Portrait of Peer Review in Creative Writing

Portrait of Peer Review in Creative Writing

Mary Grace D. Belen¹, Apolo S. Francisco²

¹Master of Science in Education, La Paz National High School

²Doctor of Philosophy, University of Ilocos Philippines

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.80801100

Received: 30 July 2024; Accepted: 9 August 2024; Published: 12 September 2024

ABSTRACT

This qualitative study employs phenomenology as its design. It focuses on describing the peer review experiences of senior high school learners and their view on the different aspects of peer review. It also aims to propose a training programme to effectively teach writing skills of Senior High School learners. Through thematic analysis of the transcribed in-depth semi structured interviews with 15 learners, the study reveals that peer review encompasses a process which needs to be observed. Learners receive diverse feedback from their outputs during the peer review process. Finally, learners have differing views on peer review as to the comments they receive, as to their improvement in writing, and as to learning opportunity. Based on the findings of the study the researcher concludes that peer review is significant in the writing process, covering several essential steps that support the development of writing abilities over time and the enhancement of the quality of outputs that promote advancement within the writing community. Also, feedback makes it easier to write collaboratively, which produces papers of a higher caliber. Peer review fosters a supportive learning environment by motivating improvement, and enabling self-assessment and collaboration. It enhances self-reflection, writing skills, and overall growth. Lastly, the proposed training programme intends to help teachers to effectively teach writing skills among senior high school learners. Finally, the study recommends that teachers should ensure clarity of roles and responsibilities among learners before conducting peer review to avoid disengagement. Additionally, when conducting peer review, the first draft should be submitted in a soft copy to avoid difficulty in reading to the part of the reviewer because of penmanship issue and to ease detection of its authenticity and grammar through online platforms. Also, quantitative research must be conducted to test the effectiveness of peer review in enhancing students‟ writing skills. Lastly, future studies may look into the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed training programme.

Keywords: collaboration, feedback, peer review, phenomenology, writing.

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Peer review is the process of evaluating a student’s first draft by his/her classmate. Its purpose is to help students improve their written work before they submit the final draft. In doing so, criteria must be given to avoid being biased or judgmental and to ensure that students review their peer’s written output objectively.

In a writing process, feedback plays a very important role. When students work with their peers or classmates, they feel more at ease as it creates a sense of community. Most of the time, they like the idea of receiving help from their peers during learning processes. A result of the study conducted by Ting and Qin (2010) indicated that peer-review activities could induce self-correction among students and cultivate independent critical readers and writers.

Many research studies have investigated the effects of peer review in teaching writing skills. Firstly, the quasi-experimental research design of Suryani, Rozimela & Anwar (2020) which aims to investigate the effect of peer feedback on students’ writing skill. Secondly, a classroom-based study of Hanjani (2019) which examines at the effect of collective peer scaffolding activity on self-revised as well as new narrative and descriptive paragraphs developed by 32 EFL university students in a paragraph writing course in Iran. Thirdly, the qualitative case study of Lei (2017) which investigates the incorporation and effectiveness of student written feedback and their attitudes towards peer feedback in writing class.

In the performance standard of DepEd’s Curriculum Guide of the course Creative Writing, learners shall be able to: a) produce short paragraphs or vignettes using imagery, diction, figures of speech, and specific experiences; b) produce a short, well-crafted poem; produce one striking scene for a short story; compose at least one scene for a one-act-play that can be staged, and; c) produce a craft essay on the personal creative process deploying a consciously selected orientation of creative writing.

Creative Writing is an applied subject of Grade 12 – GAS students which aims develop practical and creative skills in reading and writing, be introduced to the fundamental techniques of writing fiction, poetry, and drama, and discuss the use of such techniques by well-known authors in a variety of genres. Students will be devoted to the examination of techniques and to the workshop of students’ drafts toward the enrichment of their manuscripts.

Most studies on peer review focus on its effect in students’ writing classes to college level students and in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). There are only few studies have been conducted yet on peer review using a phenomenological design in countries where English is considered as a Second Language and whose respondents were high school students.

It is with these reasons that the researcher opted to conduct a study exploring the peer review experiences of students in Creative Writing. Particularly, it seeks to describe how Senior High School students conduct peer review, the types of comments received during peer review; and their perceptionon peer review in terms of comments received, improvement of writing skills, and learning opportunity.

The researcher strongly believes that these factors, which have not yet been researched, can contribute greatly to the new knowledge in the field of research and the result of this study can be also be used on formulating a valid primer in conducting peer review in English subject to Senior High School students.

Statement of the Problem

The problem addressing this study is exploring the views and perceptions of students in conducting peer review in Creative Writing. By interviewing 15 students, this research is able to understand the process of peer review, the nature of feedback received, and students’ perceptions of how peer review impacts their writing skills and learning. By focusing on high school students, this study seeks to provide insights that can inform the use of peer review in educational settings, particularly in enhancing writing instruction.

Purposes of the Research

This study aimsat describing the peer review experiences of Grade 12-GAS learners. The specific purposes are to:a) determine the ways learners conduct peer review;b) determine the types of comments given in the peer-reviewed outputs of learners; c)ascertain the ways learners view peer review; and 4)examine valid primer in conducting peer review formulated.

Research Questions

This research sought to answer the following questions:

How do learners conduct peer review?

What are the types of comments given in the peer reviewed outputs of learners?

How do learners view peer review in terms of:

Comments received;

Improvement of writing skills; and

Learning opportunity?

What valid primer in conducting peer review could be formulated?

Scope and Delimitation

This study is only limited into describing the peer review experiences in Creative Writingof Grade 12 GAS students who were enrolled in A.Y. 2022-2023at Burgos National High School, Poblacion Norte, Burgos, I locos Sur. The Grade 12 GAS students who were enrolled in Creative Writing but did not conduct peer review in the said subject and who were hesitant to be interviewed were not included in the list of participants. In collecting data, the researcher used the in-depth interview as the main gathering tool and content analysis for validation.

Significance of the Study

This study about the peer review experiences of students in Creative Writing is believed to benefit the teachers, parents, curricularists, future researchers, and the researcher herself.

Teachers: As their role is for students to learn, teachers can think of ways to make sure students enjoy writing trough peer review and the like strategies. Additionally, the types of comments given in the peer reviewed outputs of learners can help teachers evaluate their students in their critical thinking skills, value judgment and knowledge in the structure of English.

Parents: By knowing the experiences of learners in conducting peer review, parents think of ways on how to help their children in their learning endeavor. They can help their children improve their writing skills as well as in evaluating others’ written work.

Curricularists: The results of this study can be an evaluative tool to curricularists on the effectiveness of the strategy to carry out the performance standard and learning outcomes of the current curriculum for Senior High School, particularly in Creative Writing.

Researcher: This study is beneficial to the researcher as she can understand better students’ perceptions in cooperative learning activities like peer review. The result of the study can also be beneficial to the teacher to assess not only students’ writing skills but also their knowledge in the structure of English which will reflect in their mini critic or evaluation of their peer’s written output.

Future Researchers: This study can be a good reference for future researchers who will conduct studies related to peer review as there are only few studies conducted in the Philippines focusing on the writing skills of Senior High School Students.

Definition of Terms

Burgos National High School: It is a public secondary school located in Población Norte, Burgos, I locos Sur, Philippines. It offers Academic Track which is the General Academic Strand (GAS) and Technical Vocational Livelihood (TVL) Track which are the Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Home Economics majors in Caregiving and Cookery, and Industrial Arts major in Electrical Installation and Maintenance.

Creative Writing: It is anapplied subject for Grade 12- GAS Students of Burgos National High School which is offered during the Second Semester of the School Year.

Final Draft: It is an encoded output of students in Creative Writing which incorporates the comments and corrections of their classmates.

First Draft: It is the initial written output of students in Creative Writing which will be critiqued by their classmates. It is handwritten in a yellow paper and is also attached to the final draft when submitted to the subject teacher.

Lived Experiences: These refer to the views of students on the New Normal English language instructions and mechanisms.

Peer Review: It is the process of evaluating student’s work by other student in mutual exchange. It functions as a form of feedback in writing an article or essay Creative Writing.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Concept of Creative Writing: Oxford Dictionary defines creative writing  as typically fiction or poetry, which displays imagination or invention (often contrasted with academic or journalistic writing. It is characterized by an emphasis on narrative craft, character development, and the use of literary tropes or figures of speech. According to Morley (2007), creative writing involves the process of creating original content that is driven by the writer’s imagination rather than by factual or technical requirements. Creative writing allows people to express their thoughts, ideas, feelings, and imaginations through composition.

Creative Writing may have started in UK universities where informal courses were associated with Creative Writing. This developed alongside the founding of polytechnics and adult education programs which aided in the formation of a formalized pattern of Creative Writing in the 60s and 70s(Harper, 2006).

Writers and educators have differing views in teaching creative writing. While some contend that creativity is an intrinsic talent that cannot be taught, others think that creative abilities may be fostered and developed through the use of specific techniques and procedures. Peer critiques, workshops, and activities that promote linguistic and formal experimentation are common components of creative writing teaching (Harper, 2006). The workshop format, made popular by the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, encourages group learning by having students present their work to peers and get criticism. These days, creative writing programs all over the world use this concept extensively.

In educational contexts, creative writing is important because it helps students enhance their literacy, critical thinking, and self-expression skills. Studies show that students’ writing abilities and their capacity to communicate difficult concepts and feelings can both be enhanced by creative writing exercises (Grainger, 2005). Furthermore, creative writing can be a tool for psychological and emotional inquiry, giving pupils a platform for self-expression and personal development. In order to improve interdisciplinary learning, there has been an increase in interest in incorporating creative writing into other curriculum subjects, such as science and history (Graham & Perin, 2007). This method enhances pupils’ writing abilities while also helping them comprehend other subjects’ material more thoroughly.

