REASEARCH PROPOSAL

The Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Improving Malaysian

Undergraduate Students’ Writing Performance

DCE 5900: Research Methods

Prof. Madya Dr. Roziah Binti Mohd Rasdi
Section 4
Semester 1, Session 2018/2019
Muhammad Danial Bin Baharudin (GS52472)
Master of Education (Teaching of English as a Second Language)

1
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM

There is no denying that the process of learning and acquiring writing skills are
considered to be very difficult and complicated. This is especially true when the language that
is being focused on is not the first language of the learners. According to Mukundan, Mahvelati,
Din, & Nimehchisalem (2013), students who are learning a second language always encounter
problems and complication especially in terms of writing. It is important to note though that
there might be certain possibilities that lead to this scenario. This can be seen in terms of the
students level of proficiency, learning strategies, effects from their first language and also
teachers’ approach in teaching. Ghabool, Mariadass, & Kashef (2012) stated that a low level
of language proficiency is one of the main reason that students have a really hard time grasping
the skills in a writing classroom. Musa, Lie, & Azman (2012) on the other hand, argued that
the reasons why students are having such a difficult time understanding or acquiring the said
skill are due to their lack of motivation in learning the language. These studies show that there
are various factors that cause problems among students in terms of their development of writing
skills. Because of these factors, it might result in the students' writing performance to be low.

Since there are many elements that contribute to the students' problem in
comprehending the writing lessons, there is a need to do more research and studies on how to
overcome such a problem. This particular paper will focus more on the approach of teaching
among teachers, specifically peer feedback, as one of the factors that might help in increasing
students' writing performance. The major problem, however, lies in the fact that in the
Malaysian context, Peer Feedback is something that is not favorable among students.
According to Vasu, Ling, & Nimehchisalem (2016), although that peer feedback is becoming
more apparent to be implemented in the Malaysian classroom, the students still do not prefer it
and in favor of teacher's feedback and assessments more. This is due to the fact that the
Malaysian classroom culture where a teacher is seen to be the superior figure and will provide
all the necessary knowledge for the students to improve thus belittling the peer feedback
approach. Because of this, it will be interesting to see in this study whether Peer Feedback
approach does give a positive development in the students’ writing performance.

2
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

As discussed earlier, second language learner always encounters problems when it

comes to acquiring the needed skill to master the target language. Due to this, their English
performance will be negatively affected and usually will be projected through the scores of the
assessments. In the Malaysian education context, one of the ways on how students’ English
proficiency can be tested is through the Malaysian University English Test (MUET). MUET is
an English language proficiency test where it is usually be administered to STPM, diploma and
matriculation students as a pre-requisite to enter most public university in Malaysia.

A recent report on the MUET scores of the candidates shows that nearly half of them
scored band 3 (with band 6 being the highest and band 1 being the lowest) with a cumulative
percentage of 40.24%. In terms of writing, more than half of the candidate only scored band 3
with a percentage of 59.71%. The highest percentage scored by the candidates for the other
skills are Band 3 for both speaking and reading skills (47.17% and 31.96% respectively) while
for the listening skill, most candidates scored well with the highest being Band 4 with 23.18%.
This goes to show that the writing performance among undergraduate Malaysian students is
still below average there is a need to carry out a study to help them in improving this particular
skill. Because of this, the peer feedback approach is being chosen in this study as one of the
alternatives to assist them in positively developing the said skill.

