COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF TRAINED PEER REVIEW AND WRITING PRACTICE ON THE ACCURACY OF EFL STUDENT WRITINGS

Despite mixed results of the studies performed on usefulness of teacher feedback to English as a foreign or second language learnersʹ written errors, many recent studies have investigated the degree to which peer feedback, as an alternative to teacher feedback, can promote better writing quality, either in local or global aspects. The present study investigated potential differences of trained peer review versus writing practice on the accuracy of four areas of capitals, mechanics, plural s, and third person s. It involved two groups: 1) experimental A which received peer review training, provided peer review, and participated in post-review teacher-student conferences and 2) experimental B which just wrote on assigned topics. The results indicated that accuracy of capitals improved as a result of trained peer review; that trained peer review improved the accuracy of mechanics better than writing practice; and that the two methods were almost equally ineffective to the accuracy of other targeted areas. It is, therefore, suggested that neither trained peer review, nor writing practice are effective methods to enhance the accuracy of English as a foreign language writings, and that teachers should seek more constructive practices to enhance writing accuracy.