This study revolves around the experiences of students in their Creative Writing class where they are required to write original literary compositions that enhance their imaginative and creative writing skills. Through creative writing, they are able to express themselves, collaborate with their peers and maximize learning.

The Impact of Peer Review in Writing: Peer review is known to be a technique that helps students learn in becoming better writers. Through peer review, students engage in evaluating each other’s work, providing constructive feedback, and revising their own writing based on the feedback received. This type of collaboration not only enhances writing skills but also fosters critical thinking, self-reflection, and a deeper understanding of writing conventions among students.

Peer review is a useful tool for developing writing skills, according to several research. Suryani, Rozimela, and Anwar (2020) assert that peer evaluation enhances students’ writing skills by helping them write more coherently, grammatically, and with more substance. Students who participate in peer review gain a better understanding of their own writing skills and shortcomings, which enables them to make more thoughtful improvements. Likewise, research conducted by Ting and Qin (2010) emphasizes that peer review exercises might encourage students to self-correct. Students who practice self-correction learn to recognize and fix mistakes in their own writing, which is essential for the development of autonomous writing skills. Through the process, students are also encouraged to read more critically—both of their own writing and that of their peers.

Peer review not only enhances writing skills but also cultivates critical thinking. Hanjani (2019) explored the effect of collective peer scaffolding activities on students’ writing. The study found that such activities fostered a collaborative learning environment where students critically engaged with each other’s work. This engagement promotes the development of critical thinking skills, as students must analyze and assess the quality of their peers’ writing, offering suggestions for improvement.

This study reveals similar impact to students in Creative Writing as they perceive peer review as a mirror that helps them see their own strengths and weaknesses in writing, as a steerer that drives them to write better outputs, and as a collaborator that enables them to exchange knowledge and ideas from their peers.

Students’ attitudes towards peer review play a crucial role in its effectiveness. Lei (2017) conducted a qualitative case study investigating students’ perceptions of peer feedback in a writing class. The study revealed that while some students were initially skeptical about the value of peer feedback, they gradually recognized its benefits, particularly in gaining new perspectives on their writing. However, the study also noted that the effectiveness of peer review is dependent on the quality of the feedback provided, which can vary based on students’ proficiency levels. This study also investigates student’s perceptions of peer feedback in writing class. And it proves that their attitude towards the feedback they receive from their peers does not greatly affect their writing skills. Although few are confused and uninterested from the feedback they received, most students are still motivated to learn.

Despite its benefits, peer review is not without challenges. Some studies have noted that students may feel uncomfortable providing criticism to their peers, leading to overly positive or vague feedback that is less useful for improvement (Saito & Fujita, 2004). Additionally, there is a concern about the reliability of peer feedback, as students may not have the necessary skills to accurately assess their peers’ work. This highlights the need for adequate training and guidance in conducting peer reviews effectively.

Process Writing: Writing is a productive skill but it is not acquired naturally like speaking skill. Both native and non-native speakers of a language have to acquire a writing skill (Shil & Rahman, 2020). Writing is a complex undertaking because it entails meaningful segments of language such as words, sentences, and grammars.

In contrast to the product approach to writing, which is based on studying and replicating textual models, the process approach involves multiple and repeated steps that compel the writer to closely consider the topic, language, purpose for writing, and social reality of an audience.

The approach to writing method considers all writing as a creative act requiring persistence and positive input. The teacher moves away from being someone who offers a writing topic to the students and presents the finished outcome for correction without any intervention in the learning phase. Haiyan and Rilong (2016) specifically state that the method approach represents the steps taken to create a piece of work, and the method writing allows for the likelihood that no text may be flawless, but that a writer may come closer to perfection by creating, updating, discussing and reworking repetitive versions of a paper. Li et al (2015) agrees that process writing evolved as a solution to the product approach by fulfilling the need to conform to the writing processes involved in writing in one’s mother tongue, helping learners to express themselves better as persons.

In a study conducted by Boas (2011), she discusses the benefits of the process approach to writing but also illustrates how teachers can take advantage of some of the latest Internet technology to promote writing tasks in the ESL/EFL classroom. The activities exemplify how web-based social networking tools offer excellent opportunities to conduct the pre-writing, drafting, peer review, and revising steps of the writing process. In addition to developing important writing and other skills in English and learning to work collaboratively on projects, using the Internet for ESL/EFL instruction also advances students’ digital literacy. She concluded that when writing about topics that are relevant to their needs and interests, students are apt to respond enthusiastically and work collaboratively to craft written work in the types of genres that will benefit them in their academic pursuits and subsequent careers.

However, participants of this study are not engaged to web-based social networking tools in the writing process. it is purely classroom based and face-to-face activity in writing their draft and peer reviewing. Despite of the absence of internet, students are able to work collaboratively with their peer to improve their writing skills

Graham and Sandmel (2011) conducted meta-analysis of 29 experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted with students in Grades 1–12 to examine if process writing instruction improves the quality of students’ writing and motivation to write. For students in general education classes, process writing instruction resulted in a statistically significant, but relatively modest improvement in the overall quality of writing (average weighted effect size [ES] = 0.34). Variation in ES was not related to grade, reliability of the writing quality measure, professional development, genre assessed, or quality of study. The process writing approach neither resulted in a statistically significant improvement in students’ motivation nor enhanced the quality of struggling writers’ compositions.

A quasi-experimental approach focusing on the writing process and attitude was conducted by Hassan et al in 2020. Their focus was the cognitive and attitudinal impact of the process approach to writing as an answer to college English writing instruction problems in Pakistan. They investigated the effect of the process approach on students writing and anxiety. The participants in the research were first-year EFL students. It took ten weeks for the quantitative testing procedures to be finished. The research showed that the process approach to writing had a significant impact on writing performance and anxiety as a consequence of the longitudinal review. On the basis of this finding, it is recommended that the writing phase method be used for the documentation of EFL events.

Although this research focuses on the experiences of students in the peer review process of writing, the research design is not similarto the abovementioned studies that are quasi-experimental. On this study, the researcher did not use a controlled and uncontrolled group to test the effectivity of peer review. Instead, she focuses on the views and perceptions of students, making it a phenomenological research.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study is based on Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) learning theory which is called the Zone of Proximal Development. It is an important concept in the fields of both education and psychology. The zone of proximal development refers to the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can achieve with guidance and encouragement from a skilled partner.

Lev Vygotsky views interaction with peers as an effective way of developing skills and strategies. He suggests that teachers use cooperative learning exercises where less competent children develop with help from more skillful peers – within the zone of proximal development (McLeod, 2019).

To help learners achieve independence, Vygotsky outlined scaffolding as a tool for growth. Learners complete small, manageable steps in order to reach the goal. Working in collaboration with a skilled instructor or more knowledgeable peers help students make connections between concepts.

Since cooperative learning helps to create supportive environment, students are not much stressed and have reduced anxiety in class. This is probably because students possess a sense of community. According to Worde (2003) as cited by Wichadee (2010), when students feel alone with no friends, they are “more self-conscious. Working in groups or having studying partners is suggested as one way for students to interact.

The Zone of Proximal Development plays a great role in students’ writing development through cooperative learning exercises. According to Shabani, Khatib, Ebadi, (2010) as cited by Shil and Rahman (2020), one aspect of ZPD in language acquisition is the role of corrective feedback. In general, analysts believe that corrective feedback has a role to play in the second language (L2) learning.

The process of peer reviewing in Creative Writing of Grade 12 – GAS students revolves on Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development for they are required to critique their classmate’s first draft before the final draft is submitted to the teacher. Furthermore, the teacher’s role will start from direct instruction into becoming a facilitator – allowing students gain independence gradually through the inclusion of peer review in the writing process.

Empirical Review

Ting & Qin (2010) investigated peer feedback provided by 11 students in a Chinese EFL writing classroom. They tried to understand how much peer feedback was incorporated into revisions, what kinds of revisions were made, and whether the revisions could lead to improvement in the students’ essays. Text analyses of all the 11 students’ first and second drafts were conducted by measuring accuracy, fluency, grammatical complexity, and vocabulary complexity. Results showed that the students incorporated a substantial part of the peer feedback in their revisions, most of which were surface-level revisions. The revised drafts were slightly improved in terms of fluency but greatly improved with respect to accuracy. No significant differences were found with respect to grammatical and lexical complexity. Results also indicated that peer-review activities could induce self-correction among students and cultivate independent critical readers and writers.

Taking a qualitative case study approach, Lei (2017) investigates the incorporation and effectiveness of student written feedback and their attitudes towards peer feedback in writing class. The study follows closely a class of thirty-two English juniors over one semester. Data sources include composition drafts, student written feedback and interviews. The data collected demonstrates that students generally accept peer feedback and incorporate most of their peers’ comments and suggestions into their writing revision and that peer feedback provides them with more chances to discuss with their peers and understand their peers’ suggestions on the composition improvement.

Additionally, Miao, Badger & Zhen, (2006) examines whether peer feedback may provide a resource for addressing this issue by examining two groups of students at a Chinese University writing essays on the same topic, one receiving feedback from the teacher and one from their peers. Textual and questionnaire data from both groups and video recordings and interviews from 12 individual students revealed that students used teacher and peer feedback to improve their writing but that teacher feedback was more likely to be adopted and led to greater improvements in the writing. However, peer feedback was associated with a greater degree of student autonomy, and so even in cultures that are said to give great authority to the teacher, there is a role for peer feedback.

Hanjani and Li (2014) even suggested a staged approach to the new methodology. Using collaborative techniques initially where students work together on essay comments from the teacher, and then, depending on student motivation, introducing the more radical peer review in which students evaluate each other’s essays.