Table 1. November 2017 MUET Report

Band 800/1: Listening 800/2: Speaking 800/3: Reading 800/4: Writing 800

% Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative % Cumulative

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

6 8.31 8.31 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

5 20.83 29.16 4.50 4.66 6.86 7.07 1.83 1.85 4.22 4.23

4 23.18 52.34 27.59 32.25 23.08 30.15 21.92 23.78 28.94 33.17

3 14.65 66.99 47.17 79.42 31.96 62.11 59.71 83.49 40.24 73.41

2 17.84 84.83 18.00 97.42 28.69 90.80 14.98 98.47 23.74 97.15

1 15.17 100.00 2.58 100.00 9.20 100.00 1.53 100.00 2.85 100.00

3
 Past studies have discussed extensively on the use of peer feedback in developing
students' writing performance. Diab (2011) concluded that due to the nature of peer interaction
in the approach, it is able to assist EFL university students in improving their writing skills. A
study by Berggren (2014) found out that students who give feedback will have more awareness
of their audience thus improving their understanding of what makes a good writer. Birjandi &
Tamjid (2011) on the other hand conducted a quasi-experimental research on the role of self-,
peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners' writing performance. The
result of the study shows that the treatment group which receives peer assessment (alongside
teacher assessment) as their approach in learning has one of the highest improvements in their
writing performance.

Although researchers have done quite a numerous studies on the approach and its
effectiveness, there is little research that has been conducted to see how peer feedback can
positively affect a certain aspect of writing in which include content, structure, and organization
as well as vocabulary and grammar (Yu & Lee, 2016). Huisman, Saab, Driel, & Broek (2018)
also mentioned that future studies can do more research on using an authentic writing
classroom with the inclusion of control group to see how effective the implementation of peer
feedback can positively develop students’ writing performance if compared to a more
traditional method in an actual classroom.

Based on the above discussion, this particular research is hoped to give more insights into the
implementation of peer feedback in an authentic writing classroom and its effectiveness in
improving students' writing performance.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Does the implementation of Peer Feedback improve Malaysian undergraduate

students’ writing performance?

2. Does the implementation of Peer Feedback give significant improvement to the

content aspect of Malaysian undergraduate students’ writing?

4
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To identify the effectiveness of implementing Peer Feedback in improving

Malaysian undergraduate students’ writing performance.

2. To identify the effectiveness of Peer Feedback in giving significant

improvement to the content aspect of writing.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH

This research will give a decent amount of contribution to the field of English Language
Teaching (ELT). Since it promotes the approach of using peer feedback as one of the ways to
improve students' writing performance, it will give more varieties for teachers to implement
the approach in their writing lessons especially in the context of a Malaysian classroom. This
research will give more explanation of how peer feedback can be applied in an authentic
classroom situation so teachers or educators are able to replicate it in the hopes to benefit their
students’ writing performance. This study will also support the theory which was chosen to act
as the basis of the research that learning will take place when interaction is being emphasized.

In the field of research, on the other hand, it gives emphasis on the importance of having
an authentic writing classroom (with a control group) as a means to increase the credibility of
the result to show the effectiveness of using peer feedback in improving Malaysian students’
writing performance. It is considered to be more credible since students will be more natural
in the classroom. In other words, their behavior and motivation will be similar to how they
behave in a real classroom. The reason behind this is because, if the research is conducted in
isolation from their real classroom environment (only for the purpose of research), it will affect
the results of the studies as their motivation and behavior will change and will be different as
it is not natural to them.

5
1.6 ASSUMPTIONS

As discussed earlier, the implementation of peer feedback to improve students writing

performance is not an alien phenomenon in the world of ELT. It can be seen that there are
varieties of issue that can be discussed based on the peer feedback approach. This includes the
effectiveness of peer feedback, computer-mediated peer feedback, studies on the feedback
givers, group interaction, and cultural-related issues (Diab, 2011; Hyland & Hyland, 2006;
Berggren, 2014; Yu & Lee, 2016). All of the issues stated explain how it will either positively
or negatively affect students' writing performance. This goes to show that it is a developed
concept and phenomenon where there was extensive research conducted on it.

1.7 LIMITATION

The main limitation that can be seen from this research is the number of participants
involved. The findings would be much stronger if more participants would be involved in the
study as it can increase the strength of the findings' generalizability. Apart from that, if the
study is conducted in a longer period of time, the participants would have more time to get used
and learn using the peer feedback approach. It would be interesting to know whether the more
exposure the students have with peer feedback, would mean that their writing performance
increases or it might result in a plateau of it. Thus, a longitudinal research is encouraged so that
readers can have more insights on the effectiveness of peer feedback in improving Malaysian
undergraduate students' writing performance.

