INTRODUCTION

While deemed to be an important part of teaching and learning writing in second language
(L2) writing development, researchers are splitting hairs in regards to feedback. The main point of
arguments about feedback in writing is whether feedback, especially error correction is beneficial
or detrimental towards students’ writing development. There are research that point towards the
futility of correction in L2 writing classroom but at the same time, there are research that proven
its benefits. In order to form an informed opinion, we must look onto both sides of arguments o
the use of feedback in learning and teaching L2 writing. Before delving deeper into the arguments,
the first variable needs to be addressed: feedback.

Feedback is seen as a vital especially in regards to students’ learning and motivation. The
class that focuses on students’ involvement (student-centered) and process writing considers
feedback as the tool to grow as writers by implementing stages of drafts in writing. It also acts as
a scaffold (Hyland & Hyland 2006) as well as providing readers’ response towards the particular
text (Probst 1989). There are four types of feedback in writing (Hyland & Hyland 2006). The most
common one is teacher written feedback. The most popular form of this feedback is direct
correction- where teachers correct students’ grammatical errors in their writing piece. The indirect
form of this feedback is where teachers only leave ‘clues’ for students to find the errors themselves
through the use of codes and symbols. This form requires students to do a bit of thinking rather
than giving them the errors directly. The next form of feedback is teacher conferencing and oral
feedback. Students write their essay and then meet their teacher for feedback. Teacher can give the
feedback in either direct or indirect feedback. Through conferencing, students and teacher
negotiate the corrections that they need to make on their writing- be it grammatically or the content
of the essay itself. The next type of feedback is peer feedback and self-evaluation. These feedbacks
relate to each other as often the feedback given by peers need to students to evaluate themselves
for this feedback to work effectively. Peer feedback involves asking students to work
collaboratively by communicating and interact with each other. Often peer feedback requires
training for students. Students are taught to focus on the content and structure of the essay, making
changes that can affect locally and globally in an essay. The final type of feedback is computer-
mediated feedback. This involves the use of computer software in giving feedback towards
students’ works. The feedback may come in the form of online discussion (conferencing),

1
automated feedback, or corpora-based feedback towards students’ works. Teachers give more
powers to students in order for them to make decisions on revising their own work based on the
feedback given by the software and their own work. The use of software in giving feedback
towards students’ writing encourages students to be actively responsive towards the feedback
given; either by teachers or by their own peers.

Despite the many types and research done on feedback, many questions remained
unanswered on the usefulness of feedback. The most popular question would be whether or not it
helps developing students’ writing ability. Assuming that it helps, the next question is in what area
of writing does feedback help? Which type of feedback is the best? Is error correction a viable
choice in giving feedback to students? What role does peer feedback play in students’ writing
development? This paper will try to discuss the aforementioned questions above through critical
evaluation and analysis of current research.

2
The current practice

In order to justify why this topic is important, it is vital then for us to look into the current
practice in pedagogical settings. Long (1996) stated that L2 learners are often exposed to two types
of input: positive evidence and negative evidence. When learners are shown with language model
of what is acceptable in L2, they are exposed to positive evidence. Negative evidence is when
teachers tell students what is unacceptable in L2. These evidences are usually presented in the form
of feedback. While there are certainly many types of feedback in regards to writing development,
teacher written response in the form of direct correction remains as an important part in most of
the teaching and learning writing in L2 and foreign language (FL) class (Hyland & Hyland 2006).
This may stemmed from teachers’ belief that they need to comment students’ works in order to
provide appropriate readers’ response and ultimately justify the grade that they prescribed for their
students’ works (Hyland 2003). Teachers also give direct corrective feedback (CF) where
grammatical errors are explicitly corrected with the presumption of helping their students to
achieve better grasp and understanding of the grammar rules and in turn, improve their
grammatical accuracy (Brown 2012). Bitchener (2007) points that most L2 and FL teachers believe
that they have to provide CF on the students’ errors in order to help students’ acquire targeted
forms and structure. However, there are yet concrete and empirical proof on the effectiveness of
corrective feedback and teachers instead prescribe written CF using their teaching experiences,
intuition as well as the expectations of the students (Hyland & Hyland 2006, Ferris 2011). They
work on the assumption that CF works and benefits their students (Bitchener 2007).

