Palavras-chave: Inglês; escrita,
feedback dos pares; perspectiva; aprendizagem significativa.
Introduction
Writing
is considered an essential part of the language learning process (Harmer,
1998). Bérešová (2017) pointed out that writing is significant for daily life
communication. Thus, it is relevant to measure the students’ writing skills and
their capacity to organize structures and rephrase them on their own, taking an
audience in mind. However, writing in a foreign language became unquestionably
the most challenging language skill to enhance in academic contexts (Negari,
2011). Godwin-Jones (2018) highlighted that “the complexity of online writing
environments has increased the need for both learner and teacher training.” (p.
5). Widosari et at. (2017) stated that writing is more demanding than the other
language skills; a study done at Thaksin University to 28 third year
English-minor students showed that learners faced writing problems which
impacts the quality of written production (Bennui, 2016), and Ecuador is not an
exception.
The
Ecuadorian Ministry of Education is aware of this situation and has taken some
changes to enhance the foreign language subject in the country; one of the
actions included the International Baccalaureate Program in the national
curriculum (Ministerio de Educación, 2017). Ecuador was recognized as one of
the Latin American countries with a high number of candidates inside the
Diploma Program (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2013). This
organization is a well-known learning program that promotes international-mindedness
in learners by interacting with society to enhance a better education (Belal,
2017). Unfortunately, this program ended for the public institutions in 2019
because of the country's economic situation.
Students
in the International Baccalaureate Program should demonstrate a high level of
writing production. Its assessments require creating different complex types of
informal and formal texts (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2014). A
research study conducted on seventeen first-year Ecuadorian students of the
International Baccalaureate program in a public high school assures that
participants showed difficulties in writing skill before taking the external
assessments (Pinela, 2020). According to Ortega and Auccahuallpa (2017), students
have the lowest results in developing writing skills compared to the other
language components.
Moreover, study research piloted among twenty intermediate Ecuadorian EFL
students who belonged to the second course of the International Baccalaureate
program in a public high school in Guayaquil - Ecuador, demonstrated that
learners struggled with the elaboration and organization of different written
tasks during the development of the writing process (Cedeño, 2019).
A
similar reality has been shown in participants in this research. Twenty-nine
first-year International Baccalaureate (IB) students from a public high school
of the Coast region of Ecuador considered writing one of the toughest skills to
boost. Most of them were not able to write English texts successfully because
of the lack of enough practice, interaction, and feedback. Some of these
problems were: they misunderstood how to follow proper structures, they could
not organize information, their coherence and cohesion were inappropriate, and
they showed lack of enthusiasm when they were exposed to writing activities. In
order to address the IB written standards effectively, applying peer feedback
in students’ writing ability level production may be the choice to improve this
language skill.
To
fulfill these expectations, the global scale of the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2018) pointed out that at the B1
level, a learner should write different types of texts, such as essays. Besides
that, students should share their ideas, opinions, reasons, and explanations of
a related topic (Figueras, 2007). Thence, writing is considered a complex
intellectual ability due to the implication of cognitive skill, mechanics,
grammar structure, and word choice in the target language (Ministerio de
Educación, 2014).
This
study appeals to use a peer feedback strategy facilitated by a digital tool
known as Google Docs as a solution to improve students’ writing skills.
According to Semeraro and Moore (2016), educators can use peer review and
Google Docs to monitor and guide group instruction and collaboration to enhance
students’ writing process. There are few studies that explored the role of
peer feedback in students’ writing essay performance online with positive
results (Huisman et al., 2018).
Ebadi
and Rahimi (2017) emphasized that in a research study done in a face-to-face
classroom on ten EFL learners’ academic writing skills, the peer editing
through the use of Google Docs, highlighted the positive perceptions in the
development of the academic writing skills and the impact of online peer
editing, making significant changes in their learning process. Nonetheless, a
study reported technological issues presented in learners’ writing education
during the development of their academic performances (Alvarez et al., 2022).
The authors conducted research on EFL Ecuadorian high school students to
investigate collaborative writing through Google Docs, obtaining favorable
results in the learners’ writing process.