1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS

1.8.1 Writing Performance

It is not really easy to define what the term ‘writing performance’ or ‘writing
proficiency’ constitutes as it varies based on the context and settings that it is being used in.
However, the definition is closely related to the term ‘language proficiency’. According to Fati
(2013), ‘language proficiency' is defined as the “the ability of an individual to speak or perform
in an acquired language”. This also includes the written aspect of it. Fati further explains that
a proficient user of the language would master both accuracy (rules and grammar) and fluency
(the flow of idea). Because of this, it is safe to say that writing performance refers to students
who are proficient in both fluency and accuracy in writing of a particular language.

6
1.8.2 Peer Feedback

Yu & Lee (2016) define peer feedback as an activity where the students either receive
or give their own response to their peers’ writing. The feedback can be given orally or in written
form depends on the type of peer feedback being implemented by the teacher. Gielen, Peeters,
Dochy, Onghena, & Struyven (2010) on the other hand explain that peer feedback is when two
learners of the same level give responses to each other in a lesson. This can be seen in terms of
formative assessment and also as a part of collaborative learning. Nelson & Murphy (1993)
gives a more detailed definition of peer feedback where it is when students share the draft that
they wrote with their friends to receive responses and corrections. As a whole, peer feedback
involves the students interacting with their peers and give comments on each others’ work as a
part of learning.

7
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 WRITING PERFORMANCE

As discussed in the previous discussion, generally writing performance is based on the

accuracy and fluency of the students in their writing where accuracy focuses more on the
language aspect (grammar, sentence structure, and spelling) while fluency focuses more on the
contents and flow of idea throughout a piece of writing. Because of this, teachers or educators
who wish to assess their students’ writing performance will usually refer to a certain rubric in
which is based on the concept of accuracy and fluency of the students’ writing.

According to Rezaei & Lovorn (2010), a rubric is defined as the scoring system to
assess a particular piece of work. He also adds that a rubric can be either holistic or analytical
in nature, or the combination of both. The former looks at writing quality of the students as a
whole, while the latter separate the scoring system based on categories or sections and the total
will make up the score of the students’ writing performance. A good example of the analytical
rubric comes from Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey (1981) where they classify
the scoring system of a composition into five categories; content, organization, vocabulary,
language use, and mechanics. Each of this category has an allocation of marks with a
description of the criteria for them to be given the particular mark. As a whole, a rubric will act
as a guide for educators in assessing their students' writing performance.

The effectiveness of rubric as an integral part of an assessment, however, has received

mixed reviews from education practitioners. Rezaei & Lovorn (2010) argued that the usage of
rubric do give a positive effect on the assessment process as it gives a more consistent result.
Jonsson & Svingby (2007) supports the notion that using rubric gives more reliability of the
teacher in assessing the students work. Andrade (2000) on the other hand explains that rubric
does not only help teachers in assessing and understanding their students' development but it
can also act as a learning tool for students to understand better of their own writing. This goes
to show that there is a positive aspect of rubrics in the assessment of students writing
performance.

8
As previously mentioned, not all education practitioners agree on its effectiveness and discuss
its weaknesses although it does possess some strengths. According to Hunter & Docherty
(2011), they raise the issue of multiple interpretations between examiners will affect the
outcome of the result even though they are assessing a particular essay based on the same
rubric. In other words, a student will most probably receive different scores if the same essay
is marked by different teachers due to their differences in interpretation. Lindsey & Crusan
(2011) also has a similar idea but they discuss more on the bias nature of examiners or teachers
when assessing students writing. This biases might come from the teachers themselves or from
the discipline that they come from. It also can be based on the students' nationality as teachers
usually have certain expectations of their writing. This goes to show that although the usage of
a rubric is effective in giving guidance to teachers, it is still subject to them how they will assess
their students' work.

From these discussions, it can be understood that writing performance involves different
elements. The core subject, however, is the idea that writing performance is based on accuracy
and fluency. In terms of the tools or mediums on how teachers or educators assess their
students' writing performance, they will usually opt for a rubric. Though, it is very crucial to
note that different teachers might have a different interpretation of their students' writing even
if the same rubric is used. In short, writing performance do have a set of criteria so that it can
be assessed but it is still subjective since the assessment is made by a teacher.

For this research, the operational definition of students’ writing performance will be
based on Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey (1981) evaluation sheet where they
will be assessed on the content, organization, vocabulary, language use and mechanics of their
writing. The students who receive higher marks based on the rubric are deemed to have a high
writing performance.

2.2 THEORIES

2.2.1 Sociocultural Theory

This theory was created by Lev Vygotsky where the main idea is that learning will only
take place if learners interact or communicate with the world around them (Barnard &
Campbell, 2005). In other words, they need to expose themselves to the world’s culture and
society to learn and develop themselves. This means that learning will not take place if they

9
learn anything in isolation. Due to this, the only medium that learners can achieve in
understanding the world is through actual communication and dialogue. This is when the term
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) comes in.

According to Vygotsky (1978), ZPD is defined as the distance between the level of
development between an individual working alone and the potential development if an
individual work or learn with others who are more capable. This means that the difference that
a learner can make if he or she learns with somebody else instead of just relying on themselves.
Because of this, communication or interaction plays an integral role in ZPD. In this case,
learners will usually interact with an individual who is more superior in terms of knowledge
and skill. This expert-novice interaction will assist the learner in developing their
understanding to the said subject and will result in a positive learning environment. However,
there are few scholars who look at the idea of expert-novice relationship in ZPD to be limited.
Lantolf (2013) adds that this concept is more than just that and it is more appropriate to explain
ZPD to be a “collaborative construction of opportunities for individuals to develop their mental
abilities.”. This can be seen when a learner will try to appropriate the things that he or she
learns from another individual and not merely copy everything. In other words, a collaboration
of acquiring the most suitable knowledge is being done by the learner.

In relation to my research topic, peer feedback relies heavily on the sociocultural theory.
Since peer feedback involves the interaction between peers to achieve a positive learning
environment (in this case, to improve writing performance), it is in line with the said theory
where learning takes place when a learner work and collaborate with others. With that being
said, the sociocultural theory becomes the basis of this research.

2.3 TRADITIONAL METHOD/TEACHER ASSESSMENT

In the field of English Language Teaching (ELT), the traditional method will usually
involve the teachers as the primary source of knowledge-giver. In other words, the teacher role
is given more of an importance compared to the students. According to Sullivan & Pratt (1996),
the percentage of students’ participation in the oral traditional writing classroom is only 50%.
They also add that the turn-taking by teacher and students in the traditional group is 65% and
35% respectively. This goes to show that the teacher is seen to have the more dominant role in
the writing classroom and the students carry a more passive role. Because of this, it is typical
in a traditional classroom for learning processes to be one-way.

10
 Since the role of the teachers is crucial in a traditional classroom, the assessment will
also be heavily or completely based on them. It is believed that a teacher's assessment and
feedback is very important to help the students in developing their language skills. Birjandi &
Tamjid (2011) explain that in a teacher assessment approach, the only one that will be assessing
the students' is the teacher. For this particular research, the operational definition for the
traditional method will involve the teacher playing the central role in the writing classroom.
The teacher will be the one giving feedback and assessments to the students’ work.

2.4 PEER FEEDBACK

As previously discussed, peer feedback involves the students to give comments and
assessments of each others’ work (Yu & Lee, 2016). This means that interaction and
communication is the central activity in a peer feedback approach. In the case of second
language writing, this particular approach involves the student to create drafts and redrafts of
their essay (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Drafts are very important element because the students
have the chance to change them once they receive comments from their peers and this is where
the redrafting process comes in. Because of this, the idea of revising and revisiting is very
apparent in this approach. Liu & Carless (2006) on the other hand explain that peer feedback
is a process where students engage in meaningful communication where they discuss the
process of writing and their performance. This means that the approach involves a high-level
order of thinking because as the students are interacting with their peers, they also need to
analyze the strengths and weaknesses of their works.

The discussion above focuses more on the general idea of a face-to-face peer feedback
mode. It is important to note though that there are also other modes of the approach. With the
advent of technology in today’s era, computer-mediated peer feedback are becoming more
relevant. According to Yu & Lee (2016), computer-mediated feedback involves heavily on
computer-mediated communication (CMC). This means that students will experience
communicating and interacting with their peers through CMC tools such as emails, chatrooms,
and Moodle. The authors also added that computer-mediated peer feedback is less threatening
compared to face-to-face peer feedback. This might be the reason why in a certain context, this
mode of peer feedback is chosen more than the latter.

11
 For the purpose of this research, the operational definition of peer feedback is that the
students will participate in a face-to-face peer feedback session where they are required to read,
evaluate, give comments and suggest improvements to their peers’ writing. The peer feedback
session will involve both oral and written feedback. This means that they will first write their
feedback, and then proceed with an oral discussion of each other essays. After the process, they
will have the chance to do revision based on their peers' evaluation. Training will also be given
to the students on how to give feedback to their peers.

2.5 LINK BETWEEN PEER FEEDBACK AND WRITING PERFORMANCE

There is no denying that lots of studies have been conducted to show the effects of
implementing peer feedback approach in a writing classroom to the students’ writing
performance.

Birjandi & Tamjid (2011) conducted a quasi-experimental study where they compare
whether self-, peer or teacher assessment would be the most effective in improving Iranian
students' writing performance. The result of the study shows that the group which receives the
self- and peer assessment treatment have the most significant improvement in terms of their
post-test result. Diab (2011) shares a similar result. The researcher conducted a study to see
which group between the self and peer feedback would have minimal language error in their
writing task. As predicted, the peer feedback group was the one who improves on their writing
as they are exposed with collaborative dialogues between their peers in regards to their writing.
Huisman, Saab, Driel, & Broek (2018) also supported the idea that the peer feedback approach
gives a positive impact on students' writing performance. They found out that both group of
students who either give and receive feedback yield similar improvements in the final grade of
their essay if compare to their drafts. These studies show that the implementation of peer
feedback is very effective in helping students to increase their writing skills and it will be
reflected in their writing performance.

One of the possibilities why students show improvements might come from the
elements that are being focused in their discussion during a peer feedback activity. Berggren
(2014) found out in her study that the writing aspect that is being revised the most after the
students have experienced the peer feedback session is the contents of their writing. Suzuki
(2008) supported the notion that peer feedback will give more chance for the students to discuss
the topics, ideas, and contents of their essay. Since the focus is given more towards the content

12
rather than the language aspect of writing (grammar, spelling, and punctuation), they will
become better of a writer as they understand what readers want to know in terms of the content
of a particular essay.

It is also very important to note that the positive perception of the peer feedback
approach among students might affect the improvements in their writing performance. Zheng
(2012) conducted a discussion session with the students who were involved in the peer
feedback activity in their writing class. Most of them have a positive perception of the
approach. The students commented that peer feedback attracts their attention, is easier to
comprehend from teacher's feedback, increase their awareness as a writer, and inspire them to
be better. Peng (2010) added that although the students do not have any experience in any peer
feedback activity, they do perceive positively of the approach after it was implemented to them.
Lian & Yang (2011) on the other hand found out that the students have an easier time
understanding their peers' comments on the grammatical mistakes that they committed in their
essay. These go to show that peer feedback do give a positive impression towards the students’
language learning process thus helping them to improve their writing performance.

Although past studies show the positive effects that peer feedback brings, some scholars
argued otherwise. Most learners in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context prefer
teacher feedback compare to peer feedback. Ruegg (2014) study shows that the writing self-
efficacy of EFL Japanese students improve more in the teacher feedback group. Another study
by Miao, Badger, & Zhen (2006) concluded that Chinese EFL students incorporate more
teacher feedback in their revision. This goes to show that in an EFL context, the teacher is seen
to be the more superior figure in the writing class.

Group dynamics might also affect the effectiveness of peer feedback in improving
students' writing performance. Zheng (2012) conducted a study to analyze the students’
discussion in a peer feedback session and found out that five patterns of discursive interaction
were present in the process. These include collaborative, expert-novice, dominant-dominant,
dominant-passive and passive-passive. Out of these five, the only pattern of discursive
interaction proves to give a positive learning environment for the students are the collaborative
and expert-novice learning pattern. This means that peer feedback will not work in every
context and its effectiveness will depend on the students’ personality, learning strategies and
level of proficiency as well as how these elements will affect when the student is being grouped
together.

13
Another issue that is very prominent in regards to the link between peer feedback and writing
performance is the issue of teachers' role in the peer feedback session. The intervention or
feedback of teacher in a writing classroom is very crucial when any approaches or methods are
being implemented towards the students (Birjandi & Tamjid, 2011). In their study, one of the
groups that receive both peer and self-assessment (without teacher's assessment) did not have
a significant improvement in their writing performance. Vasu, Ling, & Nimehchisalem (2016)
on the other hand found out that a high percentage of students are in favor when peer feedback
is being implemented alongside teacher feedback in improving their writing skills. The
discussion proves that in order for the peer feedback approach to be effective, it cannot be
implemented in isolation.

As a whole, it can be hypothesized that that peer feedback approach in a writing

classroom does give positive effect in students' writing performance. It also can be seen that
students might increase their skill in the content aspect of their writing since in a peer feedback
session, students tend to focus on that particular aspect. Though it is hypothesized to being
effective, the teacher's role in the peer feedback session must not be left out.

2.6 SUMMARY

The issue of implementing peer feedback to improve students' writing performance has
mostly been positive. This is due to the fact that students will have the chance to gain feedback
and insights from their peers on the elements that need improvements in their writing. Since
peer feedback involves interaction and discussion, past studies have shown that they will tend
to discuss more on the content rather than the language aspect of their essay. This will then
improve the students' skill on the said aspect. The links between peer feedback and writing
performance are strongly supported by the sociocultural theory where it promotes the idea of
interaction to achieve a positive learning environment. Though it is said that the approach can
help in improving students' writing performance, it must not be conducted in isolation and must
be monitored by the teacher to achieve maximum effectiveness of peer feedback.

14
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 DESIGN OF STUDY

The research design of this study will be experimental where a pre-test post-test control
group design will be the main focus. There will be two groups in this study; the control group
and the treatment group. The control group will receive no treatment. This means that the
subjects will receive a traditional method of teaching where teacher feedback is being
implemented. The treatment group will have the peer feedback approach in their classroom as
the method of teaching. As mentioned in the literature review, teacher feedback will also be
implemented alongside the peer feedback approach in the treatment group. The summary of
the approaches that the groups received are as follows:

Control group: Teacher Feedback

Treatment group: Teacher Feedback + Peer Feedback

3.3.1 Subjects

This study will be conducted with 50 ESL Malaysian undergraduate students in a public
university in Malaysia for one whole academic semesters (14 weeks). Prior to this, they have
already passed two English courses which include Integrated Language Skills (Listening) and
Integrated Language Skills (Reading). For this study, they will enroll to the third English course
required by the university which is Integrated Language Skills (Writing). The class will be
twice a week where two hours are allocated for each session. The students also have sat the
university’s English Placement Test at the beginning of their undergraduate program to
measure their English language proficiency. This means that the students in each classroom
will have the same level of English skills. The 50 ESL Malaysian undergraduate students are
from two classes of the lecturer teaching the subject (Integrated Language Skills: Writing)
which have 25 students in the respective classroom. Due to this, a random approach is used to
determine which classes will be the control and the treatment group.

15
3.3 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Teacher Assessment (Control

Group)

Students’ Writing
Performance

Teacher Assessment + Peer

Feedback (Treatment Group)

Figure 1: Effects of Teacher Assessment and Peer Feedback on Students’ Writing

Performance

3.4 MEASUREMENT AND INSTRUMENT

As mentioned previously, the English proficiency level of the students is being
measured by an English Placement Test administered by the university. The writing
performance of the students, on the other hand, will be measured through two lecturer-made
writing test where it will be given at the beginning of the semester (pre-test) and at the end of
the semester (post-test). Since this study will be based on an authentic writing classroom
environment, the scores for both of test the will be included as part of the student Cumulative
Assessment Marks (CAM). The rubric and evaluation scale for the writing test will be
following the scale which is proposed by Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey
(1981).

