The Use of Online Paired and Grouped Peer Feedback in Improving Low Proficiency Students’ English Grammatical Ability


  • Rotsana Kittiwat M.A. Student, Teaching English as an International Language, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai Campus, Thailand
  • Somruedee Khongphut Ph.D., Department of Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai Campus, Thailand


Online peer feedback, grammatical ability in writing, low proficiency students, online paired peer feedback, online grouped peer feedback


          The study aimed to investigate and compare the effects of online paired peer feedback (OPP) and grouped peer feedback (OGP) on Mattayomsuksa 6 students’ English grammatical ability in writing. Two intact groups of fifty-four Mattayomsuksa 6 students studying at a secondary school in Hatyai, Songkhla were purposively selected as participants in this study. They were assigned to two experimental groups, namely, OPP group (n = 22) and OGP group (n = 32). The instruments employed in this study were pre- and post-writing tests, writing tasks and semi-structured interviews. The pre- and post-writing tests were used to obtain the accuracy scores of targeted grammatical points. The writing tasks were employed to reveal the frequency of students’ comments on the four grammatical aspects, and the interview data were used to illustrate students’ reflections on the targeted grammatical aspects they focused on when giving comments. The quantitative data gathered from the pre- and post-writing tests and the writing tasks were analyzed using descriptive statistics and t-test for means, standard deviation and percentage. The qualitative data collected from semi-structured interviews were analyzed and categorized into themes. The findings showed that neither types of peer feedback showed any significant difference in improving students’ overall grammatical ability in writing. However, both types were found to have practical significance to most of the targeted grammatical points at a low level. The findings suggest that peer feedback is beneficial for writing instruction. However, the teacher’s feedback is needed for low proficiency students.


Barrett, N. E., & Chen, L. M. (2011). English article errors in Taiwanese college students' EFL writing. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 16(3-4), 1-20.

Bennui, P. (2016). A study of L1 intereference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4(1), 31.

Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188.

Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(1), 93-121.

Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.

Crompton, P. (2011). Article errors in the English writing of advanced L1 Arabic learners: The role of transfer. Asian EFL Journal, 50(1), 4-35.

De Guerrero, M. C., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social‐cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.

Hansen, J., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 31–38.

Hedin, B. (2012). Peer feedback in academic writing using Google Docs. Proceedings of LTHs 7:e Pedagogiska Inspirationskonferens. Retrieved from

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. & Hyland,F. (eds.) (2006a). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.

Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12-39.

Kaweera, C., & Usaha, S. (2008). The impact of different types of teacher written feedback on EFL university students’ writing. KKU Research Journal, 8(2), 83-94.

Likitrattanaporn, W. (2002). An analysis of English grammatical errors of third year students majoring in Accounting and Marketing, Faculty of Social Sciences, Srinakarinwirot University year 2000. Master of Arts Thesis, Srinakarinwirot Uiversity.

Mendoça, C. & K. Johnson (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–768.

Nonkukhetkhong, K. (2013). Grammar error analysis of the first year English major students, Udon Thani Rajabhat University. Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Language Learning 2013. (pp. 117-126). Osaka: The International Academic Forum.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.

Shehadeh, A. (2007). The effect of group and individual peer feedback on student writing in an EFL Gulf context. In C. Coombe & L. Barlow (Eds.), Language teacher research in the Middle East (pp. 147-160). Virginia, USA: TESOL.

Siengsawang, P. (2006). An investigation of needs and opinions of the academic writing in the MA/ESP Program at Kasetsart University. Master of Art Thesis in English for Specific Purposes, Kasetsart University.

Stanley, G. (2011). Approaches to process writing. Retrieved July 4, 2011., from

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In M. P. Garcı´a Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–177). London: Multilingual Matters.

Suwangard, N.(2014) Grammatical error correction and retention in EFL students: A case study of EFL students in Thailand. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 19(12), 51-58.

Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3), 285-304.

Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-8). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2012). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89.

Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235.

Van der Geest, T., & Remmers, T. (1994). The computer as means of communication for peer-review groups. Computers and Composition, 11(3), 237-250.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watcharapunyawong, S., & Usaha, S. (2013). Thai EFL students' writing errors in different text types: The interference of the first language. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 67.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991a). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Williams, J., & Cui, G. (2005). Teaching writing in second and foreign language classrooms. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572-593.

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Understanding the role of learners with low English language proficiency in peer feedback of second language writing. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 483–494.

Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251-276.




How to Cite

Kittiwat, R., & Khongphut, S. (2019). The Use of Online Paired and Grouped Peer Feedback in Improving Low Proficiency Students’ English Grammatical Ability. Journal of Liberal Arts Prince of Songkla University, 11(2), 124–153. Retrieved from



Research Articles