However,
there is a gap in research related to the strategy of peer feedback facilitated
by Google Docs to enhance the writing process addressed to high school learners
in Manta, Ecuador. Despite the fact that integrating writing with technology
positively impacts education, this study aims to improve the writing process.
-
Literature
Review
-
Writing
Skill
Writing
is a significant language production skill which is challenging among English
as a second language (ESL) writing contexts (Fareed et at., 2016). Writing
skill allows learners to communicate their feelings and ideas on paper,
organize their thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge into substantial arguments, and
transfer meaning through a well-constructed text. Thus, young learners start
writing step by step since their childhood and build and develop new skills in
adulthood by elaborating complex sentences, paragraphs, letters, stories, and
essays. Meanwhile, learners evoke more experiences in writing; they also get
more knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and advanced writing skills (Mukundan
& Nimehchisalem, 2013).
English
Foreign Language (EFL) students show positive attitudes, perceptions,
interaction, and participation in developing their writing skills (Aydin,
2014). It is crucial to teach students that all skills have a process to reach
a meaningful product, and it is based on: conceptualization, formulation, and
articulation. Writing and the other skills follow these steps but include
proofreading, editing, scaffolding, and providing feedback to understand
better. The need to teach the cognitive complexity of writing emerges when the
learners have acquired the ability to develop the writing process (Fidalgo
& Torrance, 2017). According to Fareed et al. (2016), many factors affect
learners’ writing skill development, such as interference of L1, lack of motivation,
instructions, feedback, and others.
Writing Process
Writing
is a process with an interaction between the writer and the reader (Celce-Murcia,
2001). Abbott et al. (2010) mentioned that the complexity of writing involves
the acquisition of new knowledge, assimilation, reflection, planning,
production, adjustment, and a group of cognitive stages. Applying these
processes can fail in anxiety and frustration if they are not well implemented
(Maghsoudi & Haririan, 2013).
One
of the main obstacles that a learner presents when writing is: translating into
the mother language and not knowing how to start having disorganization and
lack of ideas. For that reason, it is essential to provide prewriting
activities to impact the quality of students’ writing performances positively (Graham
& Perin, 2007). Ferris and Hedgcock (2014) pointed out that writing is “a
type of system that combines semiotic, communicative, cognitive, and creative
functions” (p. 5).
Faraj
(2015) claimed that current methodologies support students’ writing practices
enhancing the writing process and providing writing experiences to learners
avoiding the traditional process that focused on the final product.
Consequently, the same author suggested the following five principal elements
of the writing process:
Prewriting
is the first part of the writing process. The writer can apply writing
techniques like clustering or listing to gather and organize information and
finally draw outlines for the topic to write. Drafting: during this stage, the
writer must highlight the main points and correct the writing mistakes.
Revising: the writer can check the paper's content, such as vocabulary, grammar
structures, and development of ideas, by discussing and checking it with the
teacher and peers. Editing: The writer is able to correct errors in grammar,
spelling, and punctuation, among others preparing the document for the final
presentation. Publishing: In this last stage, the document has been exposed to
many improvements to publish.
Essay
It is
a piece of writing where clear ideas and concepts are organized in a particular
academic way. According to Lindblom and Pihlajamaki (2003), learners could
enhance essay writing by providing feedback in a digital learning environment. An
essay has main stages to follow: Introduction where a brief overview of the
essay is given and sum up the argument in one sentence called the thesis
statement. Body Paragraphs: The main body of the text explains the ideas in
detail, then splits into other paragraphs, where clearly expose reasoning
information and evidence. Finally, the conclusion where the writer summarizes
the main key points and draws conclusions.
In
practice, it is frequent to observe students who lack prior preparation that
holds them back from writing essays (Flower & Hayes, 1981). They also
demonstrate problems when they have to generate ideas (Cedeño, 2019).
Peer Feedback
According
to Yu and Lee (2016), peer feedback is considered a great contribution to learn
from peers developing a social and collective meaningful educational
environment. Thus, learners can share effective peer feedback the same as the
teacher (Bijami et al., 2013). Vygotsky (as cited in Woolfolk, 2016) reflected
that cognitive development in students is stimulated by the interaction of
peers, family, and educators and the use of digital devices. Peer feedback is a
fundamental part of academic writing development. It provides students with a
different perspective by comparing other partners' work, assimilating new
information, offering reflective observations, and building knowledge through
meaningful comments (Huisman et al., 2018).