3.5 PILOT TESTING OF INSTRUMENT

Since the lecturer has a total number of four classes where Integrated Language Skills
(Writing) will be taught, the instruments used can be implemented to the students from other
classes. The writing test (both pre- and post-test) can be administered to one of the classes of
the lecturer during the academic semester before the actual study that will be conducted. This

16
will be beneficial as the students (samples in the pilot test) will be in a similar environment and
context to the samples of the actual study. Due to this, any problems that the samples (in the
pilot test) faced that might affect the validity or reliability of the instruments, can be taken into
consideration to improve on the effectiveness of this study in achieving its objectives.

3.6 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

3.6.1 Validity

The validity of rubric used to evaluate the students’ writing performance which was
created by Jacobs et al (1981), is a developed rubric where it is used by most educators in the
field of ELT to assess students' writing performance. The rubric also explains clearly all the
aspects that are needed to determine the quality of an essay. In terms of the lecturer-made
writing test that will be administered as the pre- and post-test, a face validity approach is being
used to measure its validity. Before the tests are administered to the students, it will be reviewed
by few senior lecturers for it to be approved.

3.6.2 Reliability

The reliability of the study will be focused on the score of the students' writing
performance. To maintain that the scores received by the students are reliable, an inter-rater
reliability will be calculated using the Pearson product-moment correlation. Two other English
lecturers are chosen to assess the students' pre- and post-test writing test using the same rubric.

3.7 POPULATION AND SAMPLING

3.7.1 Population

The population for this study is among the students of a public university which has
more than 10 state and 20 satellite campuses in Malaysia. Since the focus of this study is among
undergraduate students only, the total number of population of the students is reported to be
more than 70 000 undergraduates with different courses and field of studies.

3.7.2 Sample and Sampling

In choosing the campus for the study to be carried out, a cluster sampling technique is
chosen. Since the campuses are already in clusters, the campus will be chosen using the simple

17
random sampling technique. Once a campus has been chosen, a similar technique will be used
to choose the class which will be involved in the study. There will be few classes or sections
of Integrated Language Skills (Writing) courses on the campus. Two out of the total number
of classes would be chosen using the simple random sampling technique and the chosen classes
will be given a random approach in determining which one will be the control and treatment
group.

3.8 DATA COLLECTION

As previously discussed, the study will be conducted in an authentic writing classroom

for one whole semester (14 weeks). The pre-test writing test will be conducted in the second
week of the semester after the lecturer has given an introductory lecture on what the students
will be learning for the whole semester. It is important to note that prior to the pre-test, no
formal lectures are given on the questions that will be asked in the test. This is to ensure that
the pre-test scores are based on the prior knowledge of the students and the scores are not
affected by the treatment yet. The pre-test is then assessed by the lecturer and two other English
lecturers to measure the reliability of the scores.

After the pre-test has been conducted, the students will continue to enroll in the course
and the lecturer will apply the treatment based on the group. In the control group, a more
traditional teaching approach is being used. This means that the activity and exercise conducted
in the classroom will be teacher-centered. All of the feedback and assessment will be from the
teacher alone. While in the peer feedback group, teacher assessment is present and it will be
combined with peer feedback activity. In certain classes, the students are required to give an
evaluation to the peers' essay. This will be achieved through both oral and written mode of peer
feedback. Prior to the peer feedback session, they have been trained by the lecturer on how to
correctly evaluate and assess their peers' writing.

At the end of the semester, particularly week 14, a post-test writing test will be
conducted. The questions of the lecturer-made writing test are similar to the pre-test to ensure
the reliability of the scores. The test will be assessed by the lecturer and the scores of the
students' writing performance will be collected. The pre-test post-test scores will then be
analyzed.

