Digital self-review and anonymous peer feedback in Turkish high school EFL writing

Ayten Kayacan, Salim Razı


Although writing is considered as one of the most essential foreign language skills, its development is quite challenging. To overcome their problems, recently teachers consider the ways of benefiting from digital technology. In this line, self-monitoring and self-evaluation as sub-skills of metacognition, in addition to scaffolding might be beneficial in accordance with Zone of Proximal Development. Hence, both peer feedback and self-monitoring could be integrated with the digital platforms in language classrooms. Within this perspective, the present quasi-experimental research study aimed to investigate the impact of exchanging self and anonymous peer feedback on writing assignments in a digital environment among Turkish EFL high school learners. The data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively by means of open-ended questions and writing task scores through an analytic scoring rubric. Forty-six students in two intact classes exchanged both self and anonymous peer feedback through four writing assignments submitted via Edmodo as a digital environment. The participants were categorized as good, moderate and weak in each group and each student exchanged self and peer feedback in four written assignments in reverse order. The findings of the study revealed that both self and peer feedback contribute to student authors to revise their papers as they scored significantly better in revised versions. Their writing scores indicated improvement at five major components namely, organization, content, grammar, vocabulary, and format. The participants also reported improvement mainly related to content, grammar and format and indicated positive attitudes towards digital self and peer feedback. As both digital self and peer feedback were found to be beneficial, EFL teachers should be encouraged to implement them in their writing classes.


digital environment; Edmodo; EFL writing; peer feedback; self-review

Full Text:



Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54, 153–160.

Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and Independence in language learning. New York, NY: Longman.

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–241.

Berggren, J. (2015). Learning from giving feedback: a study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal, 69, 58-70.

Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–97.

Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15(2), l–14.

Chenowith, N. A. (1987). The need to teach re-writing. ELT Journal, 41, 25–29.

Cumming, A. (1985). Teachers’ procedures for responding to the writing of students of a second language. In M. Maguire & A. Par (Eds.), Patterns of development (pp. 58–75). Montreal: Canadian Council of Teachers of English.

Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.

Dudeny, G. (2000). The internet and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Harlow, NY: Longman.

Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Harlow, NY: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2003a). Second language writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2003b). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of second language writing, 12, 17–29.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students` writing. Language teaching, 39(2), 83–101.

Jacobs, G., Curtis, A., Brain, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307–317.

Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., Honan, E., & Crawford, J. (1998). The wired world of second language education. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 20–50). London: Routledge.

Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 219–232). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.

Leki, I. (1993). Reciprocal themes in reading and writing. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 9–33). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514–525.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer`s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.

MacLeod, L. (1999). Computer-aided peer review of writing. Business Communications Quarterly, 62(3), 87–94.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274–284.

Mendoca, C., & Johnson K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.

Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.

“Ministry of National Education”. (2012). FATİH project teacher training department. Retrieved from

Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135–142.

Nelson G., & Narens, T. O. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173.

Nystrand, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context for learning to write. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 209–230). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

O`Brien, T. (2004). Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language teaching, 37, 1– 28.

Partridge, K. L. (1981). A comparison of the effectiveness of peer vs. teacher evaluation for helping students of English as a second language to improve the quality of their written compositions. Unpublished master`s thesis, University of Hawaii, Manoa.

Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.

Porto, M. (2001). Cooperative writing response groups and self-evaluation. ELT Journal, 55, 38-46.

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: a classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229-258.

Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability and composing strategies: a study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439–468.

Raimes, A. (1992). Exploring through writing: a process approach to ESL composition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Razı, S. (2016). Open and anonymous peer review in a digital online environment compared in academic writing context. In C. Goria, O. Speicher & S. Stollhans (Eds), Innovative language teaching and learning at university: enhancing participation and collaboration (pp. 49–56). Dublin:

Razı, S. (2017). Anonymous multi-mediated writing model: Peer feedback exchange in EAP. In D. Köksal (Ed.), Researching ELT: Classroom methodology and beyond (pp. 1-11). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335– 381). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.

Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 617–648.

Sun, C., & Feng, G. (2009). Process approach to teaching writing applied in different teaching models. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 150–155.

Taylor, T., & Ward, I. (1998). Literacy theory in the age of the Internet. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.

Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7–26.

Xiang, W. (2004). Encouraging self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students. ELT Journal, 58, 238–246.

Zamel, V. (1982). The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

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

Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2017 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies