The Impact of Peer Review Editing on Grade Eight English Language Arts Students Writing ()
1. Introduction
Having taught English Language Arts for over five years, my colleagues and I became increasingly concerned about students’ output in written works. Instruction and feedback seemed to have had little impact in helping students to achieve benchmarks. This action research seeks to find out if peer review editing done as a whole class and peer group activity could help students in transferring concepts taught in grammar classes when completing writing tasks. Peer review editing has been found to be a multidisciplinary procedure that is widely used in academia and usually yields desired results. Lopez (2026) [1] described peer editing and revising as not just about grammar and spelling but also empowering students to become better writers in English Language. Many writers rely on a peer review system. Lui et al. (2023) [2] described peer feedback as being practiced and researched over the past decades and that this strategy of review has had many terms such as “peer review”, “peer editing”, “peer evaluation”, and “peer response”. They further explained peer feedback as being beneficial not only for the learning domain of knowledge, such as students’ better language performance but also for fostering skills like reader awareness, motivation and self-efficacy, reflection, and critical thinking.
The Jamaican culture has an oral language called Patio. Children are born and grow up hearing the oral language; however, when they go to school they are taught and expected to speak Standard Jamaican English. Pandey et al. (2024) [3] discussed that language is an important barrier for non-English native speakers, editors and peer reviewers. This makes writing difficult as they tend to write the way they speak, which goes against the syntax of the Standard Jamaican English. This conflict is seen in students’ writing in the form of grammatical errors, subject-verb agreement, spelling as well as difficulties with reading to write. The problem is transferred from one grade level to the next with majority of children being promoted without intervention. This situation becomes even more critical when pupils attend high school, as the curriculum in grades 7 - 9 lends itself to early preparation for the national external exams (CSEC).
The literature indicates that peer review editing would be a viable intervention to bridge the gaps in learning so as to improve students’ learning output. Added to this [3] Pandey et al. pointed out that peer reviewers must actively seek opportunities to acquire the necessary vocabulary and writing skills and by having them author manuscripts. In remedying the challenges of the social concepts of the problems discussed, the emotional context was also explored. Aanstoos (2024) [4] discussed Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which supports the theory of human motivation, of level three of the hierarchy, belongingness and love needs related to students being socially accepted among their peers. Having students edit each other’s work would encourage writers to be more cautious and careful when completing tasks as their peers would be evaluating their work; they were also better able to communicate areas of confusion while editing peers’ written work. Feedback from peers would also be better received if it were reciprocated. These concepts assisted in answering the following questions. Does peer review editing improve students’ writing? Will peer review editing help students become self-efficacious and confident about their writing?
2. Literature Review
Many students do not know how to write Standard Jamaican English because they do not speak it. These students have the challenge to learn to speak and write standard Jamaican English in ten years of primary and high school. It is from this that students face another problem, which is to edit their written works. Pandey et al. [3] discussed that developing the ability to positively criticize in a way that results in improved outcomes is an art that requires practice. The development of this art through practice will transform writing learners into proficient writers. The proposed writing intervention may be the bridge to fill the gaps between students’ ability to convert their thoughts into words and putting them on paper in such a way that others can read and understand them. This research seeks to investigate whether peer review editing can help grade eight students achieve the benchmarks outlined in the curriculum for writing in English Language Arts.
The study is designed to use the mixed-methods approach to analyze data collected from a total of thirty-four students and twelve teachers. It was executed in a rural Jamaican High school. The concept of this research is that, if students can transfer their need for acceptance by their peers into the acceptance of their peers’ feedback, to improve their writing, then students’ writing skills would improve. The theoretical framework of this study is formed from Lev Vygotsky’s social learning theory, in which he explained that students need support or scaffolding to survive through their zone of proximal development. Mechelle et al. (2024) [5] described Vygotsky’s scaffolding as a temporary support which is provided by knowledgeable individuals as a mechanism for encouraging learner independence and confidence, as well as the promotion of cognitive development, facilitation of thought processes and problem-solving skills. In addition, Barbour (2020) [6] discussed that one way to make peer review more effective is by scaffolding it or breaking down the practice into several classes where students analyze each other’s work in a more focused and incremental manner. The research was designed to occur over a period of time allotted for the teaching of one unit of lessons. Barbour also discussed that scaffolding allows students to identify and address one type of error in an allotted time period and that it is most useful for English Language learners and learning support.
