to receive peer comments; especially, in written form from their classmates and most learners liked to get feedback from their peers and they think that it was useful technique for learning. As well as, findings asserted that peer feedback has positive impacts on students because they reported that it is useful for learning. According to (Lin and Chien 2009; Min 2006) that most participants believed that peer feedback positively assisted their learning in English writing classes and trained peer review has a positive impact on refining reviewers’ comments and communication strategies and writers’ next revision.

Furthermore, the finding of this study asserted that giving feedback to learners assisted with the writing of the students who give feedback to their peers. This is supported by Suh (2005) who conducted a study in Korea, the findings revealed that both types of peer feedback activities played a facilitative role in improving writing attitude and writing skills, and it promotes and enhance students writing interest and writing ability in second language writing. Similarly, the finding of this research indicated that students who receive peer feedback from their classmates at Kandahar University improved their writing ability. This finding is supported by Chen, et al., (2011) that using peer feedback is an effective way to improve the quality of elementary students’ writing, and students are able to write meaningful content. This study further indicated that peer feedback improve students' editing articles and improve their writing skills. In addition, this finding is supported more by Diaz Pizarro (2017) that peer feedback provides information about where learners were, considering the learning goals and it progresses their writing ability.

  1. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This quantitative study was carried out to investigate the implementation and effects of peer feedback on Afghan EFL students’ in the context of Afghanistan. The findings of this study revealed that many students use peer response, but some students use it incompletely in their classes. Besides, the implementation of peer critiquing enabled students to evaluate the writing of their classmates and also the use of peer review decreased learners’ anxiety. Likewise, students learned when they receive feedback from their peers and peer feedback had positive influence on students. Furthermore, giving and receiving peer response helped with the writing of students. As in this study, peers feedback had positive impacts on students achievements therefore the researchers strongly recommend it to be used in all Afghan EFL classes completely since students can learn more from their peers rather than teachers.