A similar picture is being painted in Malaysia education system. A study by Norasyikin

(2016) shows that teacher put the highest emphasis and regards towards direct corrective feedback,
and this is shown in Husin and Ariffin (2008) where teachers are expected to give CF in classroom
by students’ expectation. Norasyikin (2016) reveals that 60% of teachers from high performance
schools that were involved in her study consider that direct feedback- mainly the direct correction
towards students’ grammatical errors and content to be the most effective and useful towards
students’ development in writing. The main focus of this paper will be on the corrective feedback
on grammar and it will be scrutinized through comparison of several research.

3
The problem with current practice, noticing hypothesis and output hypothesis

In order to criticize the current practice of giving feedback in school, we need to look into
the general view of CF. For this, the paper will first look into the second parameter of the research:
the debates surrounding the use of CF in classroom before reviewing Schmidt’s (1990) noticing
hypothesis. This paper will then review the output hypothesis (1993) and the roles it plays in
feedback. The paper then will then suggest an alternative towards giving students feedback on
their writing in classroom based on all the parameters studied and reviewed in the paper.

Arguments against CF

In order to be fair and to provide a sound judgment on CF, this paper will attempt to provide
both sides of the arguments. The early research on CF criticized on the quality of the feedback
given. Often, the research claimed, the written CF given by teachers are of low quality, not being
understood by students, unclear, too authoritative, and may leading towards teacher appropriation
of students’ works (Connors & Lunsford 1993, Ferris 2003). The later research however, start to
focus on the viability and the effectiveness of CF. These research are influenced by the underlying
principles and theories of process theories. It was argued that CF are discouraging and do not help
students’ writing development (Polio, Fleck & Leder 1998, Fazio 2001). The most popular
summary of this argument is perhaps by Truscott (1996). He claimed that error correction in
writing classroom is a waste of time and instead of correcting the mistakes committed by students,
he suggested teachers use the time to do more writing exercise instead (Truscott 1996).
Furthermore, Truscott (1996) further claimed that the use of CF in classroom is not only
ineffective, but also harmful and detrimental towards students’ writing development. He insisted
on an error-correction free classroom and it is teachers’ responsibilities to change students’ attitude
in regards to error feedback. This is supported by another research by Fazio (2001) that used CF
in her classroom in order to teach journal writing for students. Data collected after the treatment
shows no significant difference between the types of correction given towards their quality of
writing. It is posited that this may cause by the lack of attentiveness among students towards the
correction given (Fazio 2001). A similar bleak picture was also painted in Truscott and Hsu (2008)
research where they found the end result of the experimental and control group are almost similar-
indicating that the improvement achieved during the revision is not a sign of learning and to an

4
extent, not an evidence for the effectiveness of CF in learning and teaching L2 writing in class.
Corrective feedback given by teachers show that writing to be most likely tested rather than taught
(Hyland 2007). A study by Sheen et al. (2009) shows that group that do not receive any CF, only
writing practice shows a lot of improvements in their accuracy of writing, suggesting that CF is
not necessary in order to improve students’ L2 writing. Truscott (2007) criticized research that
show students’ improvement after treated with CF, arguing that the studies do not prove the
effectiveness of CF since both groups in the study show improvements. Liu (2008) shows that
though CF given helps students in remedying and editing their immediate drafts, it does not help
to develop students’ accuracy in the long run.

Arguments for CF

On the other side of arguments, there are a lot of research that show the effectiveness and
efficacy of CF in L2 writing development. While most of the previous research do not find any
significant differences in students’ accuracy after the treatment, we must bear in mind that these
research do not include any control group (Polio et al. 1998, Sheppard 1992). The research then
delve into determining the whether the types of CF given that may have better chance in helping
students accuracy. Among types of feedback that made into focus are direct, indirect, coded, and
uncoded feedback. Such research such as Ferris et al. (2000) and Ferris and Helt (2000) reported
that the use of indirect feedback have greater benefits towards students’ writing in the long run.
Chandler (2003) argues that direct CF is the best way to produce accuracy in students writing and
most preferred by students as it is fast and simple for them to make revisions. Research into the
effect of CF by Bitchener, Young & Cameron (2005) found that CF improved students’ accuracy
in writing over a 12-week period. The research show that direct oral CF combined with direct
written CF benefits students the greatest in reducing grammatical errors. Similarly, Van Beuningen
et al. (2012) conducted a longitudinal research of the viability and the feasibility of CF and found
that it helps improving students’ accuracy in their drafts and the new text produced. A research
conducted in Malaysia by Asiah and Lee (2014) painted similar picture. They had found that
students that were given focused and unfocused feedback outperformed their control counterparts
in the research.