2.1. History of Peer Review
Drozdz & Ladomery (2024) [7] discussed that the peer review process is an aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, which underpins essential quality control. Also, Drozdz & Ladomery [7] highlighted that it was first conceptualized in the 1700’s and is an iterative process. As more attention is being devoted to evaluation, its results are used for greater range of decisions; its role in shaping teaching will increase. Peer review should by no means replace formal instruction by the teacher [8]. Anderson (2020) discussed that teachers should engage students fully in a variety of writing processes that allow students the necessary freedom to facilitate and evaluate ideas, develop voice, and experiment with syntax and language. Engage students to express creativity, elaborate on viewpoints and refine arguments. Also, teachers should foster an understanding and appreciation of responsibilities inherent in writing and publication by encouraging students to assume ownership of the writing process and the final product.
2.2. Reflection on Students’ Own Practice
Teacher and students can work together to develop a list of things to look for in proofreading [9] (Cooper & Kiger, 2003). A peer reviewer cannot simply say, “I liked it” or “I didn’t like it”. They must give the writer clear and specific information that will help to improve the written work. Cope Council (2021) [10] discussed that guidelines explain why journals should have clear policies on what is acceptable and unacceptable in a reviewer’s report. This idea described by Cope Council fits well with the definition of a checklist which was used to guide students when editing their peers’ work instead of the Diederich analytic scale.
Anderson (2020) [8] explained the role of the teacher as students reflect on their own practice by highlighting that teachers may meet with a number of individual writers and ask, “What are you working on?” “How can I help you?” This strategy will help with differentiating teaching, writer by writer. Reflection fostered by teacher and peers should help with answering the research questions. Can peer review editing improve students’ writing? Lastly, will peer review editing cause students to become self-efficacious and confident in their writing?
3. Methodology
The problem that led to this action research was that Grade Eight students of English Language tend to produce written works that reflected poor writing skills. The purpose of this study is to find out if peer review editing can improve the writing skills of these students. The APA Professional Journals require that all research submitted for publication be peer reviewed before it is considered for publication. The review of literature has also revealed that peer review editing dates back to AD and was first used in the medical profession. Peer review editing is multidisciplinary and is widely used in academia.
This section of the action research contains the curriculum or pedagogical plan conceived as the innovation.
3.1. Study Design
The study is designed to use qualitative and quantitative methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. A pre-test was used before the intervention, and a post-test was administered after the intervention to see how effective the intervention was. Quantitative measures were also used to analyze the pre- and post-test. The intervention consisted of three writing prompts and the scores from these written pieces were analyzed using quantitative measures.
The peer review editing process was used as the intervention because this was not normally done. The pre- and post-tests were writing prompts since students had writing challenges. The school is a part of the shift system that has students attending school at 7:00 am until 12:00 pm and another set of students attends school at 12:00 pm until 5:00 pm. Students would exchange shifts at the beginning of each school year until they graduate. The intervention was implemented among students of the am shift only.
A total of thirty-four students returned the consent and assent forms and of this number only 31 students participated in the writing intervention process. The students were between the ages of thirteen to 14. There were only four males and 26 females who participated in the study. One student volunteered to be an observer, who had journaled her experience of the intervention process. The participants in the study had the highest GPA among their cohorts. This was to ensure that they were all able to read and to mitigate illiteracy as an external variable that might interfere with the results.