Additionally,
Wiggins (2012) mentioned that feedback helps individuals achieve goals by
improving the writing process. Collaborative writing advocates cooperative
group work, highlights students' understanding’s strengths and weaknesses, and
generates a sharing atmosphere (Challob et al., 2016). Yan (2019) mentioned
that working in groups allows students to decrease anxiety and nervousness
about writing and develop confidence in that skill. Nevertheless, certain
students prefer giving and receiving feedback from their teachers instead of
their peers because of their teaching experiences (Tsui & Ng, 2000).
Huisman et al. (2018) stated that students could improve their writing
performances by receiving peer feedback. Additionally, Wu and Schunn (2021) brought
up that through peer feedback, students are engaged to quickly revise, edit
documents, and improve their writing skills, increasing their output
production.
Google Docs
Education
has improved positively with the use of technology. Google Docs is a
technological tool that offers a great opportunity to enhance knowledge. Zhou
et al. (2012) appealed that Google Docs is an online word processing
collaborative learning application with such a great number of benefits to
educational purposes. The relevance of Google Docs deals with its components,
such as a word processor and a spreadsheet editor.
Krasnova
and Ananjev (2015) considered that it is not necessary to be inside the
classroom to learn because students do not learn in the same way. For this
reason, Google Docs has been selected as a technological tool to empower
students’ interaction and facilitate writing learning implementation.
Nonetheless, Solano et al. (2017) indicated that technology is not frequently
used in Ecuador due to the lack of application of technological devices in
public institutions.
Debatably,
the use of this sort of digital apps has its limitations in education. Zhou et
al. (2012) mentioned that some students do not know the use of this technology,
and it becomes a challenge to operate it. Moreover, the lack of success in
working with collaborative groups online results in socio-dynamic issues among
group members. Not all of them develop the knowledge, attitudes, and
predisposition to work in collaborative works (Vallance et al., 2010).
Therefore, educators should provide explicit and detailed class demonstrations
in order to overcome these tasks difficulties.
Considering
that students show complications in writing activities and the benefits of peer
feedback facilitated by technological tools; this
research study proposes the answer to these research questions:
· To what extent does peer feedback in the revising and editing
stages facilitated by Google Docs improve students’ essay writing?
· What difficulties do students have during this process?
· What are students’ perspectives towards peer feedback?
Methodology
Design
This study was action research since this kind of
method of investigation is used to collect information in the educational
process to enhance teaching methods and overcome teaching and learning issues
(Sut et al., 2018). To assist students in their problem with writing, peer
feedback was applied.
Participants
The sample consisted of 29 students, 19 females and
10 males selected among International Baccalaureate students from the first
Baccalaureate at a public high school. These students had a higher degree of
commitment to their studies. The students’ ages ranged from 16 to 17 years old.
Their mother language is Spanish, and they are required to have a B1.1 language
proficiency level (Ministerio de Educacion, 2012). For the purpose of this
innovation, the participants took a proficiency test online in a platform called
MM Online Placement Test (https://www.mmpublications.com/online-placement-test).
The results showed that four students were A1, thirteen students A2, ten
students B1, and two students B2.
Instruments
Pre and posttest
This instrument answered research question one
(improvement in students’ essay writing). At the beginning of the research,
participants took a pretest to know the average score in the class and a
posttest to know if the innovation applied with the sample had an impact on
students’ writings. The pre and posttest consisted of one question each.
Students had to write an essay about Global Warming and why it affects the
environment, cyberbullying, and how it affects teenagers’ lives. Students also
followed a rubric to strengthen the development of their essays. The rubric
evaluated the generation, organization of ideas, and answering the information
requested on the prompt. In the end, students used Google Docs to post their
writings where they showed the collaborative work through peer feedback.
Checklist
This instrument answered question two. It helped the
researcher test the stages of the academic writing process of students’ essays.
