







































  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

127 
 

PEER REVIEW TECHNIQUE IN TEACHING EFL WRITING 
SKILLS FOR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS 

Jufriadi1, Fadliyah Rahmah Muin2*, & Ria Mustika3 
1,2,3State Islamic Institute of Palopo, Palopo, Indonesia 

fadliyah_rahmah_muin@iainpalopo.ac.id 
 

ABSTRACT 

This research aims to determine how peer review improves writing skills for the tenth grade 
of SMA 13 Luwu Timur. It was applied before the experimental study, focusing on one group 
pretest and post-test design. The population in this research was the tenth grade of SMA 13 
Luwu Timur. The research instrument used was a writing test (pretest and post-test). The 
data is analyzed by descriptive statistics and calculated using SPSS 22. The data analyzed by 
calculating the mean score and paired sample t-test revealed that the mean score of students 
in the post-test (55.08) was higher than the pretest (49.15). The t-count (3,118) is more 
significant than the t-table (2.179). This shows that the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is 
accepted, and the null hypothesis (Ho) is rejected. It can be said that using peer review in 
learning can be recommended to improve students' writing skills. 

Keywords: Descriptive Texts, English Language Teaching, Peer Review Technique, Writing Skills. 

 

INTRODUCTION 

One of the four talents in learning English is writing. It is used to communicate facts, 
emotions, and concepts in writing from authors to readers. The four language skills of 
speaking, listening, and reading are contrasted with writing. Even for a native speaker, it is 
harder to master. 

For pupils, writing is essential. Students who solely concentrate on oral 
communication will not be able to grasp English; they must be able to use the skills 
both orally and in writing. They also need to be proficient writers. Writing and 
communicating ideas in a way that others can understand them, however, is more difficult 
than we might think. Writing is more difficult to manage than the other three language skills. 
This is due to the fact that a number of factors must be taken into account when writing in 
order for the reader to comprehend what is being said. 

Writing about thoughts and emotions can be challenging because the writer must 
typically put letters together to produce words, phrases, paragraphs, and texts. Since 
writing is an action that requires a process, it is the hardest skill to learn. In order for the 
reader to understand the writer's intended message, ideas, or feelings, the texts also need 
to be readable and understandable. Writing involves putting our thoughts into words and 
paying closer attention to word choice, spelling, grammar, and other small elements.  

It is challenging to choose the right word and use correct punctuation and spelling. 
Furthermore, they have to write content that is related to the topic and make all the 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

128 
 

paragraphs coherent with each other. Students cannot build the link between their ideas 
and facts, lack vocabulary, and the teacher frequently uses a monotonous strategy. 

Based on the researcher's initial observations in SMA 13 Luwu Timur, the researcher 
discovered that students struggled with studying English, particularly in writing several 
problems; the writing issues were caused by their lack of vocabulary, making it difficult 
for them to write their ideas into a written form, which can make them confused about 
how to transfer their ideas; they needed a lot of time to think what they were written; and 
m The students should be familiar with a variety of writing-related texts so they can read 
the reader to expand their vocabulary and hone their writing skills;  

Teaching writing via peer review is very useful and beneficial in enhancing students' 
writing in English. It is a strategy where students discuss and write suggestions. Peer 
review allows students to receive feedback from their peers and receive information, 
which benefits them in their writing. 

Peer review as a tool for enhancing descriptive writing has been the subject of 
numerous studies. Leny (2017) investigating the effectiveness of peer-reviewed writing 
form the motivation of class ix students of SMPN 1 Sekampung. This experimental study 
implies that Peer Review technique is effective to teach writing for the ninth-grade 
students. In addition, Sartika and Arriyani (2006), tried to to look into how peer review 
affects students' writing skills and how they feel about using peer review approaches in 
writing classes at a junior high school in Malang. The results demonstrate that the 
experimental group's students were instructed using the products. Additionally, the 
results of the survey indicate that students' sentiments toward the use of peer review 
approaches in writing classes are favorable. In addition, Sani (2018) conducted a study to 
determine whether using the peer evaluation method has an impact on college students' 
ability to write recount texts. She found that college students' recount is significantly 
impacted by the peer grading approach. Furthermore, Purna (2017) studied the impacts 
of peer reviewing on EFL writing skills at Senior High School 2 Luwu discovered that the 
organization factor had improved more considerably. 