Furthermore, an empirical study conducted by Subasi (2014) aims at investigating the effects of training for written peer feedback on students’ revising their first drafts and providing written comments on each other’s writings. Participants were 36 first year intermediate level students who were enrolled in the ELT Department of Faculty of Education at Anadolu University. The effects of written peer feedback were investigated through a comparison of the subjects divided into two groups. One group was trained in how to provide written peer feedback to the various types of essays and the others were not trained. The statistical analysis of the data revealed that the students in the experimental group produced better writing quality than the ones in the control group.

Not many studies have conducted in-depth investigations. That is the focus of Ho & Ly, (2020) as they conducted a case study of the incorporation of peer feedback into revision. The 11-week case study reports the experiences of written peer feedback of 92 English-major students. The study examines the quality of trained written peer feedback and the effects of trained written peer feedback on students’ revisions. Based on the analyses of the written feedback, participants received and compares their initial and revised drafts. The study shows that most of the peer comments were revision-oriented and the quantity of accurate comments was remarkably higher than the quantity of miscorrections. In addition, most of the revisions in the second drafts were triggered by peer comments, and the writing quality was significantly improved among both low and high-level writers.

Suryani, Rozimela & Anwar (2020) adopted quasi-experimental research design which aims to investigate the effect of peer feedback on students’ writing skill. It involved 70 eleventh grade students in two intact classes at one of the public senior high school in West Sumatera, Indonesia. The students were given different types of treatment: the students from experimental class were given feedback from peers, and those from control class were given feedback from teacher. The study lasted 8 weeks. The data were in the form of quantitative data taken from the writing test to obtain students’ writing score. The data analysis technique was processed by using t-test. Findings of the study indicated that the students were given peer feedback had better writing skill than the students were given teacher feedback.

A classroom-based study of Hanjani (2019) examined the effect of collective peer scaffolding activity on self-revised as well as new narrative and descriptive paragraphs developed by 32 EFL university students in a paragraph writing course in Iran. Each genre was discussed and practiced every other week and was followed by a collective peer scaffolding session. For each genre, learners were required to develop a 150-word paragraph in two drafts (pre and post-collective scaffolding activity) and email them to their lecturer within five days before the next sessions were held. During collective scaffolding sessions representative learners were asked to write their paragraphs on board while other students scaffolded solutions to the problems they noticed in the paragraphs written on board. The analyses of the students’ pre- and post-collective peer scaffolding drafts and new developed paragraphs revealed that although the activity improved learners’ self-revised drafts, its effect on new developed paragraphs was inconclusive.

Another study which incorporated collective peer scaffolding technique in an EFL paragraph writing class and elicited learners‟ reflections” was conducted by Hanjani (2018). After some preliminary sessions which focused on writing process instruction and collective peer scaffolding training, the students were introduced to three writing genres. Each genre was discussed and practiced every other week and was followed by a collective peer scaffolding session. During collective scaffolding sessions, representative learners were asked to write their paragraphs on the board. Other students acted as collective, scaffolding solutions to the problems they noticed in the paragraphs written on the board. All of the students were also required to carefully listen to the scaffolds (comments) provided in class, use them to self-revise their first drafts (if applicable), and develop their second drafts. At the end of the term, eight volunteer students were invited to participate in a group interview and their reactions to this technique were elicited. In general, the experience was favored by the interviewees and the challenges reported in previous research regarding pair and small-group scaffolding/collaboration were not expressed by this cohort of EFL learners.

The abovementioned researches show that peer feedback in EFL writing classrooms enhances writing skills, promotes self-correction, and fosters student autonomy. Students integrate feedback into revisions, improving accuracy and fluency. It encourages collaborative learning and critical thinking. Training and structured approaches enhance its effectiveness, making it a valuable tool in writing pedagogy.

Summary of Literature Review

Creative writing plays a crucial role in education by enhancing literacy, critical thinking, and self-expression, while also promoting personal development. Meanwhile, peer review helps students become better writers by evaluating each other’s work, offering constructive feedback, and revising their own writing. This process enhances writing skills, critical thinking, and self-reflection. Although attitudes towards feedback can vary, peer review generally motivates students to improve their writing by fostering a collaborative learning environment.

Writing is a complex skill that requires careful attention to various factors. The process approach to writing can improve overall writing quality but may not always enhance student motivation or help struggling writers. While the process approach is effective, ongoing adjustments are needed to better address the diverse needs of learners.

Studies have shown that while process writing can modestly improve writing quality, it may not significantly enhance motivation or outcomes for struggling writers. However, it can positively impact students’ cognitive and emotional engagement with writing.

With the empirical evidence proving how peer review positively affects students’ writing skills, this study which explores students’ experiences in peer review, adopts a phenomenological approach rather than an experimental design, emphasizing student perceptions over controlled testing of effectiveness. Using Zone of Proximal Development learning theory, the process of peer reviewing in Creative Writing for Grade 12 students allow them to gradually gain independence through peer review.This suggests that understanding student experiences can provide valuable insights into the writing process.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This research explores the peer review experiences of students, the research design is phenomenology. Phenomenology is an approach used to describe the lived experience of individuals. It attempts to set aside biases and preconceived assumptions about human experiences, feelings, and responses to a particular situation (Deakin University, 2021).

Population and Locale of the Study

This study focuses on grade 12 – Senior High School students of Burgos National High School, Burgos, Ilocos Sur. The said school is the place where the researcher was teaching during the conduct of this study. It offers General Academic Strand for Senior High School which has Creative Writing as one of the subjects where they are required to submit written outputs like essays, poems, and short stories.

Sampling Technique

The researcher selected the participants using purposive sampling. According to Crossman (2020), a purposive sample is a non-probability sample that is selected based on characteristics of a population and the objective of the study. The researcher selected the sample based on her judgment and purpose of the research, looking for those who “have experiences relating to the phenomenon to be researched” (Groenwald, 2004).

With said sampling technique, a criterion was set: a) they must be enrolled in Creative Writing Class; b) they must have experienced peer review activities; c) they must have submitted their first draft on or before the deadline set by the teacher; d) they must be willing to be interviewed and participate in this study.

Research Instrument

Anin-depth interview was used to gather data in this study. It is an open-ended, discovery-oriented method to obtain detailed information about a topic from a stakeholder. In-depth interviews are a qualitative research method; their goal is to explore in depth a respondent’s point of view, experiences, feelings, and perspectives (Wallace Foundation, n.d.). The researcher prepared interview guide questions which are open-ended to reveal the participants‘ thoughts and feelings. The interviewer adjusted the order and flow of questions and ask additional questions as needed.

Another instrument used is the content analysis. Content analysis is a research tool used to determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given qualitative data (i.e. text). Using content analysis, researchers can quantify and analyze the presence, meanings, and relationships of such certain words, themes, or concepts. (Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 2019). Through content analysis, the researcher identified the types of comments received through peer review of student’s first draft which is one of the objectives of this research.

The  purpose  of  the  study was  explained to  the selected participants. They were assured of the privacy and  condentiality  of  all  data  that  will  be  collected from the study. After obtaining informed consent from the  participants,  prole  information  were  assessed and a  series  of  semi-structured  individual  interviews was  conducted  using  an  interview  guide

Data Gathering Procedure

In gathering the data, the researcher established first the interview guide which was validated by the research advisor. Next, the researcher identified the participants through purposive sampling. After which, schedules of the interview were set. The asking and answering of questions were done face to face at a predetermined time convenient for the participants to complete the interview.

Before the start of the interview, the researcher informed the participants that the interview will be recorded and will be transcribed. If the participants refused to be recorded, the researcher took down notes to fully encapsulate or capture their answers and verbalizations. Information they revealed were kept confidential and that their names were not mentioned in the submitted output. The researcher used English and Ilokano languages as medium of communication for the participants to express their thoughts comfortably.

Validity of the Study

To establish the validity of this study, the researcher takes into consideration the following:

1. The researcher developed a specific informed consent ‘agreement’, in order to gain the informed consent from participants, namely: 1) that they are participating in research; 2) the purpose of the research (without stating the central research question); 3) the procedures of the research; 4) The risk and benefits of the research; 5) the voluntary nature of research participation and; 6) the procedures used to protect confidentiality.
2. Proper and accurate document sourcing of the dates and materials used in the study were done to avoid plagiarism.
3. A communication letter was given to the principal of Burgos National High School, asking for his approval on the conduct of the study in the said school.

Reliability of the Study

To ensure reliability of the findings, member checking was conducted by asking participants to read the interview transcriptions. If there were any misinterpretations in the data pointed out by participants, the idea or sentences were eliminated. After which the researcher asked the participants to sign the interview transcriptions if there were no more corrections. Triangulation was also conducted through content analysis to ensure that their answers from the feedback they receive from their peers is congruent to the comments written by the reviewer in their first draft.

Data Analysis

Interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed through thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a method of analyzing qualitative data. It is usually applied to a set of texts, such as an interview or transcripts. The researcher closely examines the data to identify common themes – topics, ideas and patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly (Caulfield, 2019). Thematic analysis is an appropriate and powerful method to use when seeking to understand a set of experiences, thoughts, or behaviors across a data set (Braun and Clarke, 2012; Kiger and Varpio, 2020).

On this research, the researcher focused on the method outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) as cited by Kiger and Varpio (2020), as it has become the most widely adopted method of thematic analysis within the qualitative literature. The steps are the following: 1) Familiarizing yourself with the data; 2) Generating initial codes; 3) Searching for themes; 4) Reviewing themes; 5) Defining and Naming themes; and 6) Producing the report/manuscript.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of the study on exploring the peer review experiences of learners in Creative Writing. The implications of the are also elucidated in this chapter.

