Dampak Peer Review dan Lecturer Corrective Feedback pada Kinerja Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah Mahasiswa

Main Article Content

Umiyati Jabri
Ismail Ismail


. The current research is expected to contribute to guiding students' scientific work by providing opportunities for them to correct the lack of understanding when they carry out their research assignments. This study uses qualitative and quantitative approaches (mixed method) which aims to investigate whether the use of peer reviews and lecturer corrective feedback has a positive effect on the performance of writing scientific articles for students as novice writers. Study participants included one class of a total of 18 students in the English Education Department. The Likert scale is used to measure the level of ability and benefits of peer review feedback and lecturer corrective feedback in writing scientific article skills based on student perceptions. The data revealed that the majority of the revisions made by students were the revision of the meaning surface (Meaning-level revisions) of 4258 (72.46%) for 4 times the revision of the draft article. Revisions to the level of change of meaning gradually result in an improvement of the articles as a whole before submitting the final draft of their article. In terms of students' perceptions of the application of peer review and corrective feedback in the learning process, students expressed a positive attitude. This study shows the importance of assessing the peer-review process in writing scientific papers


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Jabri, U., & Ismail, I. (2021). Dampak Peer Review dan Lecturer Corrective Feedback pada Kinerja Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah Mahasiswa. Edumaspul: Jurnal Pendidikan, 5(2), 579 - 592. https://doi.org/10.33487/edumaspul.v5i2.2182


1. Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students ’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
2. Bugge, C., Bregnhøj, H., Rosthøj, S., Ceballos, A., Kaas, H., & Harker-schuch, I. (2016). Technology enhanced peer learning and peer assessment. . . Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier (LOM), 9(16), 1–19. http://www.lom.dk
3. Coit, C. (2004). Peer Review in an Online College Writing Course. Proceedings, In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 902–903.
4. Hansen, J. G. (2005). Cooperative learning methods and the teaching of English writing: Peer response. STETS Language & Communication Review, 4(1), 9–14.
5. Hatziapostolou, T., & Paraskakis, I. (2010). The Impact of Formative Feedback on Student Learning in an Online Classroom. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 8(2), 111–122. www.ejel.org
6. Kiefer, S. M., & Florida, S. (2015). Teacher and Peer Support. RMLE, 38(8), 1–18.
7. Kuyyogsuy, S. (2019). Promoting Peer Feedback in Developing Students’ English Writing Ability in L2 Writing Class. International Education Studies, 12(9), 76. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p76
8. Leng, K. T. P. (2014). An Analysis of Written Feedback on ESL Students’ Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123(2000), 389–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1437
9. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive : The benefits of peer review to the reviewer ’ s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
10. Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students ’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
11. Panadero, E. (2013). The Use of Scoring Rubrics for Formative Assessment Purposes Revisited : A Review. Educational Research Review, 9(0), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
12. Setyowati, L., & Sukmawan, S. (2016). EFL_ Indonesian Students’ Attitude toward Writing in English. Arab World English Journal, 7(4), 365–378. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol7no4.24
13. Solomon, L. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 503.
14. Tai, H., Lin, W., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Exploring the Effects of Peer Review and Teachers ’ Corrective Feedback on EFL Students ’ Online Writing Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597490
15. Yangin, G., & Şİ, E. K. (2003). Peer Review versus Teacher Feedback in Process Writing : How Effective ? IJAES, 13(1), 33–48.
16. Yastıbaş, G. Ç., & Yastıbaş, A. E. (2015). The Effect of Peer Feedback on Writing Anxiety in Turkish EFL (English as a Foreign Language) Students. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 530–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.543

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.