Effects of peer-editing on L2 writing achievement among secondary school students in Ethiopia

Abstract

Although the effects of peer-editing techniques have been studied from a variety of perspectives, the results when applied to second- or foreign-language students’ writing performance are rarely favorable. The current study looked into the effect of peer-editing on the writing achievement of L2 learners. To achieve the goal, data were collected using a quasi-experimental design. The study’s 11th grade participants were divided into two groups using simple random sampling. One of the participant groups was an experimental group that attended L2 writing lessons with peer-editing, while the other group was a control group that was allowed to continue the lesson as usual. Over the course of five weeks, two very different groups received sixteen hours of instruction. A pre- and post-test was given to both groups. The data collected through the writing test was analyzed using the independent sampling t-test and MANOVA. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the pre-test results, the post-test results revealed a statistically significant difference at α = 0.05 level. The findings of this study indicated that, when compared to high school students who received writing instruction in a controlled group, those who learned writing achievements through the peer-editing pedagogical strategy improved their writing achievement. These findings add to our understanding of how peer-editing affects the outcomes of L2 writers.

Keywords:

• high school students
• peer-editing
• L2 writing achievement
• writing process
• writing sub-skills

Public Interest Statement

Peer-editing has been shown to have multiple benefits for various purposes: student engagement in their writing process is the crucial issue for the development of L2 writing performance. Since it is a L2, most of students do not have opportunity to interact with their personal interest. As a consequence, most of them have poor L2 writing proficiency. In the Ethiopian context, we observed the students’ L2 writing achievement and its sub-skills with the help of peer-editing strategy. To this effect, we explored the effects of peer-editing on the L2 students’ writing achievement. The results displayed peer-editing is a key pedagogical strategy for the improvement academic writing in the context of Ethiopian high school students. Besides, the results obtained from the pre- and post-tests indicated the effect of peer-editing has been improved the L2 writing achievement. Thus, peer-editing helps as an alternative approach in the writing practice.

1. Introduction

Writing literacy is an essential component of both academic and personal life, as well as language learning (Chong, 2022; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Sufi & Ibrahim, 2021). According to Khairuddin et al. (2021), good writing achievement benefits students both academically and socially. Writing has changed its practical approaches for a long time; it is still ongoing and changing. According to Molloy and Boud (2013), it was created for the purpose of communication prior to the beginning of education, and it has grown and developed through education to reach this point. When the grammar translation method first gained popularity in the field of education, it was thought to be beneficial for supporting grammar learning and properly teaching language rules (Brown, 2007; Erlam et al., 2013; H. T. Min, 2016; Nimehchisalem et al., 2021). Humans evolved spoken language into written language over time through the developmental and cognitive processes of learning to write (Alias et al., 2021). (Ellis, 2008; Flower & Hayes, 1981). For a long time, this type of writing was restricted to denominations and government institutions, but it eventually escaped and reached the school to serve the entire society (H. Min, 2008; H. T. Min, 2016).

Throughout this changing journey, both community members and scholars have recognized the importance of writing and have worked hard to promote it (Chong, 2022; Clark, 2012; Muhammad et al., 2021). Despite this attention, it has not yet reached the level of mastery (Dempsey et al., 2009). From the beginning of the writing system to the present, there has been error (Farrah, 2012; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). According to Erlam et al. (2013), more needs to be done to develop corrective feedback during writing practice than cognitive interactionism, which conceptualizes as a distinct strategic sociocultural perspective. Of course, the process-oriented approach, which began in the early 1960s, gained widespread acceptance and eventually became the dominant approach used at the primary, secondary, and university levels in the 1980s (Brusa & Harutyunyan, 2019). Although this approach is said to be one that focuses on each of the activities performed in each process, it does not focus on the end result (Khairuddin et al., 2021; Sadler, 2010). According to Clark (2012), the process approach focuses on the individual steps that lead to better overall written work, but it necessitates complex mental processes (Ferguson, 2011; Flower & Hayes, 1981; Molloy & Boud, 2013). This includes assisting students with the activities they use at each level prior to summarizing their writing (Alias et al., 2021; Brown, 2007).

Issues that cause students to not improve their writing achievement and face various writing problems stem from psychological conditions (language skills problems), psychological conditions, and cognitive issues (Nicol, 2010; Razali et al., 2021). According to Muhammad et al. (2021) and Nassaji and Kartchava (2017), one of the fundamental issues that arises as a cause of problems in the process of writing education is the influence of theoretical and pedagogical perspectives in the language learning context. If the teaching method used to teach writing does not allow students to practice enough and is not based on real communication, the problem will arise (Austria, 2017; Lee, 2017; Orsmond et al., 2013). As a result, teachers’ teaching methods should guide students to the desired outcome (Orsmond et al., 2013). This has also been observed in Ethiopia’s educational situation, and many studies still have a lot of homework to do in terms of literacy education (Brusa & Harutyunyan, 2019; Dempsey et al., 2009; H. Min, 2008; H. T. Min, 2016; Pol et al., 2008).