There was one math teacher who was a critical friend. This person had observed one session of the intervention and made notes for feedback. There was another critical friend, who was a teacher of English Language Arts, and they were allowed to make suggestions as the intervention progressed. There were twelve female teachers from both shifts who completed questionnaires about the intervention. About 10% of the participants were from a high socio-economic background while the others remained at the lower end. The participants lived mainly in the environs of the school.
A total of eight instruments were used in the data collection process. These were the questionnaires that were administered before and after the intervention. The forms used to record peer conference and goals sheet are used by teacher to document feedback.
All efforts to gain access to the Deitrich scale proved futile and so the researcher had to formulate a checklist based on the requirements that needed to be met, in order for the intervention to happen. The checklist was not piloted or used for obtaining the desired results of this action research; therefore, the validity and reliability of the results may be affected by this non-standardized instrument. On the other hand, it was very effective in executing the writing lessons, as it proved to be a practical guide in helping students peer evaluate students’ work.
Questionnaires were used again to collect students’ feedback after the intervention. Journaling was used by the researcher to document daily experience of the intervention. This was also used by a student to document her daily experience of the intervention. A video recording form was used to capture students’ oral presentations during whole-class feedback. An Anecdotal form was used to note teacher feedback during grading of the written. Observation forms were used by a critical friend, who had observed one intervention session.
3.2. Procedure
Students were first informed of the purpose of the action research and the importance of their participation. The principal had signed a memorandum outlining the steps to be taken in the action research as well as the duration of the study. The consent and assessment forms were then prepared and handed to forty students. A total of 34 students returned the signed forms, and some parents had requested additional information about the study. The participants were handed writing folders, which consisted of folder papers.
The nonparticipants received folder leaves as well but not folders as they were not necessary. All students were asked to write a one-page essay on the writing prompt “The Thing That I Lost”. The nonparticipants were told that their scores would not be used in the research. All students were then oriented about the process of peer review editing through the use of a power point presentation.
The participants were then asked to complete a questionnaire about their expectations of the peer review editing process. In week two of the action research students had completed the first writing prompt, “The Three Little Pigs”. The participants were expected to complete an original story from the prompt. Each participant was given a total of forty minutes to write and twenty minutes to peer edit. Journaling by the action researcher and the student observer was also done this week.
The second writing prompt was a letter of apology; this was done in the third week of the action research. A critical friend had observed this writing session, and this session was also used as the whole class peer review. Students had presented their written piece after forty minutes of writing and then they had presented their work orally for review. The presentation was also videotaped by the researcher to capture details not observed. The third writing prompt was a report to the Minister of Transport in Jamaica. This, too, followed the protocol of forty minutes for writing and twenty minutes for review.
Journals and observation also took place this week. In the second session for the third week, the participants completed a post-test by writing about a “Rainy Day”. This piece was not peer reviewed and participants had completed their second questionnaires. It was also within this week that the teachers of English Language Arts had completed a questionnaire giving their opinion on the peer review process.
3.3. Plan of Action
Students were oriented to the peer review editing process and its importance to their writing through the use of a PowerPoint presentation and a follow-up worksheet. Each student was given a folder with writing materials such as paper to write on, writing prompts, a checklist outlining what must be in every written piece, and pacing chart with dates, where each student would present specific writing and a peer conference form, for information gathering during peer conferencing.
Each student was asked to write on a given topic; these written pieces were collected and marked by the teacher. This was done as a pre-test to see where the students were before the intervention took place. Teacher and students had then read two pieces of written work. One of the written pieces had errors of grammar and mechanics, while the other had all the correct use of syntax. These works were used to model the way in which critiquing should be done by peers as well as the whole group.
Students were then given their first writing prompt to begin writing. All students had to complete three written works and have them peer edited. Only one of their written works was presented to the whole group. Teacher had made notes of each student’s writing progress in a journal. Teacher had a 90% compliance of all students completing written works; the other 10% would account for students being absent or sick and just not being able to complete work during specified time frame.