5
 These unresolved discrepancies and debates surrounding CF then require further research
and study into it. The biggest critic on the CF research is the fact that most of the research neglects
the element of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) in it (Hyland & Hyland 2006). Any attempt
to draw conclusion directly based on the corrective feedback and whether students acquire the
form intended is arguably simplistic and problematic (Carson 2001; Ferris 2013). Ellis (1997)
argues that students’ SLA development may exist in the form of a U- where students were able to
use the correct form initially before regressing and finally acquire the form in accordance to the
target language (TL) norms (Doughty & Long 2003). Drawing conclusion that the acquisition
happened after feedback given then is a dangerous thing. Hyland and Hyland (2006) further argue
this by stating that language acquisition needs time as well as reoccurrence for students to notice
the form. This leads into the third parameters that will be discussed; the relation between CF and
the theories of SLA, mainly on Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis and Swain’s (1995) output
hypothesis.

6
Schmidt’s (1990) noticing hypothesis

This theory combines two important theories: attention and awareness (Svalberg 2007).
The premise of this hypothesis is that subliminally trying to learn language is impossible and
students can only intake what they consciously notice (Schmidt 1990). In order for learning to
occur, students need to be at the second level of awareness; focal awareness. This is where students
are aware and focus on the intended features rather than the content of the model sentences given
by the teacher. He continued that this apply to all language elements such as grammatical forms,
lexical concepts, phonological elements and pragmatics. Schmidt (1993) argues that learners
should not only understand the input imparted, but also notice the features related to the intended
language form. Thus, noticing is, as argued by Schmidt is a necessary condition to learn language.
Using attention as the base theory, he the further explained that learners need to be made aware of
the gap and discrepancies between the language that they possess and able to produce with what
the TL speakers produce (Schmidt 2001). Learners’ engagements in comparing the interlanguage
that they have and TL is then is of utmost importance. Ellis (1995) changes this to cognitive
comparison since students also need to be aware whether their output is the same with the input
given. Based on this theory, continuously correcting students’ grammatical errors, especially those
who have not yet notice the intended form is futile as the input given will never be taken up by
students.

Output hypothesis

This hypothesis coms out when Swain (1995) questioned Krashen’s (1982) input
hypothesis that theorized the way to acquire language is through comprehensible input. Output
hypothesis by Swain (1995) outlines that the production of target language relates to SLA through
the roles it plays. The functions are: a) the automaticity in producing the intended language, b) the
testing of the hypothesis formed by students, c) metalinguistic function and finally, d) making
students notice or trigger students’ awareness.

7
The relationship between noticing and output hypothesis

It is the noticing function that is the most important towards this paper as it draws the
connection towards the noticing hypothesis. We have established that noticing is a must for
students to learn the targeted language and the output produced may help us in making that
happened. Swain (1995) added that when L2 learners produce TL, it may make them aware of the
limitation that they still have in their interlanguage. In more recent research by Swain and Lapkin
(1998) claimed that TL production by L2 learners helped them to notice linguistics shortcomings
in their TL. This is different from the use of direct grammatical CF in class where students
produced the language without being made aware of the gap that they possess in their TL
repertoire. A research by Sakai (2004) that relates these two hypotheses shows that students that
were made aware or notice the gap they possess allows them to correct themselves and improve
their accuracy. Students’ noticing level were measured in this study by analyzing students speech
and the research found that the instances where the noticing level is high, students tend to make
more repair in their speech. A similar instance can be seen in Hanaoka and Izumi (2012) research.
The research shows that students involved notice their problem in certain area of language. These
students tend notice the correct model given by the researchers and incorporate them into their
revisions. Hanaoka and Izumi (2012) suggested teachers to make learners identify the problems
that they may have in producing the TL and made them look for and notice the solutions from the
input provided. These can be achieved through the use of a multistage writing task in classroom
as it will encourage students to constantly notice their gap.

