IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers’ Own Writing


  • Reina Wakabayashi


The purpose of this study is to determine which is more beneficial to improving learner writing- reviewing peer texts or one’s own text. The study took place over one semester at a Japanese university with 51 students enrolled in two writing classes at two proficiency levels. The students at the lower proficiency level reviewed peer texts, while those at the higher proficiency level reviewed their own texts. Multiple task sheets were used in both classes for students to give detailed feedback on texts. To examine gains in writing quality, a comparative analysis was conducted on writing samples collected at the beginning and the end of the semester. A questionnaire survey was also conducted to investigate the students’ perceptions towards the tasks. The results of the analysis indicated that the students who focused on reviewing their own texts made more total gains in score than did the students who focused on reviewing peer texts. On the other hand, a significant correlation was observed between score gains and perceived effectiveness of the task with the students who focused on reviewing peer texts. The pedagogical implications of the results are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Reina Wakabayashi, 2013. "The Effects of the Peer Feedback Process on Reviewers’ Own Writing," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(9), pages 177-177, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:6:y:2013:i:9:p:177

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:6:y:2013:i:9:p:177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.