The test scores before and after the intervention will be tabulated and a graph of the students’ scores during the intervention should show the improvements in the students’ scores. Lastly a post test was administered to see if there were any significant improvements in students’ writing. Questionnaires were administered after the intervention to see if students had become more confident and self-efficacious about their written works.
3.4. Limitations and Ethical Considerations
The whole class activity was found to be time-consuming and not very effective in helping students improve their writing. The whole class review could not allow for all the students’ written pieces to be edited as the second writing task was slated to be edited by the whole class; however, only two students were able to receive feedback from class as the feedback was comprehensive and detailed; this within itself was time-consuming.
Extraneous variables such as the researcher being on two weeks’ sick leave, school activities and holidays that had reduced the class times of students, may affect the results. Some students did not have sufficient time to write or edit their peers’ work and this may have significantly affected the data. The study could not have been extended to other grade eight classes because of limited time and no research assistant. Researcher bias may have affected the marking of the post-test. About ten students did not attempt the post-test and so researcher made an extra effort to allocate marks that were deserved. This was not done for the pretest. Some participants had withdrawn from the study after completing the pretest and this may have significantly affected the post-test grades as well.
The action researcher had submitted the research proposal, along with the relevant consent and assent forms, as well as the instrumentation that would be used in this action research to FIU’s IRB board. The approval was granted for the execution of the action research study before any data was collected. Students were assigned letters of the alphabet to replace their names. These were used on the questionnaire forms by the students and by the researcher during the data analysis process.
Students’ names were written on their writing folders, but these were returned to them after the pieces were marked. The principal of the school where the research was carried out had signed a memorandum of understanding for the action research to be done. All the participants and their parents had signed consent and assent forms. There were about three participants who signed the forms but withdrew from the study without any action being taken against them. Folders were kept in a locked drawer, and peers did not know each other’s final score on the writing activities.
4. Findings
The purpose of this action research is to see if peer review editing can improve the writing skills of these students. The research has the design of a mixed-methods approach to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the problem. The data collection is inclusive of questionnaires, journaling, pre- and post-test, anecdotal records and observation. Microsoft Excel and Word along with SPSS were used in the analysis of the data. This chapter will present the findings of the data collected and generate evidence that will be used to answer the research questions asked.
4.1. Quantitative Data
Tables 1-3 showed the results for pre- and post-test using the SPSS software. The pre-test was administered before the intervention and the post-test after the intervention.
Table 1. Showing paired sample statistics.
Paired Samples Statistics |
|
|
Mean |
N |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
Pair 1 |
Student |
14.4839 |
31 |
3.06454 |
0.55041 |
Post |
9.0645 |
31 |
7.52301 |
1.35117 |
Table 2. Showing paired samples correlations.
Paired Samples Correlations |
|
|
N |
Correlation |
Sig. |
Pair 1 |
Student & Post |
31 |
0.398 |
0.027 |
Table 3. Showing paired samples test.
Paired Samples Test |
|
|
Paired Differences |
t |
df |
Sig.
(2-tailed) |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
Std. Error Mean |
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference |
Lower |
Upper |
Pair 1 |
Student-Post |
5.41935 |
6.90301 |
1.23982 |
2.88731 |
7.95140 |
4.371 |
30 |
0.000 |
4.2. Qualitative Data
Table 4 showed students’ responses to key ideas included in the questions asked on the questionnaires administered before intervention.
Table 5 showed students’ responses on questionnaires administered after the administration of the intervention.
Table 6 showed the responses on questionnaires administered to Teachers of English Language. A total of twelve teachers participated in the study.
Table 7 showed the comments of students on the questionnaires administered
Table 4. Showing student responses prior to the intervention.
Key ideas from questions asked |
Responses |
Believe that the intervention can improve writing |
34 |
Do not depend on the intervention to improve writing |
2 |
Depends on the intervention to help them improve writing |
28 |
Do not believe that the intervention can work |
7 |
Believes that writing is important |
34 |
Do not believe that writing is important |
0 |
Pays little attention to teacher feedback |
16 |
Pays attention to teacher feedback |
19 |
Do not believe that intervention can improve writing |
0 |
Table 5. Showing student’s response on questionnaire after intervention.