With the challenges faced by learners in academic and creative writing, the teacher plays a vital role in enhancing this skill while ensuring engagement in the writing process. Through thematic and content analysis, data were transcribed, analyzed, and categorized. The analysis and interpretation of the data provided answers to each problem that the study wanted to discover. In addition, this research study consisted of three themes. These were: (a) the process of peer review; (b) peer’s feedback on the reviewed draft, and; (c) students’ perceptions of peer review as to comments received, improvement in writing skills, and learning opportunity.

The Process of Peer Review

A process is a series of steps which needs to be followed in order to achieve a desired outcome. A process should be followed well because if one misses even just one step in the process, the outcome will be affected. In teaching writing skills, peer review is a helpful tool to enhance student’s writing by allowing them to critique their classmate’s work before they submit the final draft. Upon analyzing the answers of the participants, there are five steps in the peer review process which are reding, checking, rating, commenting, and revising.

Figure 1 shows the overview of the process of peer review. The process involve: (a) reading; (b) checking; (c) rating; and (d) commenting.

Figure 1: The Process of Peer Review

Figure 1 is the concept made by the researcher based from the result of this study

Reading: Before the actual conduct of peer review, the teacher thoroughly discussed the elements of fiction. Making sure that students understand each element, she used the story Orpheus and Eurydice for students to analyze its elements. Next, she discussed the techniques and literary devices, giving example to each so students can better understand the lesson. After which, she gave a 25 items quiz to assess their knowledge of the concepts. The last thing she did to make sure that her students were ready write a short story was letting the students analyze The Burning of the Rice Fields of its elements through a burger diagram.

Because her main goal is for students to produce at least one striking scene for a short story as it is the performance standard of the DepEd’s Curriculum Guide and one of its learning competencies is for students to write a short scene applying various elements, techniques, and literary devices (HUMSS_CW/MPIg-i-14), the performance task that she gave was for students to write a short fictional story of 10-15 sentences based on the sequence of pictures provided. Incorporating the elements of a short story and making use of the literary techniques. The teacher incorporated peer review after students were finished writing the story.  It took two weeks to complete the entire process, starting from the discussion and concluding with the submission of the final draft.

In interviews, participants consistently emphasized that reading constitutes the initial step in the peer review process. Their statements underscore the centrality of reading in peer review.

“The first thing I do when conducting peer review was reading the output entirely. After reading the output, I have to read again from the beginning just to make sure that mistakes were corrected properly for better outcome. After this, I am going to give comments and recommendation if there are any changes needed and for them to have idea for the betterment of their output.” (P6)

“Read the manuscript in its entirety. It is important to read the manuscript thoroughly to make sure you are a good fit to assess the manuscript.” (P2)

Participants read the outputs entirely before giving comments or rating on their peer’s draft. It only implies that it is the initial step of the peer review process so they can critically evaluate their peer’s story. They carefully read the content of the story to assess the quality of its parts and give feedback afterwards.

Reading is an initial step in peer review. Not doing this step in the peer review process cannot make it possible for the reviewer to evaluate the manuscript of the writer. Recent research by Garcia and colleagues (2023) attests the significance of reading in peer review, highlighting its role in ensuring the rigor and quality of the evaluation process. It is then important to be very careful in reading and it requires understanding of the text. It requires critical thinking, analytical skills, and patience in order to give a purposive and insightful evaluation.

Checking: Results of the thematic analysis revealed that students checked the grammar, spelling, use of figurative language and techniques in writing, unity and flow of ideas and authenticity which are indicators in scoring rubric.

“I conduct peer review through reviewing the paper, checking the grammar and spelling, and giving comments.” (P3)

“We conduct peer review by checking our classmate paper. We were usually given criteria for criticizing and evaluating the papers/output. Peer review is somehow helpful for us since it is one of the possible ways we can improve and enhance our skills in reading and checking. We first read the output then we correct its grammar, relevance, the use of figurative language and techniques in writing. We are also providing comments/ notes after the checking since there is always a room for improvement.  Although peer review is a bit confusing sometimes, I can say that I enjoyed every peer review session we made recently.” (P4)

“First is writing the draft in a yellow paper and it will be checked by other students. After the draft was checked, it will be returned to the owner so he/she can change the mistakes and read their opinions. After which, the draft will be encoded.” (P9)

“In conducting peer review, I give importance to the flow or words for readers to understand better. The criteria is also important because that will be the tool to gauge your work. You will find it there whether the words you use is appropriate.” (P10)

“We conduct peer review through writing our first draft to be checked first by our classmates and after that, they will return it to the owner with honest feedback, comment and to be accepted by the owner and pass the final draft to our teacher.” (P12)

“We checked short stories and poem. We read the outputs carefully so I could give a good comment. If there are wrong grammars, we rate it through a rubric. (P15)”

Meanwhile, few participants went beyond the criteria in reviewing the first draft. The participant did not only focus on the grammar but also to the unity and flow of ideas which are important in writing a story. As verbalized:

“I check the stories of my classmates. I check the grammar, the unity and flow ideas and if it is copy pasted.” (P5)

The way the participants checked the manuscripts was thorough. They looked at many aspects like grammar, spelling, figurative language, unity, flow of ideas, and authenticity. While adherence to scoring rubrics was fundamental, some reviewers went beyond, addressing issues such as copy-pasting and aiming for a better outcome through thorough revision. Checking its authenticity is also important. Because of the availability of resources through technology, it is easy to just submit a copy pasted story from the internet for compliance. It is an important role of the reviewer to check the authenticity of the manuscript.

When we check, we validate the accuracy, integrity and quality of the work being reviewed. Checking in peer review helps to identify errors and inconsistencies that may need revision or correction before the final draft is submitted. The purpose of checking is to ensure that the story meets the standard set by the teacher in a particular task they needed to do. The students were given a scoring rubric as their basis for checking the first draft.

Similarly, Harris and Graham (2016) investigate the effectiveness of comprehensive evaluation methods in assessing various aspects of student writing such as grammar, authenticity, unity, and spelling. Although this study focuses on teachers as checkers not students, checking ensures high standards of academic quality and integrity.

Rating: Participants rate the story of their peers based on the criteria such as exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution, creativity and use of literary techniques, and grammar. According to one participant, he/she based his/her rating on the criteria showing objectivity in rating. As verbalized:

“There is criteria for judging which serve as our guide. We really read the indicators so we can objectively rate our classmate’s output.” (P1)

This shows that criteria play essential role when rating other’s work for it guide the rater the aspects that needs to be rated and to avoid subjective rating. With the help of a scoring rubric, raters can carefully read the indicators and will be guided in giving a score to their peer’s work. It is then necessary to provide a scoring rubric in the peer review process. In this way, the reviewer’s ability is enhanced to objectively evaluate the quality and significance of the work being reviewed.

By assigning a rating, reviewers can provide an overall assessment of the story, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. This helps the author understand how their work is perceived by their peers and allows them to improve their story. A numerical rating reflects their assessment on the first draft using the scoring rubric as the basis. The importance of rating in peer review is supported by the study of Topping, Smith, and Swanson (2013) who conclude that numerical rating in peer assessment provides a structured and quantifiable way to evaluate various aspects of academic writing. When combined with qualitative feedback, it enhances the overall effectiveness of peer review and contributes to student learning and improvement. However, a proper guidance is crucial in ensuring the reliability and objectivity of numerical ratings in peer assessment.

Commenting: It is the fourth step in the peer review process. From the reviewers’ point of view, giving comments is necessary for the improvement of the written work. They were responsible for giving comments and they conducted it thoroughly and extensively. Their feedback was insightful, relevant, and brought attention to important aspects to provide constructive criticism.  The verbalizations below justify:

“We give comments to our classmates’ work. We also tell the words which needs to be changed. I also explain in their work so they could understand what’s lacking or what are the things they need to revise. We also base our review from the rubric provided by the teacher.” (P7)

“I am impressed of their story although it’s brief, but all elements are there already. So, I write in the comment section that his/her work is impressive but there are some outputs of my classmates that does not meet the criteria so I explain why I give that specific score. I also say “improve your work so the readers can be impressed in your story and to hone your skills in writing” (P8)

“We conduct peer review by following the rubrics, checking all the mistakes, giving a comment for improvement and giving them advices on what they need to improve more.” (P11)

“We conduct peer review by providing feedback to their work.” (P13)

“We conduct peer review by making some recommendations and giving comments to the students on their work.” (P14)

Reviewers give comments to their peer’s work not only to ensure improvement in the manuscript by giving feedback on what is good and what needs to be improved in the manuscript but also to ensure a thorough understanding on their part. The comment section also serves as an avenue for them to explain why they gave such rating to their peer’s work.

Giving comments is helpful so the writers can specifically spot what needs to improve in their story. The goal of commenting in peer review is to help the authors refine and enhance their story, identify any potential flaws and errors, and provide recommendations for further development and revision. This process is supported by Nils on and Goodson (2014). For them, qualitative feedback in peer review plays a crucial role in enhancing the quality of student writing. Detailed and constructive comments help students understand their strengths and weaknesses, leading to significant improvements in their work. It can also help them reflect how well they crafted their story. Commenting is a collaborative step in the peer review process to help enhance and refine the work.

The researcher, being the teacher also of the participants in Creative Writing, desired that her students achieve the learning competency so she used the peer review as a reinforcement activity to ensure that her students achieve better results. She guided her students to make sure they followed the process properly. This is attested by Igmin Research-Stem (2024) that the peer review process is a collaborative endeavor that bridges the gap between authors, reviewers, and readers. Your objective review not only assists authors in improving their work but also fosters a sense of shared learning and growth. Authors benefit from your insights, and readers gain access to well-vetted, high-quality [manuscript] that informs their own endeavors.