2. Review literature

In There have been shifts in scholastic acceptance of peer-editing feedback in L2 writing throughout the history of language instruction (Wondim et al., 2023). According to behaviorism theory, error correction in writing context was viewed as a linguistic shortcoming of students (D. R. Ferris, 2010). Later, during the constructivist theory of learning, writing errors were viewed as a natural process (Clark, 2012). Although many scholars confirmed peer-editing is one of the learning activities that aim to promote collaborative learning approaches in the context of writing classrooms (Clark, 2012; Ferguson, 2011; D. Ferris, 2003; D. R. Ferris, 2010; Lei, 2012; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017; Razali et al., 2021; Sadler, 2010), there are debates on the worth of its effectiveness and implementation approaches (Wondim et al., 2023). Even scholars disagreed on the effectiveness of peer-editing. In this regard, students work their writing activities in pairs or groups to critically review others’ pieces of writing and provide constructive feedback to their peers (Insai & Poonlarp, 2017; Zhang et al., 2022). In this study, peer-editing was used as a strategy for collaborative learning in general and as a tool for feedback in the context of L2 writing Achievement in particular. Based on this, the theoretical framework and previous research issues are discussed in the following sections.

2.1. Peer-editing in writing process

The teacher provides the majority of feedback responses during the writing education process (Carless & Boud, 2018; Nicol, 2010; Yüce & Aksu, 2019), and the method of correction is a written response (Clark, 2012; D. Ferris, 2003; D. R. Ferris, 2010; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017; Razali et al., 2021). This is typically accomplished by assigning a topic to students and then reading and correcting their work (Dunlosky et al., 2013; Huisman et al., 2019), and most teachers are not seen to play any role beyond this (Ellis, 2008; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Muhammad et al., 2021). This has little impact on students’ L2 writing achievement; rather than providing feedback on summative work, it is preferable to respond to students at each level based on their progress (Ferguson, 2011; Lei, 2012; Sadler, 2010). If this is not done, the majority of students will be dissatisfied with the feedback they receive (Austria, 2017; Nicol, 2010). The reason for this is that teachers’ feedback is insufficient and unproportionate (Austria, 2017; D. R. Ferris, 2010; Sufi & Ibrahim, 2021); it is not given on time; it focuses on criticizing and finding flaws rather than building; and students are unwilling to accept the advice and correction they are given (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009; Razali et al., 2021).

This study’s conceptual framework is based on Vygostsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory of learning and Flower’s and Hayes (1981) cognitive process theory of writing. According to Vygotsky (1978), knowledge can be constructed through the collaboration of knowledgeable peers. In this context, peer-editing is one of the collaborative learning strategies that have been implemented in L1 and L2 writing classrooms (Campbell & Batista, 2023). According to Insai and Poonlarp (2017), peer-editing is now widely recognized as a technique that can be effectively incorporated into the writing practice process. Writing in a second or foreign language, on the other hand, becomes a complicated process because it involves both the cognitive process and background knowledge in the target language in terms of genre, culture, values, and so on (Insai & Poonlarp, 2017; Petrović et al., 2017), and a variety of factors may influence language users when they write in a target language (Huisman et al., 2019). Writing, according to Flower and Hayes (1981), is renowned for being a collection of distinct thought processes that writers organize their writing hierarchically from topic selection to the final revision and publishing stages while attempting to compose. Peer-editing, according to Flower and Hayes (1981), requires stage-based implementation of the writing process. However, the concept of peer-editing and the process it entails present numerous difficulties for both teachers and students (Banister, 2020; D. R. Ferris, 2010; Wondim et al., 2023). Carless and Boud (2018) developed the concept of student feedback literacy in this case. They contend that learners who are feedback literate will apply the writing process and the goal of peer-editing practice more effectively. The created feedback model includes four strategies for students participating in the feedback loop within the learning context: 1) recognizing the peer feedback mechanism, 2) making judgments, 3) dealing with affect, and 4) taking action.

Implementing peer-editing in L2 writing classrooms has numerous benefits, including increasing students’ engagement in the writing process (Campbell & Batista, 2023; Carless & Boud, 2018), facilitating student-centered learning environments, and facilitating student-centered learning environments (Banister, 2020; Campbell & Batista, 2023; Nimehchisalem et al., 2021; Nugroho, 2021). Peer-editing has long been used in first language writing contexts (Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017), and it helps facilitate collaborative learning environments (Chong, 2022; Deni & Zainal, 2011). Recent research has found that peer-editing can have a positive impact on first language writing classrooms (Brusa & Harutyunyan, 2019; Lei, 2017; Muhammad et al., 2021), and that when it is implemented in writing classrooms, students perceive it positively. However, studies in L2 have shown that it is ineffective because potential peer-editors lack the knowledge to evaluate their peers’ writing and frequently provide inaccurate or irrelevant feedback (Campbell & Batista, 2023; Nimehchisalem et al., 2021; Razali et al., 2021; Sadler, 2010). Furthermore, the majority of students focused on local issues during the peer-editing process. The local feedback emphasizes the composing elements of vocabulary, grammar, and punctuation (Khairuddin et al., 2021; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017). Though peer-editing studies have shown a positive impact on both first and second language writing (Campbell & Batista, 2023; Frank et al., 2018; Nugroho, 2021), English as a foreign language writing teachers have become hesitant to implement it in writing classes due to potential inaccuracy of feedback on L2 writing by editors (Carless & Boud, 2018; Razali et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022).