Based on noticing hypothesis, the researcher will argue then that the current practice of correcting
grammar in writing classes are not helpful and is detrimental towards students L2 writing
development. This will be further supported through reviewing the relevant SLA theories and their
relations towards CF. After that, the researcher is going to suggest an alternative towards CF in
classroom to another form of feedback.

8
The explicit knowledge of L2 grammar

The explicit knowledge on grammar is where students are aware and conscious of the
grammatical rules (Ellis 2004). The opposite of explicit knowledge is implicit knowledge,
unconscious and readily available in everyone. While implicit knowledge is heralded as helping
students achieving spontaneous communication, explicit knowledge in the form of direct
grammatical error correction is surrounded in controversies. Krashen (1982) for example, argues
that grammar correction that gives explicit knowledge has a rather limited uses in L2 learning. He
claims that this explicit knowledge is only useful in monitor hypothesis- after the students have
acquired the necessary form of TL. It is then important to note that correcting students that have
yet acquire the intended knowledge is an exercise in futility. Another point to note is that Krashen
(1982) claimed that the explicit knowledge learnt will never be implicit knowledge and hence has
very little effect in helping students’ L2 development. Van Beuningen (2010) summarized this by
saying that CF only provides explicit knowledge while the use of a language is driven by the use
of one’s implicit knowledge. It is futile then to try correcting learners’ system by giving CF to
them as the explicit knowledge gained will never be implicit and will not be used naturally. While
there are arguments that CF may be a vehicle towards noticing, the message is clear: students need
to notice in order for CF to be worthwhile. This is especially hard in lower proficiency students
that rely on their L1 to understand the rules of L2. This, coupled with the fact that writing is
considered as the most difficult skill to be acquired (Zacharias 2005) make it is not ideal to give
CF as the students will never be able to improve themselves. Moreover, the limitation of syllabus
and short period of time allocated for English lessons mean teachers might as well do things that
are proven to be beneficial for their students rather than using CF.

9
Students’ readiness

Truscott (1996) raised his concern on the use of CF in classroom based on naturalistic view
of L2 acquisition and the Natural Order Hypothesis proposed by Krashen (1985). This stemmed
for research that found students learn various grammatical features in a predefined order (Bailey,
Madden & Krashen 1974). In order words, learners will only be able to acquire grammatical forms
in accordance to their own internally wired learning mechanism, not by the order set by teachers
or the syllabus. This echoes with Pienemann’s (1989) theory of Teachability and Learnability.
Pienemann (1989) posited that students can only acquire the grammatical or language items that
they are ‘ready’ for. In other words, teaching features that are beyond their development is an
exercise in futility since it is impossible to ask students to acquire them. Thus, teachers must
realized that though the syllabus requires students to be able to acquire the intended grammatical
function, students cannot acquire it if they are not developmentally ready for the feature. Failure
to adhere to students’ current level development may cause no intake to occur. Drilling students
to acquire a harder feature as well as correcting them in the hope of them being able to acquire the
features is then a pipe dream. Moreover, due to the limitation in the current research in regards to
the sequence where students learn grammatical form, it is very hard for teachers to ensure CF given
aligned with students’ current developmental level; making CF unsuitable for SLA (Truscott
1996).

CF may be harmful towards L2 development

The most popular opponent of CF, Truscott (1996; 2004) suggested that CF may be
damaging to the process of L2 acquisition. He added that CF is counterproductive- it does not give
any positive impact towards students’ L2 development making it a waste of time. The precious
that can be used to make more writing practices instead. In relation to anxiety, making students
aware of their errors and constantly correcting them may stress them and make them anxious
(Krashen 1982, Truscott 1996). In order to avoid committing future errors, students may opt
writing simpler sentences and structures. This is supported by Skehan (1998) that suggested
students that want to be accurate in their writing may reduce their writing complexity. Further
research by Skehan and Foster (2001) criticized CF by stating that the emphasis of creating error-
free writing is bad towards students’ L2 writing development as they will be more conservative

10
with their writing to establish greater control over their writing. This in turn, causing them to avoid
from enriching their L2 writing skill.