The checklist consisted of eight different statements about the stages of
academic writing process of an essay where students had to identify if students
followed the steps meanwhile they were developing their essays in Google Docs.
They were related to brainstorming to generate ideas, an outline to organize
the stages of the essay development, an introduction stating the hook, thesis
statement, supporting details, and conclusion, 3 body paragraphs with their
main ideas, supporting details, and their respective conclusion statements, a
concluding paragraph to summarize the main points of the essay, appropriate use
of linking words in each paragraph, effective use of punctuation, grammar,
spelling, coherence, cohesion and unity in order to meet international
baccalaureate writing standards.
Field Notes
For this instrument, field notes were used to
collect the data required. The researcher observed students’ behavior during
the class and their difficulties that students may have in the tasks.
Survey
This instrument answered question three.
Participants completed a survey before and after the innovation and it helped
the research to know what students’ perspectives related to peer feedback.
Participants determined their perceptions from statements regarding the
advantages and disadvantages of using peer feedback and Google Docs to enhance
their academic writing process (items 1 to 5) and the importance of peer
feedback (items 6 to 10). The survey included a Likert scale that contained
strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4) options.
The survey was adapted from Haris et al. (2017) in which it was added extra
information in the statements columns template according to the topic
researched and an open question related to the feedback received by peers.
Results and Discussion
The
intervention lasted five weeks (five hours per week), which equals twenty-five
pedagogical hours. Learners already knew how to write paragraphs, use linking
words, and punctuation. Students wrote essays on different topics in Google
Docs focusing on the IB program curriculum to develop their writing skills. The
production of these essays went hand to hand with the appropriate register. The
researcher provided specific information on the stages to writing a correct
essay to the students, so they were able to provide peer feedback. The paired
group and the researcher were able to provide comments, suggestions, editing,
and corrections in the essays. Students used the suggestions and peer feedback
comments to rewrite their different kinds of essays.
Table 1 shows the values of the pretest and
posttest: standard deviation, and effect size. The effect size value (d =
2.36) is considered a significant effect. Data from the pretest displays a mean
of 5.38 (SD = 1.61). Opposite to that, data collected from the posttest
indicates a mean of 9.24 (SD = 0.87). The p-value was 0.001, so the results are
statistically significant and favorable due to the intervention and not to any
other variables. These results answer positively the first question related to
the extent of the impact of peer feedback in students’ essays.
Table 1
Pre and posttest descriptive statistics
|
|
N
|
Mean
|
Std. Deviation
|
Effect size
|
p-value
|
|
|
Pre-test
|
29
|
5.38
|
1.61
|
2.36
|
0.01
|
|
Post-test
|
29
|
9.24
|
0.87
|
Fuente:
Vélez Palacios, A. A. (2022) for Master’s thesis, Universidad Casa Grande. Departamento
de Posgrado.
These
findings are similar to Semeraro and Moore’s (2016) who concluded the use peer
review facilitated by Google Docs is an effective assessment tool to monitor,
guide group instruction collaboration and enhance students’ writing process.
Students pieces of writing demonstrated the integration of organized and well
development of ideas in the writing stages of a particular academic essay. As
mentioned in Lindblom and Pihlajamaki (2003) who stated that learners can
enhance essay writing by providing feedback in a digital learning environment.
Students also improved in their spelling, capitalization, punctuation,
mechanics, and grammar structures. Wu and Schunn (2021) also support the use of
peer feedback to improve write because students are involved in the different
stages of the writing process.
Field
notes and a checklist were taken to identify students’ behavior and determine
the difficulties students had during the process. These data answered the
second research question. The researcher coded the categories, for instance:
feelings, difficulties, and questions. It was observed that when students were
working on different tasks and did not know how to use a checklist, they felt
frustrated and immediately asked for help. Some of the observations were that
students could not continue doing the different tasks where they did not
understand the stages of the writing process, making it challenging to organize
their ideas.
The
researcher observed that students struggled with the tasks because they had a
high level of anxiety when writing due to lack of vocabulary, knowledge of
spelling, organization, and generation of ideas. Moreover, the teacher’s
feedback was more expected than peer’s feedback. When they worked on writing
essays, they had to apply the stages of the writing process, it was difficult
for them at first but then they got familiar with this kind of exercise.