Peer’s Feedback on the Reviewed Draft

Providing feedback on students’ writing is as important as revising and editing. Feedback gives helpful information about what students do well and where they need to improve. It helps students get better at writing by showing them what to work on. Essentially, feedback is sharing information to help classmates do better.

Appreciation: Appreciation is a positive reinforcement the writers get from the reviewers. An appreciation given by peers implies recognition on the strengths and effective elements of their work. The following are the what the participant’s said when asked about their peer’s feedback:

“It’s also the same, ma’am – grammar and punctuation. But there are some comments that they say they appreciate my work. They say ‘keep it up’” (P1)

“They say ‘keep it up!’” (P2)

“What I can recall ofmy classmate’s comment is ‘this story is nice.’” (P5)

“The comment they gave me was ‘keep it up’ and ‘I like your work.’” (P11)

In my first draft, the comments of my classmate were really nice and I do love it, like they did checked my paper properly and honestly without hesitation I guess. (P12)

“The comment that classmates gave me was ‘I like it,’ ‘your story is very good’ and ‘keep up the good work.’” (P13)

“They ask first the words I used that are unfamiliar to them, so they could understand it too. They give comments like ‘well written’ and ‘well thought-out.’” (p15)

“My recent draft was actually good for them based on the feedback I received. I like their comments and suggestions. Some of them gave me perfect scores mainly because of my penmanship which they like the most.” (P4)

The words “keep it up,” “I like it,” “the story is very good” are phrases used when appreciating someone. The appreciation they received helps create a supportive learning environment as they feel elated because other people appreciate the story they wrote.

The researcher verified the participant’s answers through content analysis and she found out that appreciation is present in their peer’s feedback. To quote:

“The story was good…”

“The story was so entertaining and full of lessons that we can apply in life. It is also interesting to read.”

“Her story is good and I like it.”

“Her story was well said.”

“The story is good and clean. Thank you.”

“It follows the criteria for scoring.”

The phrases “good,” “entertaining,” “interesting,” “well said,” “clean” are appreciative feedback. Appreciation is present in the comments given by the reviewers.  This feedback carries several implications. When peer review feedback is positive, it first acknowledges that the work is excellent in terms of writing style, language choice, and overall presentation. Secondly, it claims that the language is simple to read and that the thoughts are coherent. Thirdly, the comments indicate that in addition to being well-written, the content demonstrates the writer’s careful consideration and analysis of the subject. Fourthly, it demonstrates that the author has worked hard to produce high-quality work and has given attention to little details. This remark generally states that the text is intelligent and well-done.

Appreciation is crucial since they motivate authors to continue their hard work by demonstrating that their efforts are recognized and appreciated. Soyombo (2023) affirms that it has the power to transform individuals by providing the necessary validation and encouragement to unleash their creative potential. Furthermore, he believes that when we receive positive feedback, it signals that our efforts are recognized and appreciated. This validation fuels our motivation to continue exploring new ideas, pushing boundaries, and making a difference…It not only boosts our confidence but also validates our hard work and dedication. Appreciation provides a sense of accomplishment and encourages us to strive for excellence.

Room for Improvement: Aside from appreciation, participants received comments that can be categorized as room for improvement. These are remarks and comments help refine the author’s work.

The following are the responses:

“My classmate commented that I need to improve my grammar. Maybe it is understandable because I am not really good in grammar.” (P9)

“The comments I received were okay. Some say that my story is good however there are negative feedback like I need to improve my grammar.” (P6)

“In my story, my classmate said that the story I made is good. My classmate also commented on the words I used, that is, I should use correct tense of the verb like the word “disgusting” instead of “disgusted.” (P8)

“My classmate’s comments in my first draft is “good, but you need to improve your grammar.” (P14)

According to the responses of participants, comments are specifically addressing their problems in subject-verb agreement. On this type of comment, they do not see it as negative feedback but a room for the improvement of their work. Participants are aware of their limitations particularly in their use of grammar and they are open for criticisms of others – taking it positively and a learning opportunity.

Novice writers, particularly senior high school students, have difficulty in grammatical rules because of lack of foundation and understanding with sentence structure. In constructing a sentence, they oftentimes not instinctively match the number of the subject with the appropriate from of the verb. This is in consonance to the study of Uka et al (2023) where they analyzed the errors committed by Senior High School (SHS) students of the University of Mindanao in their academic essays. They found out that students commit errors in their writing compositions due to their lack of English language proficiency and knowledge of the writing conventions. The results further revealed that SHS students are experiencing difficulties in applying grammatical and writing rules in their academic writing, such as appropriate usage of prepositions, omission and addition of affixations, proper structure of sentences, and substituting elements of sentences. Content analysis proves that the feedback of the reviewers also carries a room for improvement. Most of the comments as room for improvement focus on grammar. To quote:

“The story was good but next time, you must improve your grammar.”

“The story was written beautifully but the grammar and technique must be improved.”

“The story was great but some of the grammar was not right and must be improved.”

“The title is well thought and well written. The story is well written but the grammar and positioning must be improved.”

“The story was good but you must improve some of your grammar next time.”

“The story is good and the grammar is quite correct.”

“The title is well and written but the grammar needs a little improvement.”

“The title is well thought and well written. The story is well written but the grammar and positioning must be improved.”

“The story was good but you must improve some of your grammar next time.”

Aside from grammar improvement, there is one comment that focuses on the criteria and the overall quality of the of the story. Specifically, the reviewer sees the importance of the plot. His comment is:

“Incomplete resolution and the rising action didn’t include all important details.”

The researcher’s analysis on the comments shows that the comments they give are not subjective or personal, instead they merely focused on their written work. This ability show professionalism in giving feedback to others work. Through peer review, participants exemplified professionalism by focusing on the work not on who the person does it. This result is consistent with a previous study by Martin et al. (2021), which highlights the significance of providing feedback while keeping the work and the recipient in mind. It’s crucial to recognize, though, that constructive criticism may be just as valuable to writers’ development as positive critique.

Feedback is very crucial as it helps identify weaknesses, inconsistencies, or errors in a manuscript. When done with honesty and fairness, it can serve as a constructive criticism to encourage authors in redefining their work to enhance the overall quality.

Uncertain: While most of the feedback are either appreciation and room for improvement, few participants said that the feedback they received from their peers is uncertain. They say:

“The comment of my classmate in my first draft is sometimes negative sometimes positive. For example, they correct my grammar, spelling and the title.” (P3)

“There are good and there are not so good comments, ma’am. Sometimes, my story is not that impressive and not that bad but sometimes there are words that is not related to the flow of the poem.” (P7)

Two participants view the comments they received as unclear because it both comprises of positive and negative feedback. This perception creates confusion on their part. Upon analyzing the comments on their papers, there is one that can be considered unclear. It says:

“The way it was written is not bad at all. Things just happen too fast and it lessens the excitement [of the reader.]”

The feedback is unclear to the writer because it does not give specific detail on what is good and what is not good on their work. The comment is very general and lacks concern. This type of feedback can possibly create a dilemma on the writers for they do not know which aspect they need to improve in their story. Unclear feedback can also imply that their story is not appreciated by their peer.

Unclear feedback on the manuscript can affect the author’s perception of his/her work. Although this can possibly happen, the reviewer must ensure that the comment should be specific so it will be clear for the author what is being appreciated and what needs to be improved in his/her work. According to Goodle and O’Donnell (2016), A feedback that is ambiguous, vague and has contradictory statements can lead to confusion and frustration, making it difficult for students to understand what changes are needed. Additionally, it results to a minimal improvement in their writing lower quality of output.

Students’ View of Peer Review

The views of students in peer review promote a more inclusive and collaborative learning environment. Students bring diverse perspective and experiences, and incorporating their views in their peer review process ensures that it aligns with their needs and enhances their learning experience.

As to Comments Received

The first aspect to be considered on students’ view of peer review is the feedback they received from their classmates. Because students receive diverse feedback, they also have differing views on it. They see it as motivator, baffler and disengage.

Motivator: The first view of students on peer review in terms of the comments received is that it serves as a motivator. By engaging in peer review, students gain exposure to diverse ideas and are motivated to incorporate constructive feedback into their work. To quote, they said:

It is ok for me because it’s their judgment on my work, ma’am. I don’t have the right to complain. It’s just the same with my comment on their work, it’s ok for them. (P1)

The comments I received was quite good, but it’s okay for me. I think the comment given should be expounded more and specific. (P5)

I learn to improve my skills so my classmates can give positive comments next time. Comments are needed to improve our skills. (P8)

I receive good comments. It helps me correct my mistakes. (P9)

To those comments I received, I was motivated and have better idea. (P10)

I feel humbled and I appreciate their comment on my work. (P11)

I appreciate their comments and I felt motivated to do more. (P13)

I feel inspired and motivated in their comments to do more. (P14)

I feel relieved because if I have mistakes, it’s okay so I can improve it next time. (P15)

Peer review motivated students to do more and improve their writing skills. An objectively given feedback can contribute to a more positive overall learning experience, promote a culture of learning and mutual support among students. It does not only improve the quality of work but also cultivates a supportive learning community. According to Zhang, et al (2020), the way students praise their peers in their feedback primes and modifies their mindsets and academic motivation. Person-focused praise reflects a fixed mindset and negative academic motivation (i.e., avoidance), whereas process-focused praise undermines negative academic motivation.