It is clear then that CF practiced in Malaysian classroom not only ineffective in developing
students’ writing skills and ability but also may hamper their development as a writer. It is
important that a new alternative towards the current practice must be introduced. Based on
researcher’s own reading and understanding of the topic, it is suggested that teacher should try to
use peer feedback instead in their L2 writing classroom to replace the current outdated practice of
CF. Hence, the focus of this paper now will shift from CF into peer feedback. The next part of this
paper will discuss on the rationality of abandoning CF in favour of using peer feedback in
classroom as well as the challenges that teachers may face in implementing it.

Peer feedback

Theories that support peer feedback

Peer feedback has strong backup and support from theoretical stances. It is grounded on
the theory of process writing, Vygotsky’s learning theory, collaborative learning, and interactionist
theory of language acquisition (Liu & Hansen 2002). In terms of process writing, the drafting and
redrafting can benefit greatly from the support that peer feedback can give (Zamel 1985, Mittan
1989). Collaborative learning can be seen when students work together and share their knowledge
in trying to complete the task at hand (Hirvela 1999, Bruffee 1984). Since students are often paired
in such a way that one student will act as the more knowledgeable, they can work together to
construct a Zone of Proximal Development through social interaction (Vygotsky 1978). Not only
that, the interaction among students allows negotiation to occur between them, encouraging
language acquisition. Better students can act as a model towards weaker students’ L2 and by
making weaker students realize and notice the difference between the language that they have and
is a great step towards enabling noticing among students. By realizing the gap, students may then
strive to look for the solutions to their problem and may begin to notice the correct form written

11
or uttered by their friends. Furthermore, students can compare their output in order to make them
further aware of what they are lacking. Hyland and Hyland (2006) further added that the positive
and effective interaction between students can assist the acquisition of L2. They argues that the
availability of comprehensible input provides students more chance to practice and test the
hypothesis they had formed. This is directly related to Swain’s (1995) output hypothesis where
output produced by students can be used by them to check their hypothesis in relation to the
language item that they want to acquire.

Hyland & Hyland (2006) stated that peer feedback is a way to give students more autonomy
towards their writing and this will encourage more self-reflection and evaluation. Students are
actively involved in the process of taking and giving feedback to each other’s works and not
passively waiting for their teachers’ input and response (Mendoca & Johnson 1994). The self-
evaluation part that comes with peer feedback is related to Krashen’s (1982) monitor hypothesis.
Once students acquire the language form through noticing the discrepancies between their work
and their more knowing peers, it will then allow them for more self-reflection and self-evaluation.

Motivation

One of the biggest selling point of using peer feedback in L2 writing classroom is that it
may reduce writers’ anxiety and apprehension, motivating them and at the same time, develop
their writers’ autonomy and self-confidence (Curtis 2001, Cotterall & Cohen 2003). This is
obviously contrasts to CF where students have lesser choice and might have to follow what
teachers have commented and this may lead towards teacher appropriation of students’ works
(Grace & Paul 2009). The interaction between students in the process of evaluation and responding
towards each other’s works may provide students with the much needed affective support (Hyland
2000). Grace & Paul (2009) also found that the use of peer feedback in L2 writing class may help
to lower students’ inhibition and affective filter. A study by Kurt & Atay (2007) that measures
students writing anxiety level found a decrease in anxiety after the researcher implemented peer
feedback in the classroom. Kurt & Atay (2007) further revealed the result of the interview
conducted shows that students feel happy because their interaction enables them to see their
mistakes. Lundstrom & Baker (2009) shows that students who were trained to give peer feedback
also recorded higher accuracy as well as being able to give more relevant local and global

12
comments to their peers. This was supported by the earlier research by Min (2004) that found the
training applied to students in order to give better peer feedback develop their writing skills,
increase their confidence as writer, helping them in language acquisition and build their
metacognitive strategy used in writing. Students also benefit as a writer, with the training helps
them to approach a topic from multiple perspectives and expand their vocabulary list (Min 2004).
These benefits ultimately lead them towards into becoming autonomous writer with high
motivation and lack of writers’ apprehension. Furthermore, peer feedback can provide information
that students would be able to use in order to do self-assessment, another important elements in
providing and producing independent and motivated writers. Liu & Carless (2006) also stated that
peer feedback has the ability to make students perform better in their assessment, something that
students regard as very useful, making them more motivated in learning. The research further argue
that peer feedback is more likely to make students to move from the private domain of learning to
more public. Since writing is private in nature, observing and analysing exemplars give students
meaningful chance to observe and checking their hypothesis on the standards of the accepted piece
of work (Liu & Carless 2006). This then enable us to make students to feel at ease with their work
open and shown to the public.

