Erfa Navadiatul Ula


This research investigated the use of online peer review as a strategy to improve writing skills in the revision process. This qualitative study will recruit two peers of a private university in Malang based on two criteria 1) they have passed an academic writing course with an excellent score, and 2) they were students who use online media to conduct peer reviews. Using a semi-structured interview, the students were asked what types of online resources they use for online peer review, and how they do peer review online. The interview data will be analyzed using content analysis to triangulate the data, investigator triangulation will be performed by involving two data analysts. The result of the study was students used WhatsApp and Zoom media to conduct online peer review, and students provide their writing in the form of an online file to the peer for review about grammar, writing effectiveness, and diction errors with several platforms, such as grammar checkers and online dictionaries to assist the revision process.


Peer reviews, writing, online resources, revisions process.

Full Text:



Althauser, R., & Darnall, K. (2001). Enhancing Critical reading and writing through peer reviews: An exploration of assisted performance. Teaching Sociology, 29(1), 23.

Anderson, P., Anson, C. M., Gonyea, R. M., & Paine, C. (n.d.). The contributions of writing to learning and development: Results from a large-scale multi-institutional study. Research in the Teaching of English, 50(2), 199-235.

Aull, L. (2020). Student-centered assessment and online writing feedback: Technology in a time of crisis. Assessing Writing, 46, 100483.

Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179–192.

Bean, J. C. (n.d.). Engaging Ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). 2.

Carter, R. (1995). Keywords in language and literacy. Routledge.

Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351.

Graham, S., Gillespie, A., & McKeown, D. (2013). Writing: Importance, development, and instruction. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 1–15.

Herrington, A. J., & Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: Lessons for learning. College Composition and Communication, 42(2), 184.

Hughes, M. D., Regan, K. S., & Evmenova, A. (2019). A computer-based graphic organizer with embedded self-regulated learning strategies to support student writing. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(1), 13–22.

Jensen, W., & Fischer, B. (2005). Teaching technical writing through student peer-evaluation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(1), 95–100.

Jönsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 63–76.

Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.

Klimova, B. F. (2010). Formal written English revisited. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 131–137.

Klimova, B. F. (2012). The teaching of foreign languages. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 202–206.

Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50(3), 643.

Morphy, P., & Graham, S. (2012). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A meta-analysis of research findings. Reading and Writing - READ WRIT, 25, 641–678.

Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. 14.

Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3(4), 229–235.

Renz, S. M., Carrington, J. M., & Badger, T. A. (2018). Two strategies for qualitative content analysis: An intramethod approach to triangulation. Qualitative Health Research, 28(5), 824–831.

Schriver, K. A. (1989). Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 32(4), 238–255.

Şen, N. S., & Şimşek, A. (n.d.). An analysis of Turkish students’ written errors: A case of an EFL context. 4(1), 11.

Brown, H. D. (n.d.). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th Ed.). Pearson Education.

Watcharapunyawong, S., & Usaha, S. (2012). Thai EFL students’ writing errors in different text types: The interference of the first language. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 67.

Yot-Domínguez, C., & Marcelo, C. (2017). University students’ self-regulated learning using digital technologies. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 38.

Zuhairi, A., & Umamah, A. (2016). The Indonesian junior high school students’ strategies in learning writing skill. Arab World English Journal, 7(3), 385–393.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

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

Indexed and abstracted in:


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under CC BY-SA.

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


p-ISSN: 2548-8422 (since 5 January 2017); e-ISSN: 2548-8430 (since 5 January 2017)

Flag Counter

IJIET (International Journal of Indonesian Education and Teaching) is published by the Institute for Research and Community Services of Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.