Organizing ideas played an essential role in their writings and it was reached
by practicing and peer feedback.
Table 2
Checklist about academic writing process
|
|
PRETEST
|
POSTTEST
|
|
No
|
Stages of Academic Writing Process of
an Essay. I know…
|
YES
|
YES
|
|
1
|
A brainstorming strategy to generate ideas.
|
30%
|
80%
|
|
2
|
An outline to organize the stages of the essay
development.
|
10%
|
90%
|
|
3
|
An introduction, stating the hook, thesis
statement, supporting details, and conclusion.
|
25%
|
95%
|
|
4
|
Body paragraphs (3) each one has a main idea,
supporting details, and conclusion, stating the main points of the thesis
statement.
|
20%
|
95%
|
|
5
|
A concluding paragraph summarizing the main points
of the essay topic.
|
15%
|
95%
|
|
6
|
Appropriate use of linking words in each
paragraph.
|
10%
|
90%
|
|
7
|
Effective use of punctuation.
|
5%
|
80%
|
|
8
|
Grammar, spelling, coherence, cohesion and unity.
|
10%
|
80%
|
Fuente:
Vélez Palacios, A. A. (2022) for Master’s thesis, Universidad Casa Grande. Departamento
de Posgrado.
A
checklist was conducted with a total of 8 items. Table 2 shows at the beginning
students knew very little of each item; however, at the end, their confidence
in the knowledge and application surpassed the results of the first checklist.
Overall, there was an improvement for each category but the one that had a
significant impact were statements 2, 5 and 7 since students did not have a
clear idea on how to use punctuation nor an outline to organize the stages of
the essay development.
These
results confirmed that students felt frustrated and anxious recognizing the
stages of the writing process and getting familiar with the application used
(Google docs). The use of this sort of digital apps has its limitations in
education. For Zhou et al. (2012), some learners feel overwhelm when they are
introduced this kind of technology. In addition, the collaborative groups
online results sometimes difficult to handle among group members due to the
little knowledge about technology and internet issues. According to Vallance et
al. (2010) not all the students have the susceptibility to work in
collaborative groups without any guidance. For this reason, the researcher
suggested to provide explicit and clear instructions, giving enough guidance,
appropriate resources, demonstrate with examples or templates in order to
overcome this education issue. At the beginning, peer feedback can be
frustrating for the students and seem a lot of work to the teacher; but the
results are worth trying.
Lastly,
to know students’ perspectives towards peer feedback, a Likert scale survey was
taken at the beginning and end of the implementation period. Table 3 shows the
results. The mean evidenced from the pretest (3) and posttest (3.96) that
students felt more capable of organizing their ideas, writing more precisely
and accurately, and using rubrics to evaluate other students’ work.
Table 3
Survey about student’s perception.
|
Peer feedback facilitated by Google
docs….
|
Mean
Pre-Survey
|
Mean
Post-Survey
|
|
1.
.. made me more careful about paragraph structures.
|
3.2
|
3.7
|
|
2.
... made me check word choice more carefully.
|
2.5
|
4.1
|
|
3.
… made me check word spelling more carefully.
|
3.7
|
4.4
|
|
4.
… made me check capitalization more carefully.
|
2.1
|
3.7
|
|
5.
… made me check punctuation more carefully.
|
3.4
|
4.5
|
|
6.
… motivated me into more dynamic interactive writing.
|
2.8
|
2.9
|
|
7.
… increased my interest in writing.
|
3.2
|
3.7
|
|
8.
… made me more confident in writing.
|
3.7
|
4.3
|
|
9.
… improved the quality of my writing.
|
3.1
|
4.1
|
|
10.
… enhanced my English proficiency.
|
3.4
|
3.9
|
|
11.
… enhanced my interaction with peers.
|
3.5
|
4.5
|
|
11.
… helped me to improve my essay.
|
3.1
|
3.7
|
|
13.
I felt comfortable when I provided peer feedback to my partner’s paper.
|
2.6
|
3.2
|
|
14.
Peer feedback made me work independently.
|
2.4
|
4.8
|
|
15.