Baffler: Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines baffle as to “to confuse or frustrate.” In peer review, baffling happens when the comment is unclear or gives confusion to the writer. Peer review serves as a baffler to learners when the writer got confused because the comment is good but the score is not high. There is a discrepancy from the comment and the score. Perhaps, the writer expects a high score based from the comment. To quote, he said:

“This is when I realized that not everything that other people say is correct because there is a classmate of mine whose comment is that my work has a good grammar but the score he gave was 5/10.” (P2)

Another participant got confused as well because of the comment the received. He said,

“My feeling when I received that comment is so confused because I work hard for that and still there is always a mistake.” (P3)

Peer review can serve as a baffler in terms of comments received when the comment is not specific and the score is not in congruence to the comment given. It is therefore important for the reviewer to be careful in doing his work like being specific and detailed on his comment, objective in rating his/her classmates’ draft, and be critical in reading his/her classmate’s work. This is similar to the discussion that the feedback they received from peers is “unclear.”

Disengager: It refers to the reviewer not actively participating in the peer review process. This can manifest through minimal feedback which ca negatively impact the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. One participant said,

“Some of my classmates were not a type of good reader that’s why they do not read the entire drafts so they just commented “your story is awesome” which is very common on my end but it’s all okay.”(P4)

This participant belongs to the topnotchers in the class, so for her, her classmate’s comment “you story is awesome” is very usual to her. She has expected it that the reviewer will not pay much attention to her work because the reviewer might feel inferior to the capability of the author. If the perception of the participant is true that the reviewer feels inferior, this experience may also be true to other students, particularly those who are low achievers being paired to an excellent student in the classroom. They too might not pay much attention in checking their work because of the thinking that they are not qualified to do so.

On the other hand, authors may also view peer review when they think that the rating or comments, they received are not what they expected. They may see peer review as irrelevant because they feel that the reviewers did not comprehensively review their work. The responses are the following:

“Sometimes it hurts but I need to accept it for my own improvement.” (P6)

“The first comment I received, I feel mixed emotion – partly happy and partly sad. Partly happy because some show concern, they corrected my mistakes, and sad because I was disappointed with the negative comments as if they were not satisfied.”  (P7)

“I just accept it but they must also know their capacity in that thing. If you know you can, at least you know you pass.” (P12)

In relation to this, Gropp et al. (2017) carried out research on the difficulties and demands that exist within the peer review system, including the problem of reviewer disengagement and how it affects authors as well as reviewers. They discovered that when reviewers perceive peer review as a chore due to the associated responsibilities, disengagement occurs. Disengaged reviewers frequently write cursory evaluations devoid of thoughtful criticism and in-depth research. The author’s capacity to successfully enhance their papers is hampered by this discrepancy.

Feedback plays a crucial role in shaping students’ perceptions of peer review because it can enhance their trust in the process, fostering a sense of collaboration and improvement. With the diverse impact of peer review in terms of comments received, it is therefore important for the teacher or facilitator of the peer review process to make sure that the role of students in reviewing their classmate’s work is clear. Students become confused in the comments they received when the reviewer does not clearly identify what to improve and subjectively rate the work. The teacher should also take into consideration whom he/she will assign each one’s work instead of randomly giving assigning it to avoid apathy in checking.

As to Improvement in Writing Skills

Another aspect which was taken into consideration in students’ view of peer review is its effect to their improvement in writing. In this section, the researcher explored how students interpret and have experienced peer review to improve their writing skills. Their understanding of the effectiveness of peer review in facilitating improvements in their writing abilities is the focus of this section. By exploring from their perceptions, we gain valuable insights into the challenges, benefits and overall effect of peer review in students’ writing development. The following are their views on peer review as to improvement in writing:

Mirror: Peer review helps students reflect their own perception and improvement in writing. As evident from the participants’ responses, there is a recognition of the need for improvement in their writing skills:

“Peer review is beneficial because through peer review, we can improve our writing coz you will realize like ‘yes, I need to do this.’ I can have that idea because of the comments given.” (P8)

“For my fist draft, it was concise and good to read, but for me, I am not yet satisfied and I know there are still a lot to improve.” (P10)

“My writing was not that really good but I do accept what their comments and suggestions because I do believe that improving your self is better. It serves a tool to reflect on my writing ability.” (P12)

“I need to improve my writing more especially my grammar.” (P13)

“I need to improve my writing skills especially my grammar.” (P14)

Participants were able to reflect their work and abilities from the feedback they received from peers. They have realized the need to improve their story, particularly in correct grammar. This only proves that peer review gave them the opportunity to reflect their own writing skills as their peers review their work and correct their mistakes. It also indicates that they are willing to use feedback for self-improvement.

Students view peer review as a mirror in their improvement in writing for they do not only reflect on the comments of their peers in their first draft but also as a self-reflection on their own writing ability. Through peer review, they were able to have the chance to reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses in writing. This aligns with research suggesting that peer review facilitates error awareness and promotes meta cognitive development, allowing writers to critically evaluate their own writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2001).

Steerer:  Another view of students on peer review as to improvement in writing is “steerer.” This focuses on participant’s perspectives on how feedback guides them towards areas of writing improvement. Peer review helps enhance and refine their work before they submit the final draft.

“Yes, it helps us to improve writing, because they correct our mistakes and we learn new knowledge.” (P3)

“I think it is helpful so you can know what to improve and to change.” (P6)

“Comments are very helpful even their recommendation. I can improve my output before passing it because of their suggestions.” (P7)

“I need to improve my writing so that my readers will be more interested.” (P11)

Students see peer review a helpful means to improve their writing skills. The comments they received does not only help them reflect on their own abilities but also serve as their guide to create a more interesting story.

The comments they received in their first draft through peer review steer their abilities to improve their work before they submit their final draft to the teacher. These responses reflect on the role of peer feedback in the writing process where multiple revisions lead to improved writing outcomes as what Lundstrom & Baker (2009) believe. The constructive nature of peer feedback provides actionable suggestions for enhancing writing effectiveness (Cho & MacArthur, 2010).

To sum up, peer review is viewed as a steerer because it helps writers identify and focus on specific areas that need improvement. The constructive feedback provided by peers not only highlights strengths and weaknesses but also offers suggestions on how to enhance the work. This encourages writers to think critically about their writing, considering different perspectives and making thoughtful revisions. Consequently, peer review not only improves the quality of the writing but also fosters a deeper understanding and development of critical thinking skills.

Collaborator: Another views of students of peer review as to improvement in their writing skills is as a collaborator. The process in which students work together for the improvement of their peers first draft makes collaboration possible. Participants’ responses highlight how peer review serves as a collaborator in shaping their writing improvement journey.

“It helps me improve my writing skills. For me, peer review is important because we both help each other. Whatever the comments, we improve it before we submit the final draft to our teacher.”(P1)

“They corrected the story I made, and here, they also saw the importance of getting along with each other.” (P2)

“There is no need for too much improvement in writing based on the feedbacks I received since most of the critic are deeply engaged to my drafts.” (P4)

“They seriously criticized my drafts with the best of their ability.” (P5)

“My classmates were able to correct my grammar and other mistakes. It also improves my penmanship by writing in a yellow paper first before submitting the final output.” (P9)

A cooperative effort took place among students to improve the first of their story when the reviewer checked the grammar of the writer.  As each one was assigned to check their peer’s first draft, helping each other took place which is the core of collaboration. Students appreciated their peer because they were “deeply engaged” to their draft and criticized it “to the best of their ability.” Interpersonal understanding also took place in peer review as a collaborator. As one participant saw the “importance of getting along with each other.” This implies that peer review provides mutual assistance between peers, and promotes knowledge acquisition as they share insights and perspectives on each other’s work.

Peer review as a collaborator aligns with research of Cho and MacArthur (2010), who found that peer review fosters a collaborative learning environment where students engage in reciprocal feedback exchanges, resulting in writing improvement. Additionally, Storch (2005) discusses how peer review promotes knowledge construction as students learn from each other’s writing and provide constructive feedback.

In essence, peer review is viewed by students as a collaborative tool that facilitates interpersonal understanding, reciprocal help among peers, and knowledge gain. Both the writer and the reviewer gain from this dynamic and engaging process, which improves writing quality and the educational process.

As to Learning Opportunity

The third aspect of students’ view of peer review is as to learning opportunity. This section focuses on perceptions and experiences of student on peer review in their academic growth – the developmental benefits it provides and increased understanding of diverse perspectives for their writing development.

Eye-Opener: Peer review gives students valuable insights, helping them identify areas for improvement and deepen their understanding to aid them in becoming better writers. The responses provided by the participants highlight the perception of peer review as an eye-opener for student learning as it helps them correct their mistakes and to hone their reading skills. As stated,

“I learn a lot of opportunities to learn specially in correcting my mistakes not only in my written work but also in life.” (P2)

“I want to learn more and improve my writing skills. I need to work hard to hone my reading skills and that will be possible if I am going to read literature works.” (P10)

When students are given the opportunity to correct their mistakes, they can learn what needs to be done so that they would not be committing the same they had the next time they write a story. They also perceive it to be applicable in real life. We are not perfect. We can commit mistakes. But that mistake can be a learning opportunity of what to do the next time we encounter similar situation.

Participants also highlighted the role of peer review as an eye-opener in error detection and correction, as stated,

“It helps us to correct any errors that we are not aware. It is also helpful in correcting the words used if it is proper or not.” (P3)

“Even though the stories we write are not that good enough, we can revise it and add some details through peer review. Without peer review, we, students, can just say that the short stories we made are excellent. But through peer review, my classmates can see what needs to be improved. So, peer review is helpful to us students to learn.” (P8)

Students view the comments of their peers as an eye-opener because they are able to correct errors that they are not aware or what they think is correct but actually not. With this they can know what others think about their work, whether it is excellent or not. Through their peer’s feedback, they can revise their stories for improvement.