Collaborative learning

In order to keep up with the current trend of education, Malaysian Ministry of Education
(MoE) decided to implement 21st century classroom in all schools. The base of 21st century
classroom is to move away from the traditional classroom where students are passive and expected
to only listen and accept what teachers gave them. The heart of 21st century classroom is the
collaborative learning. Students as early as Standard 1 are trained and expected to take charge of
their learning in the classroom through collaboration with other students and this often involve the
use of peer feedback. The merits of using collaborative learning is a lot. A study conducted by
Storch (2005) that compares the work between pairs and individual shows that students in pairs
completed the task given with better grammatical accuracy and higher complexity. The
collaborative work between the pairs as well as the feedback given enable students to complete the
task better as it allows them to pool their ideas and help each other in the process. A similar picture
can be seen in Dobao (2012) where she recorded students that work in group outperform those in

13
pairs and working alone. The analysis of oral interaction between each group shows that students
in group interact and give more feedback towards each other (Dobao 2012). Not only have that,
the work produced by group contained fewer errors, reducing the need for teacher to correct
students. This supports the argument that CF is unnecessary in classroom. Furthermore,
Wigglesworth and Storch (2012) added that collaboration between students in a group provide
opportunities for language discussion and it is valuable for SLA process. The implementation of
peer feedback in L2 writing in Malaysian class not only help teachers in developing students’ L2
but also in align with what Malaysia strive for.

As demonstrated, unlike CF, peer feedback is strongly grounded in the theory of SLA with
many research that vouch its effectiveness. Peer feedback also is in line with Malaysia’s aspiration
in producing better and independent students. When it comes to peer feedback, the most popular
elements in peer feedback is training for peer feedback. The next part of this paper will be
discussing about training in peer feedback as to give ideas on how peer feedback for L2 writing
can be implemented inside our classroom.

Training students for peer feedback

One of the training model of feedback that can be applied is from Min (2005). The module
of this training consists of 2 phases. In the first phase, students need to sit for in-class
demonstration and modelling session. This in-class session will go for 2 hours per week for a total
of 4 hours altogether. The in-class session involves teaching students how to give comments on
the essays shown by demonstrating the four-step process. The details of the steps involved are:

Step Definition Comments example

1. Students try to elucidate and -this steps is where students “What do you mean by….”
make clear of the intention of ask question and try to get
the writer explanation on what they do
not understand in the essay
written.

14
 2. Looking at the problem
3. Explaining the problem
4. Giving specific suggestion
Table 1- The 4 step of training students to become better peer reviewer
-students make notice of the “The points here do not
words, phrase, sentence that support each other”.
they deemed problematic to
the writer
-students that review the essay “The example of your
explain why they think the supporting details is do not
problem is a problem. support your topic sentence.
Your topic sentence mention
the effect of acid rain to
human, but you talk about
trees here”.
-reviewer suggest the way that “Maybe you should change
the point may be fixed or the example to the effect
improved. towards human health”.

The most strikingly obvious about the training steps is that it does not emphasis on
grammatical correction at all, but focusing on the forming ideas to write essay and the structure of
the essay itself. Students then were asked to do two peer reviews on the second and the third essay.
After the first phase completed, Min (2005) prescribed two sessions of teacher-student conference
outside of class time. A teacher-student conference was held for each review (30 minutes). The
reason conferencing was chosen is because of its pedagogical benefits towards teacher and students
as it will not only helps teacher to build rapport with students but also allowing teacher to check
on the progress of their students. It is during the conferencing that teacher provide students
assistance by helping them to modify the comments made that failed to adhere to the intended
form of feedback. She continues assisting students by reminding the steps needed to correctly and
effectively give a comment on a writing piece and through oral prompt. Students will be asked in
accordance to the guidance sheet that was prepared. After the training has completed (4 hours of
training in class and 18 hours of teacher-student conference), the teacher then asked students to