2.2. The need to study

Writing requires a thorough understanding of the text as a process because it is not always possible to receive timely feedback to establish a writing framework to adhere to, and language users may be required to create accessible, clear, appropriate, and instructive texts. To successfully meet communication needs, proper use of the target language, as well as cogent presentation and structuring of ideas, play critical roles in the writing process (Banister, 2020; Frank et al., 2018). There are several solutions to this problem, one of which is peer-editing teaching (Chong, 2022; D. R. Ferris, 2010; Farrah, 2012; H. T. Min, 2016; Orsmond et al., 2013). Among the major issues are the teacher’s backward teaching methods, the preparation of teaching tools, a lack of student interest, a lack of sessions, and an increase in the number of students (Nimehchisalem et al., 2021). Teacher feedback has been used for several years, and now most language teachers prioritize peer-editing as a contribution to student-centered teaching (Lei, 2017; Nicol, 2010; Orsmond et al., 2013). The teacher’s opinion, according to Sufi and Ibrahim (2021), is general and does not explain in detail, whereas peer-editing is a detailed and clear opinion that demonstrates and supports each one, making it preferable to the above.

Although studies on peer-editing-based first and second language writing have been conducted (Banister, 2020; Chong, 2022; Huisman et al., 2018, 2019; Latifi et al., 2021; Petrović et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022; Zhu & Carless, 2018), the findings may not be replicable and generalizable to the context of this study focus. For example, Campbell and Batista (2023) investigated the impact of peer-editing on writing achievement. According to the findings, peer-editing improves the context of first language writing. According to Insai and Poonlarp (2017), while peer-editing has a positive impact on first language writing, its effectiveness in second or foreign language writing contexts is debatable. Chong (2022) also suggested researching the effect of peer feedback in peer-editing, as well as the outcomes of their writing and oral feedback, and, if necessary, the uptake rate of each feedback type. Furthermore, no previous research has looked into the sub-skills of writing. According to D. Ferris (2003, 2010), there are five sub-skills of writing in the composing exercise: 1) writing content or intent, 2) organization or idea construction, 3) language use or grammar, 4) word choice and use, and 5) mechanics or writing style. As a result, research on peer-editing in L2 writing reveals that personal and contextual factors play a role (Latifi et al., 2021; Lei, 2017; Nugroho, 2021; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017; Yüce & Aksu, 2019), because previous studies are no longer applicable to the context of this study.

As a result, a review of the literature reveals a focus on the effect of peer-editing on writing achievement (for example, Chong, 2022; Huisman et al., 2018, 2019; Lee, 2017; Zhu & Carless, 2018), but a surprisingly limited discussion of the effect of peer-editing in each writing sub-skill in the L2 context is the inspiration for this study. It seeks to investigate the role of peer-editing in improving students’ writing achievement from the perspective of 11th grade Ethiopian high school students, and it includes the following questions to that end:

1. Does peer-editing improve L2 students’ writing achievement?

2. Does peer-editing help L2 students improve their writing sub-skills?

3. Hypotheses of the study

Although there are some disagreements about the effectiveness of peer-editing (see, Chong, 2022; D. Ferris, 2003; D. R. Ferris, 2010; Huisman et al., 2018, 2019; Lei, 2017; Nicol, 2010; Orsmond et al., 2013; Wondim et al., 2023; Zhu & Carless, 2018), many studies have attempted to demonstrate that it has many benefits and plays an important role in improving L2 students’ learning performance. Based on the scholars’ literature, the following hypotheses are designed in a positive manner.

H1:

Peer-editing has an effect on the writing achievement of L2 students.

H1:

Peer-editing has an effect on the writing sub-skills of L2 students.

4. Research methods

The primary goal of this research is to look into the effect of peer-editing on L2 students’ writing achievement. A quasi-experimental design was used to achieve this goal. Before the peer-editing implementation in writing achievement, there were two participant groups and a pre-test. Following that, the two groups were taught using different methods, with the experimental group learning through peer-editing and the control group learning through formal text book preparation. After learning in this manner, it was determined what the difference in achievement and sub-skills would be in the post-test they took.

