EFL Students’ Perspectives as Peer Reviewers in Virtual Writing Contexts: A Case Study in Indonesian Higher Education

Authors

  • Rina Husnaini Febriyanti Universitas Indraprasta PGRI Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Hanna Sundari Universitas Indraprasta PGRI Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Rifari Baron Universitas Indraprasta PGRI Jakarta, Indonesia
  • Arif Rahman Mandalika University of Education, Indonesia
  • Sri Arfani Bina Sarana Informatika University, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i3.14891

Keywords:

Peer review, EFL writing, Virtual learning environment, Remote assessment

Abstract

The studies of peer review in EFL composition class have received considerable attention in the literature. However, little understanding of how students as reviewers perceived peer review in a virtual learning environment as part of remote assessment. Due to the expansion of technology and the implementation of hybrid learning, language instructions were shifted from an on-site (face-to-face) learning mode into a blended learning system, including language assessment activities. Although existing research on peer review has been extensive, peer review from a peer reviewer perpectives in the virtual setting is still infrequent. This research aims to investigate EFL students' perspectives as peer reviewers in virtual writing contexts in Indonesian Higher Education. The current study was conducted in an exploratory case study approach. The participants were 41 students. The instruments were open-ended questionnaires and in-depth interviews. In addition, the comment analysis from the peer reviewers was investigated from the rubric of the peer review form. The findings revealed that almost all the peer reviewers voiced positive repertoires regarding the experiences in peer review in a virtual learning environment, and the comment analysis found mostly in the micro and macro meanings and strength comments as the crucial parts in delivering review to the peer reviewees’ artefacts.  The findings revealed that almost all the peer reviewers voiced positive repertoires regarding the experiences in peer review in a virtual learning environment, and the comment analysis found mostly the micro and macro meanings and strength comments as the crucial parts in delivering review to the peer reviewees’ artefacts. The current study implies sharing recommendations for implementing peer review in the virtual writing context with proper preparation before the realization.

Author Biographies

Rina Husnaini Febriyanti, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI Jakarta

English Education Study Program, Faculty of Language and Art,Indraprasta PGRI University, Indonesia

Hanna Sundari, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI Jakarta

English Education Study Program, Faculty of Language and Art,Indraprasta PGRI University, Indonesia

Rifari Baron, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI Jakarta

English Education Study Program, Faculty of Language and Art, Indraprasta PGRI University, Indonesia

Arif Rahman, Mandalika University of Education

English Language Education, Mandalika University of Education, Indonesia

Sri Arfani, Bina Sarana Informatika University

English Literature, Faculty of Language and Communication, Bina Sarana Informatika University, Indonesia

References

Ahmed, R. (2020). Peer review in academic writing: Different perspectives from instructors and students. TESOL Journal, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.537

Ahmed, R., & Al-Kadi, A. (2021). Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911245

Awada, G. M., & Diab, N. M. (2023). Effect of online peer review versus face-to-face peer review on argumentative writing achievement of EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(1–2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5

Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van Den Bergh, H., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition and Instruction, 22(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_1

Broughton, G., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill, P., & Pincas, A. (2003). Teaching English as a foreign language. Routledge.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (Vol. 35, Issue 2). Longman Publisher. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587655

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practice. Book, 314.

Burke Moneypenny, D., Evans, M., & Kraha, A. (2018). Student perceptions of and attitudes toward peer review. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(4), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1509425

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90012-0

Chang, C. Y. huey. (2015). Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing, 25, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.04.001

Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x

Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1

Chuaphalakit, K., Inpin, B., & Coffin, P. (2019). A study of the quality of feedback via the Google Classroom-mediated-anonymous online peer feedback activity in a Thai EFL writing classroom. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.8

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education Ltd.

De Smedt, F., Merchie, E., Barendse, M., Rosseel, Y., De Naeghel, J., & Van Keer, H. (2018). Cognitive and motivational challenges in writing: Studying the relation with writing performance across students’ gender and achievement level. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.193

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2004). Teaching ESL composition purpose, process, and practice (Issue September). Routledge.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600

Fuchs, C., Snyder, B., Tung, B., & Jung Han, Y. (2017). The multiple roles of the task design mediator in telecollaboration. ReCALL, 29(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000088

Grover, S. D., Cargile Cook, K., Skurat Harris, H., & DePew, K. E. (2017). Immersion, reflection, failure: Teaching graduate students to teach writing online. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(3), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2017.1339524

Gu, P., Zhang, Y., & Gu, H. (2020). Creating a technology-enhanced constructivist learning environment for research ability development in a BA Thesis Writing course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(5–6), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1576735

Hanan, A., Firman, E., & Terasne, T. (2022). Investigating English lecturers’ strategies of committing online written corrective feedback during Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i1.4471

Ho, M. C. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.495

Holliway, D. R. (2004). Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience perspective in children’s descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(4), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540409595045

Huang, J. (2016). Contribution of online peer review to effectiveness of EFL writing. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(11), 811–816. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-11-6

Hussien, H. S., Khalid, F., Hussin, S., Baharuddin, D. F., & Ab Rahman, Z. (2020). Critical review of design and development of one-stop e-learning plagiarism module for an academic writing course: An application of the iccee model. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(5), 1039–1048. https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.05.209

Hyland, K. (2004). Second language writing (Vol. 53, Issue 9). Cambridge University Press.