18
3.9 DATA ANALYSIS

This particular study will use the T-test as one of the ways of the data analysis.
Specifically, a paired-samples T-test was used to compare the mean score between the pre and
post-test within a group. The alpha level will be set to be 0.01. Based on the research questions,
both the total scores of the writing test as well as the scores of the content aspect of their writing
will be analyzed to get the mean difference (between the pre- and post-test) thus answering the
research questions.

In order to answer the first research question, ‘Does the implementation of Peer
Feedback improves Malaysian undergraduate students’ writing performance?’, the mean
difference of the pre-test, post-test total scores between the control and treatment group will be
compared. If there is a significant difference, it means that peer feedback does improve the
students' writing performance.

The second research questions on the other hand, “Does the implementation of Peer
Feedback gives significant improvement to the content aspect of Malaysian undergraduate
students’ writing?” will be answered from the comparison of the mean difference of the pre-
test, post-test scores (for the content aspect of writing) between the control and treatment group.
Similarly to the first research question, if there is a significant difference, it shows that peer
feed do help in improving the content aspect of their writing.

19
 REFERENCES

Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational

leadership: journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development,
13-18.

Barnard, R., & Campbell, L. (2005). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of process writing:
The scaffolding of learning in a university context. TESOLANZ Journal, 76-88.

Berggren, J. (2014). Learning from Giving Feedback: A Student of Secondary-level Students.

ELT Journal, 1-13.

Birjandi, P., & Tamjid, N. H. (2011). The Role of Self-, Peer, and Teacher Assessment in
Promoting Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Performance. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 513 - 533.

Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback
and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 274-292.

Fati, M. (2013). The Effect of English Writing Proficiency In The Type And Amount Of
Errors Produced By Moroccan EFL Students. International Journal of Education and
Research, 1-12.

Ghabool, N., Mariadass, M. E., & Kashef, S. H. (2012). Investigating Malaysian ESL
Students' Writing Problems on Conventions, Punctuation, and Language. Journal of
Studies in Education, 2162-6952.

Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the
effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 304-315.

Huisman, B., Saab, N., Driel, J. v., & Broek, P. v. (2018). Peer feedback on academic
writing: undergraduate students' peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions, and
essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-18.

Hunter, K., & Docherty, P. (2011). Reducing variation in the assessment of student writing.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 109-124.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Students' Writing.
Language Teaching, 83-101.

20
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981).
Testing ESL Composition: a Practical Approach.

Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and
educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 130–144.

Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford

University Press.

Lian, W.-C., & Yang, S. C. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki
technology and peer feedback in English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice
and Critique, 88-103.

Lindsey, P., & Crusan, D. (2011). How Faculty Attitudes and Expectations toward Student
Nationality Affect Writing Assessment. Across the Disciplines, 1-38.

Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment.
Teaching in Higher Education, 279-290.

Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback
in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 179-200.

Mukundan, J., Mahvelati, E. H., Din, M. A., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2013). Malaysian
Secondary School Students’ ESL Writing Performance in an Intensive English
Program. World Applied Sciences Journal, 1677-1684.

Musa, N. C., Lie, K. Y., & Azman, H. (2012). Exploring English Language Learning And
Teaching In Malaysia. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 35-51.

Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer Response Groups: Do L2 Writers Use Peer
Comments in Revising Their Drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 135-141.

Peng, J.-C. (2010). Peer Assessment in an EFL Context: Attitudes and Correlations. Selected
Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research Forum, 89-107.

Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment
through writing. Assessing Writing, 18-39.

Ruegg, R. (2014). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’
writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 87-102.

21
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A Comparative Study of Two ESL Writing Environments: A
Computer-Assisted Classroom and a Traditional Oral Classroom. System, 491-501.

Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners' self-revisions and peer revisions of their written
compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 209-233.

Vasu, K., Ling, C. H., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2016). Malaysian Tertiary Level ESL Students'
Perceptions toward Teacher Feedback, Peer Feedback, and Self-assessment in their
Writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 158 -
170.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing (2005-2014). Language
Teaching, 461-493.

Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the Learning Process of Peer Feedback Activity: An

Ethnographic Study of Exploratory Practice. Language Teaching Research, 109 - 126.

22