15
write a draft of a new essay at home a bring it for peer review. Students involved are allowed 2
hours in order to write their comments on their peers’ drafts with the help of guidance sheet
provided. The comments were then collected and the researcher found that the number of
comments left on the drafts were higher, and the comments left were of global and local feedback.
The analysis of students’ journal shows that students feel positive towards the training to give
feedback as it helps them to be a better reviewer. Min (2005) stated that the students benefited in
developing their skills as a writer, assisting language acquisition, build their writer’s autonomy
and confidence as well as making them learn to do self-reflection and evaluation.

While the steps described in Min (2005) is very tedious and time-consuming, teachers
should be able to modify the steps and adopt them in their writing class. The steps are relevant too
Malaysian education context as students in secondary schools are expected to write argumentative
essays. A few tweaking and it will be suitable for primary school students that have to write
narrative essay. Furthermore, the research cited do not use and put students in groups. The
researcher believes that by grouping the students, the process would not be as tedious and as time-
consuming as shown in Min (2005). The implementation of teacher conferencing, training and
reviewing in groups will surely save a lot of time. Moreover, with the implementation of 21 st
century classroom that focuses on collaborative learning, teacher will surely be able to more
effectively implement the training for students to become better reviewer. To quote Min (2005),
the technical issues that surround training for peer feedback can be resolved through the correct
intervention and teachers’ initiative. It is then, in the researcher opinion that teachers must abandon
CF and start training students to give better peer feedback for their friends writing. The payoffs of
using peer feedback is huge- teachers can save time and a lot of their workload-especially in
correcting their students’ essays were relieved.

Gone are the days where teachers is the sole contributor of the classroom and where their
opinions are the only one that matter. Teachers need to realize that CF is no longer a viable option
in developing students’ L2 writing development and a new paradigm shift need to happen. In fact,
peer feedback was shown to give positive impact towards grammatical development as Dobao and
Blum (2013) found. The negotiation process that occurs during the interaction enables students to
make educated guess based on each other’s knowledge. It would be a waste and a shame if teachers
do not apply peer feedback in class, what with the more conducive condition of the classroom

16
nowadays. Training also must start early if time is of the essence. The earlier teachers start to train
their students is the better- students would be able to acquire the necessary language form through
noticing earlier, diminishing the fear and lack of confidence among our students when it comes to
learning English.

Limitation of peer feedback

Perhaps the biggest limitation that peer feedback suffers from is the power relations,
especially when it comes to the relationship between teacher and students. A study conducted by
Nelson and Carson (1998) shows that students would prefer teachers’ comments over their friends
and are more likely to make amendments to their writing using teachers’ comments. A similar
bleak picture was portrayed in the earlier research of peer feedback where Zhang (1995) reported
that 75% of the students involved in the research prefer and trust their comments and corrections
over any other types of feedback. Sengupta (1998) argued that students perceived their teachers
as the expert in the classroom and their peers might not be knowledgeable enough to give
comments and help them with their writing. Students also may view teachers as an authority and
were reluctant to accept their peers’ comments and help (Tsui & Ng 2000). A survey conducted
by Kayatri, Chai and Vahid (2016) show that though Malaysian students like feedback that enables
them to cultivate their self-evaluation and confidence (peer feedback), they still choose teachers’
correction and feedback above all. They agreed to the reliability and feasibility of peer feedback
but they still would prefer teachers’ feedback in their writing. A study that compares both peer and
teacher feedback shows that students incorporate more teachers’ comments into their writing
though they misunderstood and misinterpret the comments given (Yang, Badger & Yu 2006).
Teachers need to help students to move out from the view that only teachers’ opinions that matter
and force them to be more in charge of their own learning and development.