This perception aligns with recent research by Gielen, Tops, Dochy, and Onghena (2014), who found that peer assessment contributes to error identification and facilitates the improvement of student work quality. By allowing students to critic their classmate’s work, it provides them new insights for academic growth. Thus, it supports growth in student’s mindset.

Moreover, students view peer review as an eye-opener because they recognized its connection to the application of knowledge gained from class discussions. One respondent stated,

“It gives opportunity to learn but not all students can correct mistakes in the draft. The output reflects what I learn from class discussion. It is the application of the knowledge I gained.” (P9)

They say ‘you cannot give what you do not have.” Students perceive that their output reflects what they have learned from the previous class discussion. The actual writing of the story is the application of the knowledge they have learned on the important aspects in writing a story. It is where their knowledge is being weighed if they truly understood the concepts taught by their teacher. This perception aligns with the research by Sadler (2010), who argued that peer assessment enhances students’ ability to apply theoretical concepts to practical tasks, thereby promoting deeper learning and understanding.

In a nutshell, the insights provided by participants highlight the transformative role of peer review as an “eye-opener” for student learning. It aids in identifying and rectifying mistakes they are not aware of, and helps them relate knowledge acquired from the class discussion to real life application.

Reinforcer: Students peer review as a reinforcer when it comes to learning opportunity for it strengthens and supports the learning process. Students reinforce their understanding and retention of what they have learned in class through writing. Students emphasize how peer review aids in refining their writing skills and elevating the quality of their work. This sentiment is echoed in responses such as,

“Peer review is beneficial to us, students, because my work can be evaluated first by my classmates. We revise our first draft based on their comments as room for improvement. So, we submit a better output to our teacher.” (P1)

“I can have the chance to improve my story.” (P5)

“I can be more critical in the grammar of my classmate’s story.” (P6)

“It helps me to improve my writings. How I write a story or poem and to improve it more.” (P11)

“It helps me to improve my writing skills and to make my work better.” (P13)

“It helps me to improve in writing some stories.” (P14)

“Always desire to improve yourself take it as a challenge to be better and keep moving forward.” (P15)

Through peer review, they can have the chance to improve their stories and writing skills so they can submit a better output to their teacher. Peer review gives students the opportunity to learn best because it strengthens their writing ability through the assistance given by their peers in checking their first draft.  Additionally, students consider peer review as an integral part of their learning experience, as they want to keep learning and developing as writers. This demonstrates how peer review procedures promote intrinsic motivation in students as they actively look for ways to grow and better themselves.

This perception is consistent with studies by Johnson et al. (2018), who discovered that student writing skills were dramatically enhanced over time by peer review interventions. Students are better able to understand writing standards and topics thanks to peer criticism.Additionally, students who participated in peer review improved their final written output more than those who did not (Brown and Garcia, 2019),

To sum up, peer review is considered a “reinforcer” due to the significant learning opportunity it provides for improving writing skills and encouraging active participation in the writing process.

Constructor: As perceived by participants, peer review serves as a constructor when it comes to  learning opportunity for it develops critical thinking and problem-solving abilities, which improves real-life skills. The feedback from the participants confirms that they value the helpful aspects of their peers’ reviews. They also learned about its broader applications outside of the academic setting. The following are the verbalizations:

“Personally, I view peer review as an enhancement tool in our new curriculum. It is being said that our critical skill is very important for us to be able to respond to think, and to create viewpoints analytically. Peer review is of utmost helpful in our day-to-day living, including academics, professional setting, decision making, and most especially to our personal growth.”  (P4)

“There are many opportunities to learn from peer review but not all comments given would not correct my mistakes. I learned that I need to understand things first before giving comments. We should not become judgmental. Instead, we should learn to appreciate the works of others.” (P7)

“I did learn a lot from the comments I receive, through reading, you need to be fair in giving grades. Be unselfish, instead of making other people down you should help encourage them.” (P12)

These statements provide a clear view of the impact of peer review in their lives. The empathy and fairness they learned in peer review paved a way to apply it in real life context as it fosters resilience, self-improvement, and critical thinking abilities. Learning goes beyond the four walls of the classroom for students were able to relate their peer review learnings into real-life context. These constructive effects of peer review cultivated in school are fundamental for creating a more compassionate, just, and cooperative society.

Research backs up this assertion, showing that peer review helps develop transferable abilities like problem-solving, teamwork, and communication—all of which are critical in a variety of professional settings(Jones, et al, 2021), and helps contribute to students’ sense of agency and autonomy, empowering them to take ownership of their learning journey (Sadler, 2010).

Overall, peer review is highlighted as a constructive process that fosters personal growth, professional development, and positive interpersonal relationships. It has a broader implication for educational practice and pedagogy.

Proposed Training for English Senior High School Teachers in the Division of Ilocos Sur

The fourth objective of this study is to formulate a valid primer based from the results of the three objectives of this study. Thus, the researcher proposes a training program for teachers. Below are the details:

Training Title: PROJECT PRINT (Peer Review Integration iN Teaching)

Rationale: As the Department of Education will implement the MATATAG curriculum from kindergarten to Grade 10 starting this upcoming school year, there is no official plan yet to improve and enhance the quality of education in the Senior High School level. Yet, Senior High School teachers need to continually improve and innovate their teaching strategies for they play a vital role in helping learners become independent and competent in their writing skills as they are being prepared for higher education, workers, or entrepreneurs.

Through employing phenomenology as its research design and using interview as the main gathering tool, this study revealed that peer review helps improve the writing skills of students. With their experiences, peer review is vital in English language instruction.

With the abovementioned findings of the study, the researcher proposes a training program for English Senior High School teachers in the division for peer review integration in teaching. In the “PROJECT PRINT”, English Language Teachers will integrate peer review in teaching writing skills of students. The project proponent sees the need to integrate peer review strategy to effectively teach Senior High School students in their academic and creative writing activities.

Objectives: This training program aims to help teachers in enhancing student’s writing skills academically and creatively through meticulously planned process of immersive and engaging peer review. Specifically, it aims to:

1. lessen the burden of checking written outputs of while ensuring engagement in writing.
2. elevate and ease in teaching English writing skills of Senior High School.
3. cultivate collaboration and a sense of responsibility among learners while simultaneously developing a qualitative written output.

Implementation Period: SY 2024-2025

Training Matrix

Table 1: Training Matrix

Topics are based from the themes on the results of the study

Proposed Budgetary Requirement

Table 2: Proposed Budgetary Requirements

Source of Budget: School MOOE and Donations

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary, conclusions, and recommendations of the study.

Summary

There are four essential processes make up the peer review process that is used to teach writing skills: reading, checking, rating, and commenting. Students first read the manuscript carefully to comprehend and assess it, and then they proofread it for errors in language and spelling and coherence. Then, in order to preserve objectivity, they grade the work according to predetermined standards using a scoring rubric. Students then offer thorough feedback to help their colleagues polish their manuscripts. The author makes changes to their work in response to criticism, resulting in a polished and well-rewritten contribution. Students’ writing improves in quality and critical thinking is encouraged by this methodical approach.

Peer feedback plays an important role in the writing process. Results of the study highlights three types of feedback: appreciation, room for improvement, and uncertain feedback. Appreciation reinforces positive aspects of the work which boosts their confidence and motivation. Comments suggesting room for improvement typically focus on grammar and technical aspects, which students view positively as opportunities to enhance their writing skills. However, some feedback was unclear, mixing positive and negative remarks without specific guidance, leading to confusion for the writers. Effective feedback should be clear and constructive to support the author’s growth and improve the quality of their work.

With regards to the input they received, students see peer review as either a motivator or a baffler or a disengager. Feedback encourages students to develop their abilities and feels motivated when given in a constructive manner. However, it can perplex pupils and lead to confusion when comments are imprecise or grades don’t match the feedback. Reviewers become disengaged when they offer little criticism, frequently because they feel unworthy or uninterested, which prevents them from offering insightful criticism. The importance of clear guidelines and thoughtful peer review is emphasized to ensure the process is effective and beneficial for all students.

Peer review’s impact on students’ ability to write better is another facet of their perception of it. Students see it as a useful tool, and three main viewpoints come to light. They first view it as a mirror that enables them to consider their advantages and disadvantages, using the feedback to identify areas in which they still need to improve, especially with regard to grammar. Second, peer review serves as a steerer, helping them concentrate on certain areas that need improvement and enabling deliberate edits before to submission. Finally, it acts as a collaborator, creating an atmosphere where students assist one another in improving their drafts, encouraging cooperation, knowledge exchange, and interpersonal comprehension. In general, peer review fosters critical thinking, teamwork, and introspection in addition to improving writing quality.

Lastly, students vie peer review as an important educational experience that promotes both academic and personal development. They see it as an eye-opener that enables them to see errors in their writing and enhance it by obtaining fresh perspectives and applying what they have learned in class to actual circumstances. Additionally, it acts as a reinforcer, bolstering their comprehension and recall of writing techniques through helpful criticism and inspiring them to polish their work before turning it in. Peer review also serves as a constructor, helping students develop critical thinking, empathy, and problem-solving skills that benefit them in both their personal and professional life outside of the classroom. These viewpoints highlight how peer evaluation can significantly improve students’ academic and life skills.

Conclusions

This study aims to explore the peer review experiences of learners in Creative Writing. Results of the discussion proves that peer review plays an important role in the writing process, encompassing several necessary processes that contribute to the continual refinement of writing skills and the quality of manuscripts that foster growth within the writing community.

Additionally, feedback in peer review is important in the writing process. By boosting authors’ confidence and promoting a supportive environment, constructive feedback serves as a catalyst for growth and development. Feedback on grammar and writing style enhancescommunication, clarity, and professionalism, thereby contributes to engagement and retention. Overall, feedback facilitates a collaborative approach in writing which resultsto higher-quality manuscripts. These findings highlight the importance of feedback in peer review as a foundation of excellence and continual improvement in writing.