4.1. Context and participants

The participants groups were chosen for the study purpose because the study design was quasi-experimental. This study’s participants included 72 11th grade students from Kamba Secondary School, Gamo Zone in Ethiopia. The study was chosen using cluster random sampling from Kamba city secondary schools after receiving official approval letter from the responsible authorities. During the preliminary planning stage, the 11th grade students at the school were divided into seven groups and taught by the same teacher in the same shift. Two of the seven natural groups were required for a quasi-experiment among 11th grade students at the school. A simple lottery was used to select two groups for the study, one experimental and one control. Regardless of gender or age, 57% of the 72 participants were male, 43% were female, and all were between the ages of 15 and 19. Concerning the teacher, there is an L2 teacher who teaches the school’s 11th grade students, and he was specifically chosen to teach the students chosen for practice. The teacher taught all of the categories, one through peer-editing and the other through traditional writing practice (as usual). To help him with this, a schedule that was convenient for the teacher was devised, and he was given training for two hours a day for two days, as well as one day for a total of six hours. During the implementation process, the experimental group was assisted by peer-editing, and the control group was made to take the same post-test as the control group in the usual way.

4.2. Data collection instruments

Written tests were used to collect data during data collection to answer the questions raised in this study. This was given to both groups before and after the implementation of peer-editing for two different reasons: to assess students’ writing achievement and to assess students’ writing achievement. Prior to beginning the study, it is critical to confirm the level of writing achievement in both groups of students. For this purpose, a pre-test that primarily assesses students’ backgrounds writing success has been produced. Then, how do the writing assignments in the grade-level textbook appear prior to the pre-test? It has been taken note of. Repetitive writing tasks and questions are selected, and the questions are designed to correspond with the textbook’s content and presentation. To collect relevant information in the exam and ensure its reliability, it has been divided into two parts: pre- and post-tests.

The pre- and post-tests differ in content but are presented in the same format. In terms of question number, approach, and structure, these are the same. The exams differ in content and approach because if they take the same exam twice, they will be able to remember what they did before and correct their mistakes. With these important points in mind, a test has been prepared in which four alternative topics are presented to students, and they are asked to choose two and write an essay of at least one page. In the exam, they were asked to design a contribution ahead of time, and they were advised to prepare a first draft before doing the main work directly using the time allotted to them.

The questions used for data collection instruments in the pre- and post-tests were prepared in four instructions and alternative topics or guides for each session. In each exam, four topics were presented, and students were asked to choose two of the optional topics and write about them. The instructions presented in the pre- and post-tests were as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1. Pre- and post-tests instructions and test type clues

During pre-test

During post-test

Summarize the following three-paragraph essay into one paragraph After reading the following poem and understanding its meaning, write it down in one paragraph essay People go about their daily lives accompanied by various experiences. Experience has never been separated from the daily life of human beings. You, write about your own or someone else’s (family, friend, etc.) experience Compose a letter addressing the following issue. When you write a letter, it is expected to include the sender’s identity and address, the date, the recipient’s identity and address, respect/greeting, message (which may include an introduction, commentary, and conclusion), closing, and the writer’s signature and name.

write a paragraph choosing one of the topics given (Time, Apologize, and Environmental cleanliness) After reading the following poem and understanding its meaning, write it down in one paragraph People go about their daily lives accompanied by various experiences. Experience has never been separated from the daily life of human beings. You write about your own or someone else’s (family, friend, etc.) experience Write your own or someone else’s autobiography based on the autobiographical guide provided below in note form

Students were expected to write at least two of the questions based on the instructions and alternative topics, and each of the students’ written papers was measured by the rubric, which included content, organization, word choice and use, language use (grammar), and mechanics or writing style, and to ensure the accuracy of the pre- and post-tests, three high school teachers checked the test for validity issues. The prepared exams in this process were based on the class-level curriculum; their comments were based on the fact that they used the same questioning strategy and the time allotted for the test. As a result, the 40 minutes given for the pre- and post-tests were not enough, and it was amended to give them an hour or more.

4.3. Quality measurements

This study’s quality measurements include intervention procedures, instrument validity, and instrument reliability. The problem stems from the data collection procedure, which took place between December and March of the academic year 2020–2021. Before beginning the study, a cooperation letter from the prestigious Arba Minch University was requested, and the school’s permission was granted. The selected participants also expressed a willingness to meet and discuss the study’s purpose. According to the students, the study information will be kept strictly confidential and used only for the purpose of the study. Both groups participated in this discussion. By taking the necessary precautions to carry out the exercise, an agreement was reached with the students and teachers to hold the lesson in opposite sessions, and the schedule was communicated to the school, teachers, and students. At the time of this study, the L2 writing achievement was taught for 90 minutes per week, but it was actually taught twice a week for two hours each time. As a result, ten sessions totaling 20 hours, excluding pre- and post-test sessions, were held. Efforts were made to complete the study on time, but due to the nationwide closure of the school due to the global epidemic of COVID-19, students were able to take the post-test without completing the two-hour writing practice as planned. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 was introduced in 2019, but it is quickly spreading throughout the world. In Ethiopia, the pandemic began in the second half of March 2020. As a result, the Ethiopian government announced that all schools in the country would be closed beginning 26 March 2020.