Key ideas from questions asked |
Responses |
Saw changes in writing |
33 |
Did not see any change in writing |
1 |
Believes that the intervention has helped them |
32 |
Do not believe that the intervention has helped |
2 |
Believes that peer review editing should be a standard procedure |
33 |
Do not believe that peer review editing should be standard procedure |
0 |
States that peers made fun of their work |
3 |
Peers did not make fun of their work |
33 |
Adopted from A Toolkit for Action Research.
Table 6. Showing teacher’s response on questionnaire.
Key ideas from questions asked |
Response |
Enjoys teaching |
9 |
Do not enjoy teaching |
0 |
Enjoy teaching sometimes |
3 |
Believes that writing is critical |
12 |
Do not believe that writing is critical |
0 |
Gives students written and oral feedback |
11 |
Do not give students written and oral feedback |
0 |
Finds that students implement their feedback in future writing |
4 |
Find that students do not implement their feedback in future writing |
1 |
Finds that students sometimes implement their feedback in future writing |
6 |
Frame adopted from A Toolkit for Action Research.
Table 7. Showing students’ comments on questionnaire.
To improve students’ writing skills |
Brings out expression and thought |
Peer review helps to improve writing |
Taking corrections and editing my peers work |
Interact with peers, communicate with teacher. |
Improve my writing |
To read other people’s work is very interesting |
It helps you to explore more and be open to writing at all times |
I liked the fact that I was able to help my fellow classmates by editing their work |
The PowerPoint presentation and the peer editing |
I liked that I may cooperate with my peers |
It was fun and it made me confident |
It is fun and it calms me down |
Adopted from A Toolkit for Action Research.
after the intervention. The comments were in response to the things students liked about the writing activities.
4.3. Observational Findings
4.3.1. Critical Friend Observation
The objectives were clearly stated and explained to students. I was not sure if students knew what was meant by examine as used by the teacher. The teacher reviewed what was done in the last class by doing a short question-and-answer quiz. Teacher moved around in class checking students’ work. Students participated in assessment process through marking each other’s books. Teacher discussed with student the format of the memo. However, that did not show example immediately. I would prefer discussion and sample at the same time. Students would participate more but teacher had given final evaluation. Some students were unprepared for class as they had no pens. (volume 1, pg. 2).
4.3.2. Student Observation of Teacher
The first thing she does is write the objectives on the board. Then she explains them and what we would be doing for the session. When she is finished with that, she explains the previous assignments and class works and what we will be doing in class. This morning’s class was about writing reports. She asks students to come and read in front of the class. When she was finished, she went through the checklist with the class and helped the students with the corrections. The students came up to read and as they read, she corrected them. At the end of the class, she would inform us on what we would do next class (volum 1, pg. 1).
Journal Entries of Action Researcher
May 2, 2012, at about 11:00 pm students were very excited to view the PowerPoint presentation on peer review editing and revising. Ten students complete writing within the prescribed time. Students had few questions to ask and seemed to clearly understand what was expected of them. On May 9, 2012, students seemed very eager to write. I notice that students would stop writing to share with their peers what an interesting part of their writing. On June 12, 2012, students started complaining that they had too much work to do. On June 13, 2012, two students indicated that they no longer wished to participate in the study as they had to do too much work. (volume 1, pg. 3)
4.3.3. Anecdotal Notes
Written details should have been outlined for students to know what to edit. A detailed outline was given only in oral form. The writing goals sheet was rarely used. Five students did not follow instructions and created an original story called, “The Three Little Pigs”, as a result they were marked down. A few grammar mistakes were still seen, such as run-on sentences. Ten post-test grades were zero as the piece was missing or severely incomplete. One student planned to write but did not. Feedback was given on ten conference sheets by peers, but the students did not rewrite and correct the mistakes. Data may be biased as the researcher was the sole marker. (volume1, pg. 4)
Table 8 showed the matching of the data directly with the research questions that they answered.