Finally, peer review fosters a supportive learning environment. While positive feedback serves as a motivator for improvement, it is important to provide clear guidelines and effective communication to avoid disengagement and confusion. Moreover, peer review serves as a mirror for self-assessment, a steerer for targeted improvement, and a collaborator for mutual assistance and knowledge acquisition. Ultimately, peer review is acknowledged as an important educational experience that fosters self-reflection, improves writing abilities, and advances both professional and personal growth.

The aforementioned resultsshow the significance of incorporating peer review in the teaching and learning process in order to enhance the educational process and foster student achievement in writing. As such, a proposed training program will help teachers in effectively teaching writing skills of senior high school learners.

Recommendations

From the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are forwarded:

1. To prevent disengagement among students in the peer review process, teachers should clarify their roles and responsibilities, taking into consideration their academic level to avoid mismatch.
2. When conducting peer review, the first draft should be submitted in a soft copy to avoid difficulty in reading to the part of the reviewer because of penmanship and to ease detection of its authenticity and grammar through online platform detectors.
3. Quantitative research must be conducted to test the effectiveness of peer review in enhancing students’ writing skills to SHS students.
4. Future studies may look into the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed training program.

REFERENCES

Online Sources

1. Boas, Isabela Villas (2011). Process Writing and the Internet: Blogs and Ning Networks in the Classroom. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ962381.
2. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health (2019). Content Analysis.https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis.
3. Crossman, Ashley (2020). Understanding Purposive Sampling: An Overview of the Method and Its Applications. https://www.thoughtco.com/purposive-sampling-3026727
4. Deakin University (2021). Qualitative Study Design. https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs.
5. 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.
6. Harper, G. (2006). Teaching Creative Writing. Continuum International Publishing Group.
7. Ho, P.V., & Ly, H.H. (2020). The Incorporation of Quality Peer Feedback into Writing Revision. Semantic Scholar.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-incorporation-of-quality-peer-feedback-into-Ho-Ly/976bcd702c32513ae9a61d99d96a9c5366987660
8. McLeod, Saul (2019). The zone of proximal development and scaffolding. Simply Psychology.https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html
9. Morley, D. (2007). The Cambridge introduction to creative writing. Cambridge University Press.
10. Soyombo, Sam. (August 2023). The Impact of Positive Feedback: Fostering Creativity and Career Success.
11. Ting, M., & Qian, Y. (2010). A Case Study of Peer Feedback in a Chinese EFL Writing Classroom. Semantic Scholar.https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Case-Study-of-Peer-Feedback-in-a-Chinese-EFL-Ting-Qian/0ffa344d7b28061fed5216e2dfa424064bb59f6c
12. Wallace Foundation. (n.d.). Workbook E: In-depth interviews. Retrieved December 11, 2023, from https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/resources-for-researchers/pages/default.aspx

Journals

13. Brown, L., & Garcia, M. (2019). Peer review’s effect on writing quality. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 249-273.
14. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.
15. Garcia, J. M., Lopez, A. B., & Martinez, C. D. (2023). The Role of Reading in Peer Review: A Contemporary Analysis. Journal of Scholarly Communication, 45(2), 234-248.
16. Grainger, T. (2005). Teachers as writers: Learning together. English in Education, 39(1), 75-87.
17. Graham, Steve &Karin Sandmel (2011). The Process Writing Approach: A Meta-analysis. Taylor & Francis Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.488703.
18. Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., &Onghena, P. (2014). The impact of a peer assessment training on performance, assessment quality and peer feedback acceptance. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 17-27.
19. Groenwald, Thomas (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F160940690400300104
20. Gropp, R. E., Glisson, S. N., Gallo, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. (2017). Peer review: A system under pressure. BioScience, 67(5), 407-410. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix027
21. Haiyan, M., &Rilong, L. (2016). Classroom EFL writing: The alignment-oriented approach. English Language Teaching, 9(4), 76-82. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n4p76
22. Hanjani, Alireza Memari. (2019). Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners. International Journal of English Studies. DOI: 10.6018/ijes.331771.
23. Hanjani, Alireza Memari& Li Li. (2016) Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. Open Research Exeter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.03.004
24. Harris, K. L., & Graham, S. (2016). Comprehensive evaluation of student writing: Manual methods for ensuring quality and integrity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 515-528.
25. (2018). Novice Iranian EFL writers’ reactions to collective peer scaffolding incorporation into their paragraph writing course. Applied Research on English Studies. DOI:10.22108/are.2019.112997.1363.
26. Hassan et al (2020). The Impact of Process Writing on the Language and Attitude of Pakistani English Learners. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles. Vol. 27.
27. Jones, A. B., Smith, C. D., & Brown, E. F. (2021). Peer review and transferable skills development: A contemporary perspective. Journal of Professional Development, 23(4), 567-582.
28. Kiger, Michelle E. & Lara Varpio (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher. DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
29. Lei, Z. (2017). Salience of student written feedback by peer-revision in EFL writing class.English Language Teaching. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v10n12p151
30. Li, J., Yao, Q., & Cui, Y. (2015). The process writing approach: A novel way to learn English writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(3), 654-658.https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0603.10
31. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
32. Martin, S. K., et al. (2021). Professionalism in Peer Review: A Comparative Analysis of Reviewer Comments. Journal of Academic Publishing, 43(2), 211–226.
33. Miao, Yang, Richard Badger & Yu Zhenc. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class, 179–200. Journal of Second Language Writing.
34. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.
35. Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. *Language Teaching Research, 8*(1), 31-54.
36. Shil, H., & Rahman, M. M. (2020). Developing writing skills in EFL classroom: A study of Bengali medium secondary schools in Bangladesh. Studies in English Language Teaching, 8(2), 85-95.
37. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
38. Subaşı, G. (2014). What are the effects of written peer feedback training on Turkish ELT students’ writing quality? International Journal of Science Arts and Commerce, 1(1).
39. Suryani, Rias Wita, Yenni Rozimela, and Desvalini Anwar. (2020). Investigating the Effect of Peer Feedback on Students’ Writing Skill. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 463.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
40. Topping, J. H., Smith, D., & Swanson, S. (2013). The impact of peer assessment on academic writing: Exploring the use of numerical ratings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 792-804.
41. Uka, Azmeer Hasannal &Yting, Jonathan & Gildore, Phyll Jhann. (2023). Error Analysis of Academic Essays of Senior High School Students. Journal Corner of Education Linguistics and Literature. 3. 141-156. 10.54012/jcell.v3i2.224.
42. Wichadee, Sauvapa (2010) Cooperative Learning Approach: A Successful Way of Reducing Learning Anxiety in an EFL Class. International Journal of Education. Vol.33, No.3.

Appendix A: Simulacrum of the Study

The image below is the portrait of peer review in Creative Writing.  The two students reading each one’s draft involves a process which are reading, checking, rating and commenting. The feedback given by peers contain appreciation, room for improvement, and unclear. Meanwhile the bubble contains students’ perceptions of peer review which involve their views on the comments they receive, how these comments help improve their writing skills, and the learning opportunities peer review provides. They see it as a way to get useful feedback from classmates, which can help them write better and learn more effectively.

Appendix B: Request Letter

Republic of the Philippines

ILOCOS SUR POLYTECHNIC STATE COLLEGE

Graduate School

Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur

June 6, 2023

DR. MANOLITO L. PEÑA

Principial IV

Burgos National High School

Burgos, Ilocos Sur 2724

Sir:

This is to request permission from your good office to conduct my study entitled, “Portrait of Peer Review in Creative Writing” in partial fulfillment of the requirements in Master of Science in Education.

This research aims to describe the peer review experiences of students in Creative Writing.

With your kind approval in this request, the success of this study will be facilitated.

God bless and more power!

Respectfully yours,

(SGD) MARY GRACE D. BELEN

Researcher

Approved:

(SGD) MANOLITO L. PEÑA, Ed. D.

Principal III

Appendix C: Interview Consent Form

Republic of the Philippines

ILOCOS SUR POLYTECHNIC STATE COLLEGE

Graduate School

Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur

INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM

This is a research on the peer review experiences of students in Creative Writing. You will be asked to be interviewed by the researcher. All information will be kept confidential and solely to be used in this research endeavor. This interview will last for thirty minutes. Follow-up interviews can also be done during the course of the study.

I understand that I can contact Mrs. Mary Grace Belen at 09277705369 about any concerns I have about this research.

I understand that participation in this study is voluntary and I have the right to stop at any time.

I understand that none of my answers will be released and no names will be recorded and that risks of participating in this study are minimal.

I understand that participating in this study will help the researcher better explain and describe how peer review takes place in the Modular Distance Learning.

SIGNATURE OVER PRINTED NAME OF THE PARTICIPANT

DATE

Appendix D: Interview Guide Questions

Preliminary Questions:

1. What is your name?
2. Where do you live?
3. What is your grade level and strand?
4. Do you have a Creative Writing subject this semester?
5. Do you conduct peer review in that subject?
6. What are the outputs you review?

Main Questions:

1. How do you conduct peer review?
2. What were your classmate’s comments in your first draft?
3. How do you view peer review in terms of the following:
4. Comments Received
5. Improvement in Writing; and
6. Learning Opportunity?

Additional Question:

Do you have other things to share that is related to peer review?

Appendix E: Thematic Analysis Table

SOP 1: How do learners conduct peer review?

SOP 2: What are the types of comments given in the peer reviewed outputs of learners?

SOP 3.1: How do learners view peer review in terms of comments received?

SOP 3.2: How do learners view peer review in terms of improvement in writing?

SOP 3.3: How do learners view peer review in terms of learning opportunity?