The procedure’s other concern was the validity and dependability of the instruments. In this study, construct validity was utilized to check the instruments that the students used in their written papers. This is because construct validity encompasses various types of validity. Because the data instruments were psychological and emotional concepts that could not be verified statistically, construct validity can be assessed at various stages of the data collection process. Inter-rater reliability was used throughout the study process to ensure data consistency. During the pre- and post-tests, students were given four topic options from which to choose two for each test period. Inter-rater reliability was used to evaluate the dependability of the students’ written papers. The written papers were collected and duplicated in three copies to distribute to three scorers, who were given four papers from each student to score using the rubric provided. As a result, each scorer graded four papers from each student, and the results were analyzed using the inter-rater reliability scale. The result was .76, indicating that the data collection instrument was satisfactory.

4.4. Data analysis techniques

Before beginning the data analysis, the data collected from pre- and post-tests were filtered and organized against some assumptions of the quasi-experimental analysis. First and foremost, it was confirmed that the data collection tools were capable of obtaining reliable and accurate data for the main study. Following that, their distribution level was reviewed with descriptive statistics at items and revealed a normal distribution because the Skewness and Kurtosis values were between+1.5 and −1.5. The scores were calculated, and there were no significant extreme outliers that could influence the mean scores for data analysis. Using an independent sampling t-test and a multivariate analysis of variance, mean values and standard deviation were used to show the differences in test scores between the experimental and control groups. The independent sampling t-test statistical form was used for the first question of this research to compare the experimental and control groups of participants in the pre- and post-tests. MANOVA statistics were used to compare the differences between the treatment and control groups on the five writing sub-skills on both the composite and individual scores. However, the mean values alone could not distinguish whether there were statistically significant differences between the mean values of the scores to investigate the effectiveness of peer-editing on the targeted L2 writing Achievement. As a result, inferential statistical analysis was used to compare the scores. Finally, throughout the study, a 5% (α = 0.05) significance level was used.

5. Results

The primary goal of this study was to look into the impact of peer-editing on L2 writing achievement among Ethiopian secondary school students. To achieve this goal, 72 11th grade students were divided into two groups (the control group, which attended the lesson as usual, and the experimental group, which attended the lesson with the assistance of peer-editing) and participated in the writing process implementation. Pre- and post-tests were used to collect data for the study. Examining the test learning outcomes, peer-editing was examined to determine whether it was beneficial in improving L2 students’ writing achievement and detailed sub-skills.

5.1. Effect of peer-editing on students’ writing achivement

To answer the first question and confirm the first hypothesis of this study, the results of the pre- and post-tests of writing achievement were calculated by an independent sampling t-test in the following Tables 2 and 3:

Table 2. Descriptive statistics overall writing achievement participants

Session	Group	N	M	SD	SE
Pre-test results	Control group	36	53.94	5.63	0.93
	Experimental group	36	53.86	4.70	0.78
Post-test results	Control group	36	54.33	5.66	0.94
	Experiemental group	36	64.25	3.69	0.61

Table 3. Independent sampling t-test results for L2 writing achievement

Session	Group	t(70)	P	Cohen’s d
Pre-test results	Control group	.068	.946	—
	Experimental group
Post-test results	Control group	8.80	0.001	0.113
	Experimental group

Table 2 displays the mean scores for writing achievement achieved by participants during the pre-test and post-test. During the pre-test, the mean score and standard deviations of the participants in this study were 53.94 and 5.63 for the control group, and 53.86 and 4.70 for the experimental group. However, in the post-test, the mean score and standard deviations of participant students’ writing achievement scores were 54.33 and 5.66 in the control group, and 64.25 and 3.69 in the experimental group. However, the mean and standard deviation values cannot determine whether there is a statistical difference between the mean values of the two participant groups in the study. Finally, the inferential statistics of independent sampling t-test was used to determine the differences in Table 3.

It was very interesting to see if the participants in this study had comparable writing achievement or if their linguistic backgrounds differed during the course of the study. To that end, an independent sampling t-test was run to determine whether or not there were statistically significant differences between study participants prior to treatment. The inferential statistics test result in Table 2 indicated by the p-value t(70) = 0.68, p = 0.946. That is, no statistically significant differences in the scores of participant students’ L2 writing achievement were found among Ethiopian high school students prior to treatment. This meant that prior to the treatment; participant students had comparable writing abilities.