I could provide peer feedback based on a rubric.
|
2.6
|
3.5
|
Fuente:
Vélez Palacios, A. A. (2022) for Master’s thesis, Universidad Casa Grande. Departamento
de Posgrado.
Overall,
there is an improvement in the results’ means of the pre and post-survey.
Students at the end of the intervention felt more capable of creating better
texts, as observed in statements 2, 3, 5, and 8. Furthermore, statements
regarding Peer feedback learning improved pre and post results, as observed in
statements 13, 14, and 15.
However,
some items had not had much difference as in the pre-survey. For instance, in
items 1 and 7, there was not much difference; because students know that if
they receive the feedback from others they will improve on the different skills
in a language as for this case in writing using Google Docs. The survey
included an open question related to peer feedback significance where students
indicated that feedback is usually given by the teacher, but it is relevant to
give peer feedback because in that way they help each other and work
collaboratively, for instance, when they forgot about misspelling words,
capitalization, and topic sentence, among others. In addition, they become more
autonomous in their learning and there was a lot of interaction between them.
Participants
felt confident using rubrics to evaluate their partners’ work, their anxiety
and nervousness were low and almost disappeared, they were capable of
organizing their ideas more precisely and accurately. Vygotsky (as cited in
Woolfolk, 2016) pointed out that cognitive development is generated through the
interaction of peers and the use of technological devices. As well as, Huisman
et al. (2018) highlighted the crucial involvement of practicing writing through
the use of peer feedback by sharing comments, transferring learning,
understanding information, assimilating evidences, and reflecting observations
in a meaningful way. Therefore, students’ perceptions towards the peer feedback
and its impact in writing were positive after the application of this
implementation.
For
Celce-Murcia (2001), writing is a process with an interaction between the
writer and the reader. However, in English classes, students may lack the
presence of the reader. In this regard, peer feedback can reduce that gap. The
fact of having somebody besides the teacher makes the writing meaningful to the
writer and the audience. Therefore, the complexities of writing as described by
Abbott et al. (2010) which raise negative feelings like anxiety and frustration
(Maghsoudi & Haririan, 2013) can be reduce with the practice of the writing
activities and having to read and improve students’ work.
Conclusion
This
innovation took five weeks of implementation and after that time, the pre and
posttests, the checklist, the field notes and the pre and post surveys
demonstrated that most of the learners improved their writing process. This
research study showed a significant impact on students due to the writing
skills development, recognizing the process of writing an essay, generating,
and organizing ideas, using proper grammar, mechanics, and clear messages.
The implementation
of peer feedback facilitated by Google Docs in the innovation proved to have
effective and meaningful results since this application motivated the active
interaction and collaboration. This got students’ attention, target language
development, and an adequate virtual learning environment.
Overall,
this action research helped learners to meet the standards and to achieve the
goals of the Ecuadorian learning context and the International Baccalaureate
Program. It raised in the students the positive mindset to be engaged, an important
feature to enhance the language learning process. This present research study
was conducted in a public institution with a group of 29 IB participants, it
could also be implemented in order to improve the writing process among other
schools with diverse learning English levels of education.
Even
though the positive results of the implementation, some limitations should be
considered for future studies. They are mainly focused on the limited access of
technology, short time to carry out the research study, shortage of devices or
resources, internet issues, teachers and learners’ predisposition to apply the
strategy. In fact, the lack of computer labs and internet in the public schools
became a great challenge in this innovation, some students experienced internet
issues outside the classrooms and did not work properly with their written
tasks. Similarly, some learners informed that they found Google Docs
complicated at the moment of using this app because they got troubles to
include feedback comments in their partners’ essays. Thus, the author
of this study recommends to work with a proper internet connection to
strengthen the ability of using Google Docs and providing feedback. Likewise, teachers
should know that at the beginning it will take time to train students to
provide peer feedback, to receive and accept the feedback of their peers.
Since, they are expecting only the teachers’ feedback.
References
Abbott,
R., Berninger, V., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels
of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318
Alvarez,
C.., Cozzarelli, T., Moreira, H., & Yépez, G. (2022). Improving writing
through collaboration facilitated by Google Docs. In M. Ramírez & L.