Table 8. Showing triangulation of findings.
Research Questions |
Key Findings |
Displays |
Can peer review editing improve students’writing? |
a) The literature states that APA Professional Journals do not publish written works unless they are peer reviewed b) The post test showed a mean score of 9.0 and standard deviation of 7.5 c) 100% of students feel that peer review editing can improve their writing (questionnaires after the intervention) |
a) Literature Review b) Table 1 c) Figures 1-3 d) Critical friend e) Figure 2 f) Tables 1-5 g) Student observation |
Will peer review editing cause students to become self-efficacious and confident about their writing? |
The teacher went through the checklist with the class. The checklist helped us to lessen the errors in our work. She made us turn to the person sitting next to us and discuss our opinions. This helped us to organize our thoughts before writing (sic) b) teacher allowed students to participate in the assessment process |
a) Student observation b) Table 5 c) Anecdotal notes Critical Friend observation |
Figure 1 represents students’ responses to questions asked using the Likert scale. The data represent responses to the questionnaire administered before the intervention.
Figure 2 showed student’s responses on the Likert scale after the administration of the intervention.
Figure 3 showed students’ grades on the three writing pieces done during the intervention.
Figure 1. Line graph showing student’s response on questionnaire prior intervention.
Figure 2. Line graph showing student’s response on questionnaire after intervention.
Figure 3. Line graph showing student’s grade.
5. Analysis of Results
This action research was carried out because grade eight English Language students’ written works contained too many grammatical errors and lesson delivery alone did not prove very effective and so the researcher sought to find out if peer review editing can improve the writing of these students; hence, the researcher’s focus was on answering the questions: Can peer review editing improve students writing? Will peer review editing cause students to become self-efficacious and confident about their written works? The study employed a mix method approach in which the quantitative and the qualitative methods were used. The results were analyzed and displayed using the SPSS, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word.
The findings from the literature review revealed that peer review editing is a process used in many disciplines especially those related to academia. Qualitative evidence had supported similar findings of previous research studies. In Table 5, student’s comments about the peer review intervention revealed that this method helped them in correcting common grammatical errors, improving the relationship between peers and boosting their confidence in writing.
In Figure 1 and Figure 2, one student responded to all items on the before and after questionnaire with a strongly agree, seeing this was the only long string variable it was not discarded but it may affect the validity of the results. About 75% of students responded that writing was their favorite subject while 10% disagreed that it was their least favorite. About 65% of students believed that peer review editing could improve their writing while no student believed that the intervention would not work for them. A total of 50% of the students believed that teacher feedback was better than peer review while 20% disagreed that it was not. About 48% of students agreed to looking forward to writing activities while no student strongly disagreed. On the other hand, Figure 2 showed that about 58% of students agreed that they would practice editing while 10% disagreed. About 90% of students agreed that editing is important, 80% were neutral, 65% disagreed and about 61% disagreed. A total 45% of students agreed that they found it a pleasure to do written works. Meanwhile, only 25% were neutral and 10% agreed. About 48% of students agreed that the intervention improved their writing while 2% disagreed. Evidence of student observation was presented in Figure 1 & Figure 2 as well as the researcher’s journal, where it was proven that peer review editing can help students to improve their written work.
The quantitative evidence was significantly different from the qualitative, as the mean score decreased from 14.98 to 9. 06, with results from the paired sample t-test after the intervention showing a significant score of p.029 which is greater than alpha.005. In comparison to the standard alpha score, this score was prior to the intervention p < 0.001, showed a significant change in the mean. Figure 3 concurred with this finding, as the line graph does not show steady improvements in the students’ writing, which suggests that the peer review editing process did not help the participants to improve their writing skills.
