Impact of the Online Peer-Review Technique (Oprt) on Improving the Students’ Ability of Paragraph Writing Using Facebook

Background/purpose. This study aims to evaluate the effects of the Online Peer-Review Technique (OPRT) in enhancing the paragraph writing skills of first year English major students.

Materials/methods. The study used a quasi-experimental design to assess the effects of the Online Peer-Review Technique (OPRT) through Facebook on improving paragraph writing skills in university English majors, employing a pre-test/post-test method. The working group involved 24 respondents, comprising 21 females and three males.

Results. The findings revealed that students experienced high writing anxiety during the pre-test, which significantly decreased in the post-test. This indicates that the respondents initially exhibited high anxiety levels, which diminished following the intervention. Regarding the emotional response to online peer feedback, the results showed consistently high levels for both the pre-test and post-test, suggesting a strong emotional engagement with the OPRT.

Conclusion. The study found that the students' writing anxiety and emotion did not significantly change their paragraph writing skills after exposure to OPRT. These imply that the students' writing anxiety and emotions with the use of online peer feedback did not change before and after the paragraph writing skills with the use of OPRT. The study found that the students' writing anxiety entry level on the anxiety writing, the pre-attitude was high, but it became low in the post-attitude. This means the respondents did not gain a more positive attitude toward writing. On the use of online peer feedback, the students' entry level of attitude was high for both pre-attitude and post-attitude. This implies that the students are equipped with a positive attitude towards using online peer feedback.

Keywords: Peer-review, Facebook, Peer-review technique, Writing Skills, university students

References

Alharbi, W. (2023). AI in the foreign language classroom: A pedagogical overview of automated writing assistance tools. Education Research International, 2023(1), 4253331. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4253331

Al-Shehri, M. (2020). Social media as a tool for collaborative learning: The case of Facebook in writing instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106125

Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794

Buchanan, M., McKeown, J., & Noyes, M. (2013). The impact of peer feedback and reflection on writing in higher education. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.01.02

Chen, W., Liu, D., & Lin, C. (2023). Collaborative peer feedback in L2 writing: Affective, behavioral, cognitive, and social engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1078141. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1078141

Francis, R., & Shannon, S. J. (2013). Engaging with blended learning to improve students’ learning outcomes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(4), 359-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.766679

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable operations and computers, 3, 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004

Hamadi, M., El-Den, J., Azam, S., & Sriratanaviriyakul, N. (2022). Integrating social media as cooperative learning tool in higher education classrooms: An empirical study. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences, 34(6), 3722-3731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2020.12.007

Hohenstein, J., Kizilcec, R. F., DiFranzo, D., Aghajari, Z., Mieczkowski, H., Levy, K.,Naaman, M. , Hancock, J., & Jung, M. F. (2023). Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social relationships. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 5487. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30938-9

Korous, K. M., Causadias, J. M., Bradley, R. H., Luthar, S. S., & Levy, R. (2022). A systematic overview of meta-analyses on socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, and achievement: The need to focus on specific pathways. Psychological reports, 125(1), 55–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120984127

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2023). Worked example or scripting? Fostering students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1799032

Law, S., & Baer, A. (2020). Using technology and structured peer reviews to enhance students’ writing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417740994

Li, J., & Mak, L. (2022). The effects of using an online collaboration tool on college students’ learning of academic writing skills. System, 105, 102712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102712

Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323

Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, M., Babaee, M., Ashrafi, H., & Biemans, H. J. (2023). Gender differences in students’ argumentative essay writing, peer review performance and uptake in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 6302–6316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887

Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.005

Seals, D. R. (2023). Publishing particulars: Part 3. General writing tips, editing, and responding to peer review. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 324(3), R409-R424. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00270.2022

Shang, H. F. (2022). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601

Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. Metacognition and learning, 17(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09278-4

Topping, K. J. (2010). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 49(1), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840903453998

Tseng, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). The effects of peer feedback on writing anxiety and writing performance: A case study in a university setting. Computers & Education, 71, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.016

Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!

ANNOUNCEMENT

Message from the Editor-in-Chief,

We would like to inform our authors, reviewers, and stakeholders that EDUPIJ has entered Scopus’s re-evaluation process, as officially communicated (dated 2025-12-09). This assessment is a standard quality assurance practice applied to indexed journals and aims to ensure sustained editorial quality, ethical integrity, and alignment with Scopus’s evolving evaluation framework.

EDUPIJ welcomes this process and views it as an opportunity to further consolidate its editorial governance, strengthen publication ethics, and enhance peer-review rigor.

Strengthening Editorial and Ethical Standards

To ensure full compliance with international best practices and to proactively address Scopus evaluation criteria, the following measures have been formally implemented:

1. Selective Acceptance Policy for 2026 and Beyond

In response to increased submission volume in 2025 (see Journal Metrics: https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/18/journal-metrics), EDUPIJ will adopt a more selective acceptance policy starting in 2026 and continuing in the years ahead. In doing so, the geographic distribution of authors will also be taken into account to ensure that editorial decisions are informed by transparent, year-to-year submission and authorship patterns. Acceptance rates will be carefully aligned with editorial capacity to ensure a rigorous double-blind peer review process supported by active reviewer engagement and uncompromised editorial oversight. This policy reflects our commitment to quality-driven growth rather than volume-based expansion, and it directly addresses observations that the geographic spread of authors has changed significantly during the same period by ensuring that any such shifts are systematically monitored and considered within our quality assurance framework.

In line with this approach, we have adopted a Publication Volume Policy, enacted on 2025-12-07, which establishes clear upper limits on annual publication volume and defines a framework for maintaining EDUPIJ’s output at sustainable, long-term levels, comparable to pre-2025 volumes under normal conditions. This policy is also publicly available at https://edupij.com/index/sayfa/41/publication-volume-journal-metrics-policy.

From 2026 onwards, our objective is to maintain a moderate and stable annual volume, prioritising quality and selectivity rather than growth.

2. Enhanced Author and Manuscript Integrity Screening

All submissions now undergo mandatory integrity checks, including automated screening for retraction history and potential ethical risks prior to peer review. These procedures are designed to safeguard originality, research integrity, and transparency at every stage of the editorial process.

3. Establishment of a Publication Ethics Review Committee

A dedicated Publication Ethics Review Committee has been constituted to evaluate high-risk submissions, oversee ethical investigations when necessary, and ensure consistent adherence to COPE guidelines and internationally recognized publishing standards. All ethical decisions are documented and managed through a structured, transparent process.

Ongoing Commitment:

EDUPIJ remains firmly committed to rigorous double-blind peer review, transparent editorial policies, responsible scholarly communication, and the advancement of high-quality educational research at an international level.

Our journal continues to demonstrate steady progress in terms of international visibility, indexing coverage, and citation performance. We are confident that the Scopus re-evaluation process will further support the journal’s long-term sustainability and academic impact.

We sincerely thank our authors, reviewers, and the broader scholarly community for their continued trust and contribution to EDUPIJ.

Sincerely,
Prof. Turgut Karaköse, Editor-in-Chief

Posted: 2025-12-09