Although no statistically significant difference in L2 students’ writing achievement was found in the pre-test, a statistically significant difference was found in the post-test, as shown in Table 2. The result was t(70) = 8.80, p = 0.001; d = 0.113, indicating that the participant groups of this study differed depending on the peer-editing pedagogical strategy provided on the L2 writing achievement. The aforementioned eta effect size can be taken as a medium effect size (2) from the benchmark given by Cohen’s d, who classified partial d, where d = 0.01 is a small effect size, d = 0.06 is a medium effect size and d = 0.14 is a large effect size. Thus, based on the given boundaries of previous effect size, this study (d = 0.113) yields a medium effect size of 11.3%, implying that there is a significant relationship between the independent and dependent variables in the study. This indicated that the independent variable, peer-editing, had a moderate effect on the dependent variable, writing achievement. It can be stated that the effect of peer-editing on L2 writing achievement is 11.3%. As a result, peer-editing strategical type of feedback plays a role in improving L2 students’ writing achievement; the null hypothesis of the first question of this study was also accepted.

5.2. Effects of peer-editing on writing sub-skills

The data collected in the pre- and post-tests of writing sub-skills were analyzed using MANOVA to find the answer to the second question and test the second hypothesis. First, the data collected during the pre-test and post-test are analyzed, as shown in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. Means, standard deviation and multivariate analysis of variance statistics for pre-test of writing sub-skills

writing sub-skills	participants groups	pre- test			F(1,70)	P	η2
		N	M	SD
Content	Control	36	50.88	6.15	.194	.661	.003
	Experimental	36	50.34	4.19
Organization	Control	36	59.16	7.31	.001	.999	.001
	Experimental	36	59.16	5.27
Word choice	Control	36	56.38	6.82	.417	.520	.006
	Experimental	36	57.36	5.91
Language use	Control	36	51.88	5.77	.941	.335	.013
	Experimental	36	50.66	4.87
Mechanics	Control	36	50.00	10.14	2.863	.095	.039
	Experimental	36	53.88	9.34

Table 5. Means, standard deviations and multiple analysis of variance of post-test of writing sub-skills

writing sub-skills	participants groups	Post-test			F(1,70)	P	η2
		N	M	SD
Content	Control	36	50.55	6.40	33.02	0.001	.321
	Experimental	36	57.68	3.80
Organization	Control	36	59.16	7.79	79.98	0.001	.533
	Experimental	36	73.05	5.10
Word choice	Control	36	57.22	7.69	119.95	0.001	.631
	Experimental	36	72.63	3.48
Language use	Control	36	52.66	3.76	15.342	0.001	.180
	Experimental	36	56.22	3.93
Mechanics	Control	36	54.44	9.08	74.05	0.001	.541
	Experimental	36	75.00	11.08

Table 4 contains the findings, means, standard deviations, and multivariate analysis of variance scores from the study of high school students’ linguistic backgrounds in relation to the writing sub-skills during the pre-test. The means and standard deviations of the writing sub-skills pre-test results for the control and experimental groups participating in the study were: content M = 50.88; SD = 6.15 and M = 50.34; SD = 4.19, organization M = 59.16; SD = 7.31 and M = 59.36; SD = 5.91, language use M = 51.88; SD = 5.77 and M = 50.66; SD = 4.87, and mechanics M = 50.00; SD = 10.14 and M = 53.88; SD = 9.34 respectively. Moreover, the sub-skills statistical computed results shown in Table 3, no statistically significant difference at p = 0.05 level, when content F(1,70) = .194, p = .661, η2 = .003, organization F(1,70) = .000, p = 1.00, η2 = .001, word choice F(1,70) = .417, p = .520, η2 = .006, language use F(1,70) = .941, p = .335, η2 = .013 and mechanics F(1,70) = 2.863, p = .095, η2 = .039. The pre-test results in Table 4 revealed no statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups in the five L2 writing sub-skills, as indicated by p > .05 at the α = .05 significance level or 95% confidence level. This demonstrates that there were no statistically significant differences in the writing subskills of high school students prior to the intervention. According to the pre-test results, L2 students had comparable language backgrounds in their writing sub-skills prior to treatment, demonstrating that their prior linguistic performance would not affect the study’s outcome. The results also confirmed that the L2 students’ writing skills were unaffected by their writing performances.

Table 5 was also used to see if there were any statistically significant differences between the means, standard deviations, and multivariate analysis of variance results of the study’s participant groups in the post-test performances.

Table 5 shows that the students who participated in peer-editing strategy writing practice during the intervention outperformed their counterparts in the control group by a mean and standard deviation difference of: M = 50.55; SD = 6.40 and M = 57.68; SD = 3.80, organization, M = 59.16; SD = 7.79 and M = 73.05; SD = 5.10, word choice, M = 57.22; SD = 7.69 and M = 72.63; SD = 3.48, language use, M = 52.66; SD = 3.76 and M = 56.22; SD = 3.93, and mechanics, M = 54.44; SD = 9.08 and M = 75.00; SD = 11.08. Although no statistically significant difference in L2 students’ writing Skill was found in the pre-test results, a statistically significant difference was found in the post-test results, as shown in Table 5. The p-values and size effects of the L2 writing sub-skills during the post-test were found to be statistically significant at the α = 0.05 level. Based on this, the inferential statistics results are as follows: content, F(1,70) = 33.02, p = .001, η2 =.321, organization, F(1,70) = 79.98, p = .001, η2 =.533, word choice, F(1,70) = 119.95, p = .001, η2 =.631, language use, F(1,70) = 15.34, p = .001, η2 =.18, and mechanics df (70), F = 74.05, p = .001, η2 =.541. This demonstrates that the peer-editing pedagogical strategy provided on the L2 students’ writing sub-skills differed between the two study participant groups.