REFERENCES

  1. Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (2002). Interactive statistics. Virginia. America: Pearson Education.
  2. Anjarwati, R. (2017). The effect of peer feedback on students’ writing. SELL Journal: Scope of English Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature, 2(2), 137-144.
  3. Bijami,M., Kashef,S. H.,& Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of studies in education, 3(4), 91-97.
  4. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. Putting it into practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  5. Brown, H.D., Abeywickrama, P. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
  6. Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Language teaching methodology. 
  7. Chen, Y. L., Liu, E. Z. F., Shih, R. C., Wu, C. T., & Yuan, S. M. (2011). Use of peer feedback to enhance elementary students' writing through blogging. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), E1-E4.
  8. Defazio, J., Jones, J., Tennant, F., & Hook, S. A. (2010). Academic Literacy: The Importance and Impact of Writing across the Curriculum. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 34-47.
  9. Diaz Pizarro, K. (2017). The effects of teacher and peer feedback in the english writing production (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Alberto Hurtado).
  10. Elander, J. (2006). Complex skills and academic writing: a review of evidence about the types of learning required to meet core assessment criteria. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 71-90
  11. Erkan, D. Y., & Saban, A. İ. (2011). Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish tertiary-level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly March 2011 Volume 13, Issue, 13(1)
  12. Farrah, M. (2012). The impact of peer feedback on improving the writing skills among Hebron University students. An-Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities), 26(1), 179-209.
  13. Fraenkel. J. R, Wallen. N.E & Hyun.H. H. (2016). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (9th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Education
  14. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Leaning and instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
  15. Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-based nursing, 18(3), 66-67.
  16. Hedge, T. (2001). Teaching and learning in the language classroom (Vol. 106). Oxford, England: Oxford university press.
  17. Higher Education Development Program of Afghanistan (2018). Examination Rules of Higher Education.
  18. Ho, P. V. P., & Duong, N. T. T. (2014). The effectiveness of peer feedback on graduate academic writing at Ho Chi Minh City Open University. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University-No, 2(10), 10.
  19. Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968.
  20. Hyland, K. (2003). Writing and teaching writing. Second language writing, 1-30.
  21. Junhua, M. (2005). An exploratory study of conducting peer review among Chinese college students. s. CELEA Journal (Bimonthly), 28(6).
  22. Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 12-39.
  23. Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation.
  24. Kitchakarn, O. (2013). Peer feedback through blogs: An effective tool for improving student's writing abilities. Turkish online journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 152-164.
  25. Kurt, G., & Atay, D. (2007). The Effects of Peer Feedback on the Writing Anxiety of Prospective Turkish Teachers of EFL. Online Submission, 3(1), 12-23.
  26. 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).
  27. Lin, G. H. C., & Chien, P. S. C. (2009). An Investigation into Effectiveness of Peer Feedback. Online Submission, 3, 79-87.
  28. Maarof, N., Yamat, H., & Li, K. L. (2011). Role of teacher, peer and teacher-peer feedback in enhancing ESL students' writing. World applied sciences journal 15 (innovation and pedagogy for lifelong learning), 35-29.
  29. Madan, C. R., & Kensinger, E. A. (2017). Test-retest reliability of brain morphology estimates. Brian Informatics, 4(2), 107-121.
  30. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?. ELT journal, 46(3), 274-284.
  31. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL quarterly, 28(4), 745-769.
  32. Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of second language writing, 15(2), 118-141.
  33. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 3, 125-144.
  34. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL quarterly, 27(1), 135-141.
  35. Nguyen, H. T. (2016). Peer Feedback Practice in EFL Tertiary Writing Classes. English Language Teaching, 9(6), 76-91.
  36. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
  37. Nilam, F. A. (2018). The Effectiveness Of Corrective Peer Written Feedback In Complying With Minimum Requirements In Writing Recount Texts: An Experimental Study (doctoral Dissertation, Sanata Dharma University).
  38. Saville-Troike, M. & Barto, K. (2016). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Shulin, Y. (2013). EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding peer feedback in L2 writing classrooms. Polyglossia: the Asia-Pacific's voice in language and language teaching, 24, 74-79.
  40. Somervell, H. (1993). Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 18(3), pp.221-233.
  41. Sotoudehnama, E., & Pilehvari, A. (2016). The impact of peer review on EFL learners' writing proficiency: global and local aspects. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras, (25), 35-47.
  42. Suh, J. (2005). Peer feedback interactions in EFL compositions: Written feedback versus oral feedback. ENGLISH TEACHING, 60(3), 91-116.
  43. Topping, K., Smith, E.F., Swanson, I. and Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), pp. 149-169.
  44. Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  45. Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of second language writing, 9(2), 147-170.
  46. Wakabayashi, R. (2013). The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers' Own Writing. English language teaching, 6(9), 177-192.
  47. Wang, K. (2015). Problem and Tactics in Peer Feedback in EFL Writing Teaching. In International Conference in Education, Management and Information Technology. Atlatis Press.
  48. 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, 15(3), 179-200.
  49. Zhang, X. (2018). An Examination of the Effectiveness of Peer Feedback on Chinese University Students' English Writing Performance (Doctoral dissertation, Oakland University).
  50. Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing writing, 15(1), 3-17.



author

For Authors

Author Membership provide access to scientific innovation, next generation tools, access to conferences/seminars
/symposiums/webinars, networking opportunities, and privileged benefits.
Authors may submit research manuscript or paper without being an existing member of LJP. Once a non-member author submits a research paper he/she becomes a part of "Provisional Author Membership".

Know more

institutes

For Institutions

Society flourish when two institutions come together." Organizations, research institutes, and universities can join LJP Subscription membership or privileged "Fellow Membership" membership facilitating researchers to publish their work with us, become peer reviewers and join us on Advisory Board.

Know more

subsribe

For Subscribers

Subscribe to distinguished STM (scientific, technical, and medical) publisher. Subscription membership is available for individuals universities and institutions (print & online). Subscribers can access journals from our libraries, published in different formats like Printed Hardcopy, Interactive PDFs, EPUBs, eBooks, indexable documents and the author managed dynamic live web page articles, LaTeX, PDFs etc.

Know more

Introducing DeepReview

Artificial Intelligence Based 3rd Peer Reviewer
Meet DeepReview, our 3rd reviewer in the extensive double-blind peer-review process. It's a new generation of Artifical Intelligence that works on deep neural network of machine learning to review research papers. At London Journals Press, we follow an exhaustive process of peer-review, and each article is reviewed by at least two peer reviewers and a team of editorial board members. DeepReview acts as the third peer reviewer that can detect writing styles, plagiarism (for the second time), grammar, contextual spellings, vocabulary, and quality of the article without any human biasing
DeepReview