International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2016, Vol. 12(1) 117-127

Are Review Skills and Academic Writing Skills Related? An Exploratory Analysis via Multi Source Feedback Tools

Salim Razı

pp. 117 - 127   |  Manu. Number: ijpe.2016.023

Published online: February 01, 2016  |   Number of Views: 337  |  Number of Download: 746


Because students learn from each other as well as lecturers, it is important to create opportunities for collaboration in writing classes. Teachers now benefit from access to plagiarism detectors that can also provide feedback. This exploratory study considers the role of four review types, open and anonymous, involving the students themselves, peer and tutor reviewing, and anonymous digital review by means of plagiarism detectors. Eighty-seven freshmen from Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey, participated. Throughout the term, feedback was provided by four sources: the tutor, peers, software, and by students themselves. At the end of the term, written assignments were self and peer reviewed, and graded by the course lecturer. Results indicated that higher-scoring students could manage both self and peer review tasks more effectively. The study suggests that academic writing and reviewing skills are related, and that integrating review skills into evaluation procedures may result in a more reliable assessment.

Keywords: academic writing, anonymous peer review, digital feedback, digital technology, plagiarism detectors, self review

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Razi, S. (2016). Are Review Skills and Academic Writing Skills Related? An Exploratory Analysis via Multi Source Feedback Tools. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(1), 117-127.

Razi, S. (2016). Are Review Skills and Academic Writing Skills Related? An Exploratory Analysis via Multi Source Feedback Tools. International Journal of Progressive Education, 12(1), pp. 117-127.

Chicago 16th edition
Razi, Salim (2016). "Are Review Skills and Academic Writing Skills Related? An Exploratory Analysis via Multi Source Feedback Tools". International Journal of Progressive Education 12 (1):117-127.

  1. Aghaee, N., & Hansson, H. (2013). Peer portal: Quality enhancement in thesis writing using self-managed peer review on a mass scale. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14, 186–203. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bayaga, A., & Wadesango, N. (2013). Assessment – enabling participation in academic discourse and implications. South African Journal of Education, 33, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bester, G., & Brand, L. (2013). The effect of technology on learner attention and achievement in the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 33, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–74. [Google Scholar]
  5. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219–233. [Google Scholar]
  6. Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42, 333–343. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gleason, J. (2014). “It helps me get closer to their writing experience” Classroom ethnography and the role of technology in third-year FL courses. System, 47, 125–138. [Google Scholar]
  8. Grosser, M. M., & Nel, M. (2013). The relationship between the critical thinking skills and the academic language proficiency of prospective teachers. South African Journal of Education, 33, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hanjani, A. M., & Li, L. (2014). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, 44, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24, 269–290. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371–94. [Google Scholar]
  14. Humphreys, G., & Wyatt, M. (2013). Helping Vietnamese university learners to become more autonomous. ELT Journal, 68, 52–63. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kleijn, R. A. M., Mainhard, M. T., Meijer, P. C., Brekelmans, M., & Pilot, A. (2013). Master’s thesis projects: Student perceptions of supervisor feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 1012–1026. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lam, R. (2013). The relationship between assessment types and text revision. ELT Journal, 67, 446–458. [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, Z., Link, S., Ma, H., Yang, H., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). The role of automated evaluation holistic scores in the ESL classroom. System, 44, 66–78. [Google Scholar]
  18. Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514–525. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40, 257–275. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mak, P., & Lee, I. (2014). Implementing assessment for learning in L2 learning: An activity theory perspective. System, 47, 73–87. [Google Scholar]
  21. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289. [Google Scholar]
  22. Phillips, S. (2007). Automated essay scoring: A literature review. Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. [Google Scholar]
  23. Razı, S. (2011). Advanced reading and writing skills in ELT: APA style handbook. Ankara: Nobel. [Google Scholar]
  24. Razı, S. (2013). Assessing academic writing: Development of a rubric and relating Turnitin reports. Paper presented at International Conference on Interdisciplinary Research in Education, Kyrenia, Cyprus. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rinehart, D., & Chen, S. J. (2012). The benefits of a cycle of corrective feedback on L2 writing. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  26. Robinson, J. M. (2002). In search of fairness: An application of multi-reviewer anonymous peer review in a large class. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26, 183–192. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ruecker, T. (2010). The potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review. ELT Journal, 65, 398–407. [Google Scholar]
  29. Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31–54. [Google Scholar]
  30. Turnitin. (2010). The scientific basis of Turnitin: Research on effective writing pedagogy and practice. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  31. Turnitin. (2014). Research study: Turnitin effectiveness in U.S. Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  32. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: Theoretical conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 246-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wette, R. (2014). Teachers’ practices in EAP writing instruction: Use of models and modeling. System, 42, 60–69. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68, 155–168. [Google Scholar]