Kim, S. (2019). Japanese student writers’ perspectives on anonymous peer review. ELT Journal, 73(3), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy061

Kılıçkaya, F. (2019). Pre-service language teachers’ online written corrective feedback preferences and timing of feedback in computer-supported L2 grammar instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1668811

Kurihara, N. (2017). Do peer reviews help improve student writing abilities in an EFL high school classroom? TESOL Journal, 8(2), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.282

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

Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: an analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465981

Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.002

Li, M., & Li, J. (2017). Online peer review using Turnitin in first-year writing classes. Computers and Composition, 46, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.001

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002

Meek, S. E. M., Blakemore, L., & Marks, L. (2017). Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1221052

Mendonça, C. O., Johnson, K. E., & Mendonca, C. O. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558

Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003

Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002

Min, H. T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.004

Mirick, R. G. (2020). Teaching note—online peer review: Students’ experiences in a writing-intensive BSW course. Journal of Social Work Education, 56(2), 394–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1656582

Morris, J. (2001). Peer assessment: A missing link between teaching and learning? A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 21(7), 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0661

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the Learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135

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. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586965

Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x

Noori, A. (2020). An investigation of undergraduate English major students’ difficulties in academic. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Learning, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.5249

Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., van Ginkel, S., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2020). Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: does gender matter? Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200

Ozfidan, B., & Mitchell, C. (2020). Detected difficulties in argumentative writing: The case of culturally and linguistically saudi backgrounded students. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/382

Poehner, M. E., Zhang, J., & Lu, X. (2015). Computerized dynamic assessment (C-DA): Diagnosing L2 development according to learner responsiveness to mediation. Language Testing, 32(3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560390

Polio, C. (2017). Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 50(2), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000015

Purchase, H., & Hamer, J. (2018). Perspectives on peer-review: Eight years of Aropä. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1359819

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003

Saeed, M. A., & Ghazali, K. (2016). Modeling peer revision among EFL learners in an online learning community. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 13(2), 275–292. https://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/saeed.pdf

Sarré, C., Grosbois, M., & Brudermann, C. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164

Senel, S., & Senel, H. C. (2021). Remote assessment in higher education during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.820140

Setyowati, L., Sukmawan, S., Karmina, S., & Mabaroh, B. (2024). The correlation between students’ writing self-efficacy and essay writing performance. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i1.9140

Shang, H. F. (2022). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.53887

Such, B. (2019). Scaffolding English language learners for online collaborative writing activities. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1579233

Surkamp, C., & Viebrock, B. (2018). Teaching English as a foreign language: An introduction. In Teaching English as a Foreign Language: An Introduction. Springer Nature.

Tai, H. C., Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597490

Tian, L., & Li, L. (2018). Chinese EFL learners’ perception of peer oral and written feedback as providers, receivers and observers. Language Awareness, 27(4), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1535602

Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9

Villalon, J., Besser, M., Lagos, J., & Carrasco, P. (2018). Scaffolding feedback in writing using an online marking platform: A case study. Proceedings - IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2018, 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2018.00070

Vithanage, D. B. R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79–99. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44447

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Wang, L., Lee, I., & Park, M. (2020). Chinese university EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices of classroom writing assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 66(September 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100890

Wilson, M. J., Diao, M. M., & Huang, L. (2015). ‘I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff’: an investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881980

Wu, W.-S. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature, July, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.6372/JEFLL.200607.0125

Yang, Y. F. (2016). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 683–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016440

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5 ed.). Sage.

Yu, S. (2020). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(SI1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1742872

Zhao, H. (2018). New insights into the process of peer review for EFL writing: A process-oriented socio-cultural perspective. Learning and Instruction, 58(March), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.010

Downloads

Published

2025-07-18

How to Cite

Febriyanti, R. H., Sundari, H., Baron, R., Rahman, A., & Arfani, S. (2025). EFL Students’ Perspectives as Peer Reviewers in Virtual Writing Contexts: A Case Study in Indonesian Higher Education. Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 13(3), 1133–1148. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v13i3.14891

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2025)

Section

Articles

Citation Check

License

License and Publishing Agreement
In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  1. They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  2. The work described has not been formally published before, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal.
  3. That it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
  4. That its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  5. They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  6. They agree to the following license and publishing agreement.

Copyright
Authors who publish with JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. 
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Licensing for Data Publication

JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching uses a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:
Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.