Pérez (Coordinators), EFL Research Series for Teachers (pp. 239-261).
Aydin,
S. (2014). The Use of Blogs in Learning English as a Foreign Language.
Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 4(1),
244-259. doi:10.13054/mije.13.79.4.1
Belal,
S. (2017). Participating in the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme:
Developing international mindedness and engagement with local
communities. Journal of Research in International Education, 16(1),
18-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/14752409177027
Bennui,
P. (2016). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL
students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4(1),
72-102.
Bérešová,
J. (2017). The impact of the CEFR on teaching and testing English in the local
context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11),
959-964. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0711.03
Bijami
M., Sharafinejad M., & Kashef S. (2013). Peer Feedback in Learning
English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages. Journal of Studies in
Education, 3(4), 91-97. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v3i4.4314
Cedeño,
J. (2019). Online clustering to improve IB students’ writing: A mixed design
study (Master’s thesis. Casa Grande University, Guayaquil, Ecuador) http://dspace.casagrande.edu.ec:8080/handle/ucasagrande/1847
Celce-Murcia,
M. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or foreign Language. Third Edition,
Heinle & Heinle Publisher: Boston.
Challob,
A. A. I., Bakar, N. A., & Latif, H. (2016). Collaborative blended learning writing
environment: Effects on EFL students' writing apprehension and writing performance. English
Language Teaching, 9(6), 229-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p229
Council
of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors2018/1680787989
Ebadi,
S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using
Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: A mixed methods
study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8),
787-815. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056
Faraj,
A. (2015). Scaffolding EFL students’ writing through the writing process approach.
Journal of Education and Practice, 6(13), 131-141. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080494.pdf
Fareed,
M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills:
Problems, factors and suggestions. Journal of Education and Social
Sciences, 4(2), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.20547/jess0421604201
Ferris,
D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching L2 composition. Purpose, process
and practice. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Flower,
L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
doi:10.2307/356600
Fidalgo,
R., & Torrance, M. (2017). Developing writing skills through
cognitive self-regulation instruction. In R. Fidalgo and T. Olive (Series Eds.)
& R. Fidalgo, K. Harris, & M. Braaksma (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing
Series: Vol. 34. Design principles for teaching effective writing (pp.
89-118). Leiden: Brill.
Figueras,
N. (2007). The CEFR, a lever for the improvement of language professionals in
Europe. Modern Language Journal, 673-675. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_8.x
Graham,
S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: effective strategies to improve
writing of adolescents in middle and high schools – A report to Carnegie
Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Godwin-Jones,
R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning
& Technology, 22(1), 1-15. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44574
Haris,
M., Yunus, M., & Badusha, J. (2017). The effectiveness of using Padlet in
ESL classroom. International Journal of Advanced Research, 5(2),
783-788. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/3214
Huisman,
B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on
academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback
perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 43(6), 955-968.
International
Baccalaureate Organization. (2013). Implementation of the Diploma Programme
in Ecuador’s state schools. https://resources.ibo.org/dp/topic/Studies-exploringprogrammeimplementation/resource/11162-43040/data/g_0_ibres_supir_1305_1a_e.pdf
International
Baccalaureate Organization. (2014). Language ab initio guide. https://resources.ibo.org/dp/subject-group/Language-ab-initio-first-assessment-2015/resource/11162occfiled_2_anlan_gui_1308_1_e/data/d_2_anlan_gui_1308_2_e.pdf
