Improving Thai High School Learners’ Writing Ability: A Comparative Study of Anonymous and Non-Anonymous Peer Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1606.12Keywords:
writing ability, peer review, anonymous feedback, blended learning, Thai high school EFL studentsAbstract
This research investigated the effects of anonymous and non-anonymous peer review on writing performance among Thai high school students, and their attitudes towards anonymity when providing and receiving feedback in a blended learning environment. One hundred and thirty Thai EFL learners in a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design were assigned to one of two groups, receiving either anonymous or non-anonymous peer review. The students wrote their opinion paragraphs and peer feedback in two closed FB groups created to support blended instruction. Data were obtained via a writing pretest and posttest, a questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data revealed a significant increase in all aspects of writing (content, organisation, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) for both groups after they performed peer review tasks. The difference between the two groups, however, was not statistically significant, suggesting that both types of feedback contributed to improving writing. Attitudinal findings indicated that, in general, students felt positively toward the utility and engagement inherent to peer reviewing, as reflected in perception-based factor items on motivation and attitudinal measures. The non-anonymised group yielded significantly higher scores in trustworthiness, responsibility for learning, and confidence. Qualitative findings also indicated that anonymous feedback encouraged objectivity and critical introspection, whereas non-anonymous feedback generated social bonding and emotional investment. Overall, empirical confirmation of this essential pedagogical implication of peer review not only sheds light on how linguistic ability, learner autonomy, and motivation can be enhanced in blended EFL writing courses but also supports the predominant use of the non-anonymous peer-review format.
References
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A Process-genre Approach to Teaching Writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153-160. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.153
Bailey, D. R., & Judd, C. (2018). The Effects of Online Collaborative Writing and TOEIC Writing Test Preparation on L2 Writing Performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 383-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.8.383
Barrot, J. S. (2021). Effects of Facebook-based e-portfolio on ESL learners’ writing performance. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 34(1), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1745822
Bennui, P. (2008). A Study of L1 Interference in the Writing of Thai EFL Students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4(1), 72-102.
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (2023). The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. John Wiley and Sons.
Brown, H. D., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
Choi, J. (2013). Does peer feedback affect L2 writers’ L2 learning, composition skills, metacognitive knowledge, and L2 writing anxiety? English Teaching, 68(3), 187-213. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.3.201309.187
Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z. (2012). Effects of peer E-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c
Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38(1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.008
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Flowerdew, J. (1993). An educational or process approach to the teaching of professional genres. ELT Journal, 47(4), 305-316. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.4.305
Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290
Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635-660. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588525
Hyland, K. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400103
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press.
Jiang, Y., & Sukying, A. (2024). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback among Chinese private college students of varying language proficiencies. World Journal of English Language, 14(6), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/47.4.305
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
Maarof, N., Yamat, H., & Li, K. L. (2011). Role of teacher, peer and teacher-peer feedback enhancing ESL students’ writing. World Applied Science Journal, 15(1), 29-35.
Mahmud, M. M. (2018). Technology and Language – What Works and What Does Not: A Meta-analysis of Blended Learning Research. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 365-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.7.365
Manchón, R. M. (2020). Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.index
Matwangsaeng, R., Matwangsaeng, P., Sukying, A., & Min, C. (2025). Analysing grammatical errors to improve English writing among Thai high school students’ interlanguage and vocabulary use. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(1), 82-92. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1501.10
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
Ministry of Education of Thailand. (2008). Revised indicators and learning standards for foreign languages in the Basic Education Core Curriculum B.E. 2551. Retrieved July 26, 2025, from http://www.act.ac.th/document/1741.pdf
Obiedat, R., Eddeen, L. N., Harfoushi, O., AL-Hamarsheh, M., Koury, A., & Alassaf, N. (2014). Effect of blended learning on academic achievement of students in the University of Jordan. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 9(2), 37-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i2.3220
Park, J. (2018). Effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Through the lens of Korean tertiary writing classroom. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(2), 429-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.2.11.429
Piriyasilpa, Y. (2016). Review of the SFL genre-based approach in a Thai tertiary context. The New English Teacher, 10(2), 67-88.
Plutsky, S., & Wilson, B. A. (2004). Comparison of the three methods for teaching and evaluating writing: A quasi-experimental study. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 46(1), 50-61.
Prompan, J., & Piamsai, C. (2024). The effects of peer feedback and self-regulated learning on Thai EFL students’ writing ability and self-regulation. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 17(1), 100-132. Retrieved July 28, 2025, from https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/270378
Rachawong, M., & Phusawisot, P. (2025). The effects of process-genre approach on writing performance and writing anxiety of Thai EFL university students. World Journal of English Language, 15(5), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n5p113
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthropology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Rodliyah, R. S. (2016). Using a Facebook closed group to improve EFL students’ writing. TEFLIN Journal, 27(1), 82-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v27i1/82-100
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classroom. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr133oa
Sattayatham, A., & Ratanapinyowong, P. (2008). Analysis of errors in paragraph writing in English by first-year medical students from the four medical schools at Mahidol University. Silpakorn University International Journal, 8, 17-38.
Seow, A. (2002). The writing process and the process writing. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 315–320). Cambridge University Press.
Sharma, P., & Barrett, B. (2008). Blended learning: Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Macmillan Education.
Steele, V. (2015). Product and process writing: A comparison. Retrieved July 27, 2025, from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/product-process-writing-a-comparison
Tan, K. E., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). Improving grammatical accuracy in Thai learners’ writing: Comparing direct and indirect written corrective feedback. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 430-442. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.3.4.430
Tananuraksakul, N. (2014). Use of Facebook group as blended learning and learning management system in writing. Teaching English with Technology, 14(3), 3-15.
Tatawy, M. E. (2002). Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 2(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7916/salt.v2i2.1645
Tribble, C. (2009). Writing academic English – a survey review of current published resources. ELT Journal, 63(4), 400-417. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp073
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Waluyo, B., & Panmei, B. (2024). Students’ peer feedback engagements in online English courses facilitated by a social network in Thailand. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 14(2), 306-323. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.2305
Wang, S., & Kew, S. N. (2025). A review on the impact of a blended process-oriented approach on the English writing skills. World Journal of English Language, 15(3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v15n3p251
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). From plans to actions: A process model for why feedback features influence feedback implementation. Instructional Science, 49(3), 365-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09546-5
Zhang, F., Schunn, C., Chen, S., Li, W., & Li, R. (2023). EFL student engagement with giving peer feedback in academic writing: A longitudinal study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 64, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101255
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00043-1
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845–862. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00028312031004845