Though the power relations problem mostly exist between teacher and students, it is also
exist among themselves. Isaac (2001) found that students feel uncomfortable to judge and grade
their friends’ work too harshly. They may avoid giving the highest marks to other groups while
have no qualm in giving marks when marking their group members (Isaac 2001). Brown and

17
Knight (1994) also added that the disruption in power relations among students may lead towards
unfair marking- an issue that will make the reliability of peer feedback be questioned. Students
may adopt ‘friendship marking’ where it will result in over-marking for some of the works and
‘decibel marking’; where students award the work of the students that speak the loudest or the
most dominant the highest marks. Liu and Carless (2006) also point that learners might feel
insecure and bitter due to the loss of some power and control over their work. They also added that
students may be resentful towards the pressure, risk and the sense of competitiveness that peer
assessment entails. Teachers need to remedy this situation by being the moderator of the class and
remind their students that peer feedbacks and comments are a part of learning experience and any
ill-feelings that they may harbour with each other need to be removed to ensure the learning
development could happen in the classroom. It is extremely vital then that teachers need to foster
and created a positive and non-hostile environment in their classroom.

The next limitation that peer feedback has is that it needs students’ training in order for it
to become more effective. The reliability of peer feedback may be questioned if students were not
given proper training beforehand. There are research that show students that give comment without
having appropriate training may give comments of low quality and hard to find the errors in the
text provided (Hyland 2000). Amores (1997) stated that students’ feedback may be inappropriate
and too overly critical. A similar finding by Cheng and Warren (2003) found students that gave
unfair marks and grades. Moreover, there are the issue of trust by the academics towards students’
ability. Students may be viewed as less knowledgeable compared to their teacher and thought
would not be able to carry out a reliable assessment of their friends’ works. The issue of reliability
and the view of students are lacking of necessary skills to carry out the assessment need to be
abolished through further research in order to prove that students can be good assessors of others’
works. Thus, the sooner students are trained to give feedback is better because they will then have
the necessary skills and knowledge.

The final limitation of peer feedback is the time constraint that it may put on teachers and
academics alike. While some view the time allocated in order to train students to become better in
giving peer feedback as a plus; since it increases the efficiencies in the use of teacher’s time
(Hanrahan & Issacs, 2001) some may see the time factor as discouraging due to the length and
complexity of the training for peer feedback when compared to CF (Langan et al 2005). Though

18
the rationale of using peer feedback can be seen, we cannot deny that time is of an important factor.
The pressure to finish the syllabus, especially in an exam-oriented education system may lead
teachers viewing peer feedback as extra luggage. Furthermore, the many examinations that a
school or institution held may deter teachers from applying peer feedback in their writing class.
To paint a picture on the time-constraint that teachers in Malaysia have to face: teachers need to
finish Year 6 syllabus before or during June in order to drill and prepare students to sit for their
Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR). While the feedback may come from students, the
responsibilities to ensure students get enough training, keep up with students’ development and all
while continuing their work fall into the shoulders of teachers. With the huge amount of
responsibilities that teachers need to carry, some may avoid using peer feedback in their classroom.
This is why the researcher said in the earlier paragraph that peer feedback training must start early,
so that teachers and students have sufficient time.

Conclusion

Many of the research in regards to peer feedback often contest it with teachers’ feedback.
The research then will asked students to choose which feedback they prefer the most. The
researcher believe that this should not be an issue. Peer feedback and teacher feedback should not
be seen as competing with each other as both feedback have their own merits in developing
students’ L2 writing. The researcher believe that peer and teacher feedback should go hand-in-
hand in classroom; and it must be used together in order to benefit our students the most. Each
feedback compliments each other well with teacher feedback act as the reference and peer feedback
acts as the vehicle towards noticing. However, teacher feedback mentioned here is not CF, but
rather the other form of teacher feedback such as conferencing, oral interaction and to some extent
indirect written corrective feedback (WCF).

Teachers need to stop administering CF to their students. As pointed out by many research
CF has not been proven empirically to help students’ L2 acquisition and it does not have any
backing in theoretical background. Since noticing is a vital part of ensuring the input given
becomes intake, teachers must make students aware and notice the problems that they are having
with their current language level before noticing the solutions that may be presented by teachers

19
and their peers. It is important then for teachers to avoid the condition that Hyland (2007) portrays,
where writing were tested rather than taught.

Though peer feedback may be a hassle and time-consuming, the payoffs of being able to
successfully implementing it in classroom might be worth it. It helps students’ language
acquisition, helps developing their writers’ autonomy and confidence. It is then up to teachers to
change the mind-set and apply peer feedback in L2 writing. The support from school need to be
present in order peer feedback to be successful.

20