The findings suggested that there were statistically significant differences in the writing sub-skills of participants in the intervention group. According to the five results of writing sub-skills, peer-editing is the most effective pedagogical strategy in Ethiopian L2 writing instruction. The results also stated that these changes were caused by the treatment given to the experimental group during the first stage of the study. The aforementioned eta effect size (η2) can be considered a large effect size from the benchmark as described in Table 3. Thus, based on the given Cohens’d boundaries, the effect sizes of the five L2 writing sub-skills in this study are large (η2 >.14). As a result, this implies that there are significant relationships between the independent and dependent variables in the study. This indicated that the independent variable, peer-editing, had a significant impact on the dependent variable, writing sub-skills. The effect of peer-editing on L2 writing sub-skills is as follows: content 32.1%, organization 53.3%, word choice 63.1%, language use 18%, and mechanics 54.1%. As a result, peer-editing feedback plays a role in assisting L2 students in improving writing sub-skills. Furthermore, the findings suggest that peer-editing is an important pedagogical strategy for assisting Ethiopian L2 writing students. The null hypothesis of the second question of this study was also accepted as a result of this.

6. Discussions, conclusions and implications

The primary goal of this study was to investigate the effect of peer-editing on the writing achievement of L2 students. The study used a quasi-experiment design to test two hypotheses. Throughout the study, data was collected using pre- and post-tests. In addition, the data analysis techniques Independent sampling t-test and MANOVA were used. The following are the results that were discussed and concluded.

6.1. Discussions

The first question sought to ascertain whether peer-editing improves L2 students’ writing achievement. The post-test data analysis revealed that, despite scoring comparable results in the pre-tests, the average scores of the experimental group students, who learned to write with the help of peers, were higher than the control group students. Meanwhile, the findings revealed a significant improvement in the L2 students’ writing achievement in the Ethiopian high school context. Thus, this study’s findings are consistent with previous studies’ findings that peer-editing can be implemented with interesting writing activities (Nugroho, 2021), is a key pedagogical strategy that improves L2 students’ writing performances (Wondim et al., 2023), is useful to improve the quality of students’ writing tasks (Insai & Poonlarp, 2017; Khairuddin et al., 2021; Lei, 2017), and can improve the students’ writing practices (Deni & Zainal, 2011). On the contrary, some studies have revealed that peer-editing can be both accurate and incorrect (Campbell & Batista, 2023; Zhu & Carless, 2018), that the acceptance of peer-feedback results is questionable if the study only used a quantitative method (Carless & Boud, 2018; Chong, 2022), that there is no direct relationship between peer feedback and students’ writing performance (Huisman et al., 2018), and that the effects of peer feedback (Huisman et al., 2019). In relation to previous studies, one possible interpretation of this study’s findings is that peer-editing is a contentious issue among academics. However, this study discovered that peer-editing can help L2 students improve their writing achievement. As a result, the results showed that peer-editing can help improve L2 writing achievement when students are learning to write.

The study’s second question was to investigate the effect of peer-editing on students’ writing sub-achievements. It also confirmed the hypothesis that peer-editing helps L2 students improve their writing sub-skills. The data from the writing pre- and post-tests were analyzed for this, and the average scores of the experimental group students who learned writing through peer-editing were found to be higher than the average scores of the post-test writing sub-skills. Inferential statistics were used to analyze the results, which revealed a significant (p = .001) difference. The hypothesis presented in positive form is also accepted. Thus, peer-editing suggests that the role of peer-to-peer teaching in improving the sub-skills of writing of 11th grade Ethiopian high school students is beneficial. Although there are limitations to studies conducted in the writing sub-skills, the results of this study agree with previous studies that indicate peer-editing is beneficial in the academic writing sub-skills (Insai & Poonlarp, 2017; Nugroho, 2021; Yüce & Aksu, 2019; Zhang et al., 2022). In contrast to Chong’s (2022) study, without discussion between the teacher and the students, peer-editing or peer feedback will not have a significant impact on the students’ writing skills. As a result of the similarities in the subscales, the experimental nature of the studies, and the similarities in the study results, they are supportive.