Harmer,
J. (1998). Teach English. Longman.
Krasnova,
T., & Ananjev, A. (2015). Students’ perception of learning in the online
discussion environment. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(6
S1), 202-202. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n6s1p202
Lindblom‐Ylänne, S., &
Pihlajamäki, H. (2003). Can a
collaborative network environment enhance essay‐writing processes? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.d01-3
Maghsoudi,
M., & Haririan, J. (2013). The impact of brainstorming strategies Iranian
EFL learners' writing skill regarding their social class status. International
Journal of Language and Linguistics. Special Issue: Language Teaching and
Learning Key Principles (LTLKP). International Journal of Language and
Linguistics, 1(4-1), 60-67. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.20130101.20
Ministerio
de Educación. (2012). Standards of quality education. https://educacion.gob.ec/wp_content/uploads/downloads/2012/09/estandares_2012_ingl
es_opt.pdf
Ministerio
de Educación. (2014). National curriculum guidelines. https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/09/01-NationalCurriculum-Guidelines-EFL-Agosto-2014.pdf
Ministerio
de Educación. (2017). Evaluación de impacto del programa de diploma deBachillerato
Internacional [Evaluation of the Impact of the Diploma of the International
Baccalaureate]. https://educacion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2017/08/Evaluacion-de-Impacto-del-Programa-de-Diploma-de-Bachillerato-Internacional.pdf.
Mukundan,
J., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2013). Materials for writing – was this the case
of the runaway bandwagon?. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Applied linguistics
and materials development (pp. 213–230). London and New
York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Naqvi,
I. H., Iqbal, M., & Akhtar, S. N. (2016). The relationship between
emotional intelligence and performance of secondary school teachers. Bulletin
of Education and Research, 38(1), 209-224. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1210379.pdf
Negari,
G. M. (2011). A study on strategy instruction and EFL learners' writing
skill. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2),
299. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n2p299
Ortega,
D. P., & Auccahuallpa, R. A. (2017). La educación ecuatoriana en inglés:
Nivel de dominio y competencias lingüísticas de los estudiantes rurales [The Ecuadorian
education in English: Level of mastery and linguistic competences of rural
students]. Revista Scientific, 2(6), 52-73.doi: https://doi.org/10.29394/scientific.issn.2542-
2987.2017.2.6.3.52-73
Palpacuer
Lee, C., Curtis, J. H., & Curran, M. E. (2018). Shaping the vision for
service‐learning in language
education. Foreign Language
Annals, 51(1),
169-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12329
Pinela,
R. (2020). Classifying Parts of Speech to Improve Word Recognition in
Reading (Master’s thesis. Casa Grande University, Guayaquil, Ecuador). http://dspace.casagrande.edu.ec:8080/handle/ucasagrande/2350
Semeraro,
J., & Moore, N. S. (2016). The use of Google Docs Technology to support
peer revision. In Writing instruction to support literacy success.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Solano,
L., Cabrera, P., Ulehlova, E., & Espinoza, V. (2017). Exploring the use of educational
technology in EFL teaching: A case study of primary education in the south region
of Ecuador. Teaching English with Technology, 17(2), 77-86. http://www.tewtjournal.org/issues/volume-2017/volume-17-
issue-2/
Sut,
E., Rabadia, O., & Hanapi, H. (2018). Improving students’ writing skill
through clustering technique at the eighth grade of SMP Negeri Karang Jaya. Universitas Iqra Buru:
Maluku, 15(1),
78-79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327403099
Tsui,
A. B., & Ng., M. (2000). Do
secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9(2), 147-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
Vallance,
M., Towndrow, P. A., & Wiz, C. (2010). Conditions for successful online document
collaboration. TechTrends, 54(1), 20-24. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0359-6
Widosari,
A., Suwandi, S., Slamet, St.Y., & Winarni, R. (2017). DISE learning model
for teaching writing to elementary school students. Sino-US English
Teaching, 14(5), 279285. doi:10.17265/1539-8072/2017.05.001
Wiggins,
G. (2012). Seven Keys to Effective Feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1),
1016.
Woolfolk,
A. (2016). Educational Psychology: Active Learning Edition. Pearson.
Wu,
Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). The Effects of Providing and Receiving Peer
Feedback on Writing Performance and Learning of Secondary School
Students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3),
492-526. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220945266
Yan,
L. (2019). A study on WeChat-based collaborative learning in college English
writing. English Language Teaching, 12(6), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n6p1
Yu,
S. & Lee, I. (2016). Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing (2005–2014). Language
Teaching, 49(4), 461–493. doi:10.1017/S0261444816000161
Zhou,
W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. (2012). Google Docs in an out-of-class
collaborative writing activity. International Journal of Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359-375. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE1361.pdf
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1652-114X 
