Peer Review in Improving Students’ Perception Argumentative Essay: The Effectives from Students’ Perceptive
Article Sidebar
Published:
Mar 27, 2023
Keywords:
Argumentative Essay, Peer Review, Students Perception.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Peer review is a well-known technique for raising students' writing standards. By evaluating the peer-review process, this study goes beyond its initial focus on results. This study specifically focuses on the timing of peer review, a highly organized feedback form, and student writers' changes following peer review. According to the research, these techniques assist students provide formative input to their classmates, drive them to start writing earlier in the semester, and motivate them to significantly edit their drafts before turning in their final papers. This study highlights how crucial it is to evaluate the peer-reviewing procedure. This conclusion was obtained after examining students' replies on a questionnaire that included closed option (multiple choice) questions as well as open-ended comments on the same three aspects of the impact of peer review: critical thinking, collaborative work, and composition quality. This study is based on Vygotsky's sociocultural approach and supports and broadens earlier research on the subject by providing a more in-depth and comprehensive viewpoint. Participants who have utilized this methodology comment on its advantages and/or disadvantages.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Yasmin, F. A., Anggini, N., & Siahaan, R. P. J. (2023). Peer Review in Improving Students’ Perception Argumentative Essay: The Effectives from Students’ Perceptive. JURNAL EDUKASI NONFORMAL, 4(1), 343-353. Retrieved from https://ummaspul.e-journal.id/JENFOL/article/view/6137
Section
Articles
References
Andrews, R. (1995). Teaching and learning argument. London, UK: Cassell Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education. Improving practice through theory and
Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 9, 229-241. Chen, Y. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching international, 46, 105-117. Corgan, R., Hammer, V, Margolies, M., & Crossley, C. (2004). Making your online course successful.
Business Education Forum, 58, 51-53.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we
Support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers &
Education, 88, 370 386.) Huisman, B., Saab, N. Van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 955-968.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching
Research, 4, 33-54, Jurkowski, S. (2018). Do question prompts support students in working with peer feedback? International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 1-9.
Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44, 250 266.
Lin, S., Liu, E., & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420-432.
Mei, W. S. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problema-Tization in students’ argumentation. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37, 3.
Muncie, J. (2000). Using written feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54, 47-53. Noroozi, O. (2018). Considering students epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative dis- course and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innovations in Education and
Teaching international, 55, 357-365. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016) Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. The internet and Higher Education, 37, 20-31.
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C. Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011), Differences inLearning processes between successful and less successful students in computer supporte Collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Computers in HumanBehavior, 27, 309-318,
Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56, 548-557, Noroozi, O. Hatami, J., Biemans, H. I A., van Ginkel, S., & Bayat, A. (2019). Students’ online
Argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter? Interactive Learning Environments. (in press). Doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200 Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018), Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first to second order scaffolding through adaptive fading.
Educational Psychology Review, 30, 153-176. Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2017). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45, 31-39.
Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A, Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learningIn multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189-223 Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A, Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M, & Chizar, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research.
Educational Research Review, 7, 79-106.
Saito, H. & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31-54. Schneer, D. (2014). Rethinking the argumentative essay, TESOL Journal, 5, 619-653, Topping, K. J. (2009), Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 20-27.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443-460). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 9, 229-241. Chen, Y. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching international, 46, 105-117. Corgan, R., Hammer, V, Margolies, M., & Crossley, C. (2004). Making your online course successful.
Business Education Forum, 58, 51-53.
Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we
Support CSCL? (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers &
Education, 88, 370 386.) Huisman, B., Saab, N. Van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 955-968.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching
Research, 4, 33-54, Jurkowski, S. (2018). Do question prompts support students in working with peer feedback? International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 1-9.
Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44, 250 266.
Lin, S., Liu, E., & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420-432.
Mei, W. S. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problema-Tization in students’ argumentation. Regional Language Centre Journal, 37, 3.
Muncie, J. (2000). Using written feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal, 54, 47-53. Noroozi, O. (2018). Considering students epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative dis- course and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innovations in Education and
Teaching international, 55, 357-365. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016) Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. The internet and Higher Education, 37, 20-31.
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C. Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011), Differences inLearning processes between successful and less successful students in computer supporte Collaborative learning in the field of human nutrition and health. Computers in HumanBehavior, 27, 309-318,
Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56, 548-557, Noroozi, O. Hatami, J., Biemans, H. I A., van Ginkel, S., & Bayat, A. (2019). Students’ online
Argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter? Interactive Learning Environments. (in press). Doi: 10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200 Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018), Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first to second order scaffolding through adaptive fading.
Educational Psychology Review, 30, 153-176. Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2017). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45, 31-39.
Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A, Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learningIn multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189-223 Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A, Biemans, H. J., Mulder, M, & Chizar, M. (2012). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research.
Educational Research Review, 7, 79-106.
Saito, H. & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31-54. Schneer, D. (2014). Rethinking the argumentative essay, TESOL Journal, 5, 619-653, Topping, K. J. (2009), Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 20-27.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.