To summarize, while peer-editing is a skill that students should master because it will be used in their future profession, the literature must continue to practice and experience it in the L2 writing context (Insai & Poonlarp, 2017). Furthermore, peer-editing allows you to practice decision-making and problem-solving strategies. These strategies could be developed in L2 academic writing classes. Peer-editing has a positive impact on students’ writing achievement and sub-skills, demonstrating that writing education can produce better results if given enough attention and applied properly. As a result, it concludes that it is necessary to pay attention to the response of peer-editing through various exercises.

6.2. Conclusions and implications

The study’s goal was to look into the role of peer-editing training in improving L2 students’ writing achievement. The research questions were answered after the study’s participants were trained in peer-editing Skill and learned it through traditional writing teaching approaches. It was possible to confirm the hypotheses. In addition, to respond to the research questions and test the hypotheses, the study participants were chosen and trained around their schedules. Data from pre- and post-tests were collected and analyzed when creating achievement tests. When the results were compared, there was a significant difference between the experimental and control groups. This demonstrates that peer-editing training has a positive effect on the writing achievement of 11th grade students in both research questions. The pre-planned hypothesis was also accepted.

Students in the peer-editing writing practice condition outperform in both overall and sub-skills. To accomplish this, the existing 11th grade course was used to implement the peer-editing-based writing process. This condition encourages students to participate in their own learning. However, the students in the controlled group did not fare as well as those in the experimental group. The reason for this could be that students in the experimental group learned how to provide peer-editing feedback and how to process writing practice using the core elements (content, organization, grammar, word choice and use, and writing style) of writing achievement. Furthermore, empirical studies show that, while students may have knowledge of peer-editing and writing theory, they are not always able to apply that knowledge during the learning writing process (Latifi et al., 2021). Although previous research has looked into the effect of peer-editing feedback on L2 students’ writing, there are still some issues that need to be addressed in order to develop an understanding of how to comment and edit modes of peer-editing. These modes are critical in collaborative learning in general, and in the peer feedback based writing process in particular.

As a result, the study’s questions were answered, and the hypotheses and objectives were investigated. Based on the study’s findings, the following comments and suggestions were made: To improve students’ writing Skill, it is necessary to provide training to both language teachers and students about the peer-editing process, as well as to prepare and empower them in a way that allows them to use peer-editing. When language teachers teach writing achievement through peer-editing, they create an environment in which they can improve students’ writing achievement more effectively. Peer-editing gradually reduces teacher pressure, allowing students to plan and work independently, freely give and receive ideas, and boost their self-confidence. It is necessary to teach them to write through peer-editing because it allows them to work and learn independently. Furthermore, if language curriculum experts and textbook editors use peer-editing as one strategy of writing instruction when selecting content and planning writing activities, students’ writing problems can be reduced and improved. Based on this study, if the effectiveness of peer-editing in terms of the five sub-skills of writing is taken into account by teachers and educational experts in a way that looks at each of them in depth, if a large amount of time is taken and a large sample study is done, the results obtained in this study can be improved.

7. Study limitations

Although the time and session used in this study are adequate for the study, because it was conducted in a short period of time and due to the sudden COVID-19 pandemic, the results of the research may have been impacted, so it is preferable if it is conducted over a longer period of time. Another issue is that by separating the age and gender of the students during the study, it appears from the general data that they have a comparable gender combination, but this may have influenced the study because they did not explore it in depth in the study, so a larger study including the combination of age and gender is required. The current writing problem can be improved, and measurable results can be obtained, if school administration bodies, education offices, and students allow adequate time for consultation and dialogue in light of the time required for peer-editing. Peer-editing may benefit 11th grade students if properly implemented, but there may be gaps in the implementation stages or the students’ comprehension level of peer-editing. More time and a study conducted by teachers and other educational professionals with a diverse range of participants could yield results that would significantly contribute to the development of students’ writing achievement. Furthermore, good results can be obtained if the impact on students is investigated.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sirak Sahle

Sirak Sahle has received his M.A. degree in TeAm from Arba Minch University, Ethiopia. He has taught Amharic at various levels for more than 10 years. Currently, he is teaching at Kamba Secondary School. Besides, he is keen on conducting research related to language teaching, teacher education, etc.

Yirga A. Siawk

Yirga A. Siyawk has received his Ph.D. degree in sociolinguistics from Andhra University, India. He has taught applied linguistics and sociolinguistics courses at various levels and institutions for more than 20 years. Currently, he has been teaching and supervising M.A.. students who are conducting their theses or dissertations at Arba Minch University. Besides, he is keen on conducting research related to language teaching, teacher education, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, etc.

Hailay T. Gebremariam

Hailay T. Gebremariam is an assistant professor in the College of Social Science and Humanities at Arba Minch University, Ethiopia. He obtained his Ph.D. in TeAm from Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia. Currently, he has been teaching and supervising M.A. students who are conducting their theses at Arba Minch University. Besides, he has articles published in reputable journals. He is keen on conducting and reviewing research related to language education, especially in the areas of assessment, teaching, teacher education, higher education, primary school education, etc.