These results were not without fault as the researcher was out of the teaching practice for two weeks’ sick leave, which may have reversed students’ progress, and having an assistant or another researcher to continue with the intervention, the results may have proven different. Also, a total of 10 students received a score of zero on the post-test and changes in ten of the 30 participants’ results may also have direct impact on the unfavorable quantitative results. Other extraneous variables such as the Hawthorne effect may have also interfered with the quantitative results. MC Cambridge et al. (2014) [11] discussed the Hawthorne effect as the consequent awareness of being studied and possible impact on behavior. As established earlier in the literature the students’ value of social acceptance may have presented a case of the social process over measurable skills causing a negative effect on the qualitative results. Added to this, was the checklist that was used as a substitute for the Diedrich scale; the checklist was not a standard scale of measurement and may have negatively impacted the quantitative assessment.
5.1. Implications for Practice
The quantitative evidence from the findings may not have shown a significant change in the alpha but this is a great opportunity to address the extraneous variables when replicating the research. The qualitative evidence proved that there is some value to this action research as the findings were aligned with the existing social learning theories of Vygotsky and Hawthorne. The implications of this action research for personal practice are many. Firstly, the action researcher will only use whole class editing over a period of classes, e.g., one school term. This study may have found more significant quantitative results, if research questions had been asked about teacher feedback as well as peer’s feedback. The intervention has highlighted means by which students could improve their writing, one of which is the standardization of the checklist used. A whole school approach could be used to further pilot and formalize the checklist. Peer review editing can become a core means of lesson delivery in ELA classes. The social concepts can also be used to promote learning, especially for teaching challenging topics in ELA, where students show ownership of learning with strong positive self-confidence. These means will be maximized in future classes.
5.2. Implications for Other Teachers
The implications for other teachers are that the peer review editing process can be used along with their feedback to students to improve students’ writing. This is also a good method as it shifts the strain of teachers solely evaluating students’ work to students’ evaluation. Based on the students’ comments and other qualitative evidence peer review has proven to work in making feedback more meaningful for students. It also adds a level of importance to editing one’s own work because of fear that one’s peers may ridicule them. Students have placed priority on editing their written works.
5.3. Implications for Future Research
This action research can be used as a pilot study for future peer review editing studies. The study could be improved to find out if peer review editing impacts end of term grades or if peer editing is more effective than teacher feedback. A larger sample size could be used with a longer time frame. A longitudinal case study showing students who use peer editing for their written works could be conducted. Random sampling technique of the participants in a number of schools could be included in future research as the researcher would be able to generalize findings among schools in other regions.
5.4. Conclusions
It is recommended that the checklist be piloted for validity and reliability to improve quantitative results. Replication can also increase the number of students and teacher participants; the study could include multiple schools in various demographic locations. Multiple researchers could collaborate to execute the study, which would mitigate human error during the execution of the intervention. This action research provided the opportunity for the action researcher to explore global concepts about peer review editing that are applicable to the Jamaican context. It created a social context for students to explore peer work and evaluation of their own work.
The qualitative measures may be strengthened to minimize extraneous variables that may negatively affect future studies. It is also important that the policy makers and stakeholders understand that peer review can help students to become more involved in their own work, improve their writing skills and be a great confidence builder for doubting writers. These results may lead to improved external exam scores, which will also improve the school’s overall proficiency grade.
5.5. Self-Reflection
The action researcher is satisfied with the results of the action research considering the some of the challenges faced. Some areas for further research would be to find out if peer review editing impacts end of term grades. Is peer editing more effective than teacher feedback? These topics could contribute to an interesting study. The action researcher is empowered and motivated to prove to future students and teachers that peer review editing is a useful tool in teaching and learning.
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge my colleagues at the following high schools: Marcus Garvey Technical High, St. Hilda’s High, York Castle High, Fern Court High and Brown’s Town High, for their sharing of best practices in the subject of English Language Arts. I would also like to extend thanks to the students, parents, teachers and the administration of the participating school, for allowing me to collect data to investigate the thesis of this study. Lastly, but by no means last, my beautiful children for their patience while I executed this study and my family who supported me during this challenging yet productive project.