One strategy is to use peer-review techniques. This is also a technique that can be 
used in various schools. The similarities between the researcher and previous researchers 
are the types of research methods and learning techniques using peer review. The 
difference is that the last researcher used peer review writing to increase student 
motivation, discover student perceptions, and improve students' writing skills. In 
contrast, the researcher focused on using peer review to learn descriptive writing 
effectively. 

The researcher chose peer review because it effectively teaches writing descriptive 
text. After all, when the students review their peer writing result, they get more 
information or comment from their peer. It can also make them realize some mistakes in 
their peer writing result, which is used to construct their better writing result. titled" The 
Role of Peer Review in Teaching Descriptive Writing to SMA Negeri 13 Luwu Timur 10th 
Grade Students ". 

METHODS 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

129 
 

In this research, the researcher applied pre-experimental studies. (pretest and 
submit-test) and treatment with non-magnificence assessment. The researcher carried 
out a pre-experimental design to research whether or not the usage of peer review 
affected the student's writing abilities. The students went through those steps in 3 tiers: 
(1) a Pretest, which was used to look at the pupil's understanding; (2) treatment, which 
was carried out to manual the student's effective writing talents: 

Note: 
T1 = Pre-test 
X1 = Treatment 
T2 = Post-test 

Population and Sample  

The participants in this study are students in SMA 13Luwu Timur's 10th grade. The 
study's target audience consisted of about 250 students. One class as the researcher only 
used one. The whole sampling techniques used in this study were customized by the 
researcher. This means that the sample of this study refers back to the 10th IPS 2 grade 
students of SMA 13 Luwu Timur, which contains 28 students in a single class. 

Research Instruments 

Which was used as a research tool both before and after treatment and took the form 
of descriptive writing. The test was designed to gather data on the student's ability to write 
descriptively. Before beginning the treatment, the researcher administered a pretest to 
determine their level of experience in descriptive writing. Following the treatment, put-up-
checks were employed to gauge the student's ability to produce a descriptive paragraph. 

Data Collection Procedure 

Initial observation 

Prior to conducting the investigation, SMAN Thirteen Luwu Timur's region and 
population were identified. 

Pretest 

Gives the students an opportunity to practice writing descriptive text by utilizing a 
topic to describe themselves. The kids completely focused on the issue as they produced a 
descriptive essay. 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

130 
 

Treatment 

After the pretest, the researcher offered treatment. Six sessions were held to 
administer the treatment. As a result, the researcher created a number of procedures to 
support students' descriptive writing with peer review. In each meeting, the researcher 
instructed the students to write an essay with different topic for each. 

Giving Posttest 

The effectiveness of using photographs to teach writing descriptive language will be 
tested in this experiment. In this Posttest, the researcher administered a quiz on the topic 
of tourism sites in Luwu Timur, after which the students used peer review to create 
descriptive writings. 

Data Analysis Methods 

Data analysis procedures involve classifying the Score, he J.B. Heaton scales that 
make up the objective score are separated into five parts. 

a) Content describes the concept conveyed or the essence of the writing.  
b) The organization's objective is to maintain organization of the content. 
c) The term "vocabulary" refers to any words or phrases that pupils employ in 

their writing. 
d) Syntactic patterns and structural terms make up grammar. 
e) Using the SPPS program in Windows 22, determine the mean score, standard 

deviation, significant test, and standard value for the data. 

RESULTS 

In this section, the researcher showed the students' overall scores as well as their 
writing exam results. The researcher provided the data in tables and used SPSS 22 to 
determine the score. The researcher then displayed the pupils' full speaking skill pretest 
results. The results of the students' pretest scores are shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Students’ Overall Scores in Pretest  

No Student C O V G M Scoring of Test 

1 S1 11 11 10 15 3 50 
2 S2 15 16 13 17 3 64 

3 S3 12 10 12 16 2 52 

4 S4 16 15 12 11 4 58 

5 S5 12 11 13 10 2 38 

6 S6 7 8 9 14 3 41 

7 S7 9 11 13 17 3 42 

8 S8 9 9 10 12 2 42 

9 S9 6 6 8 10 3 33 

10 S10 10 11 13 16 2 52 

11 S11 15 15 16 10 2 58 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

131 
 

12 S12 15 15 16 10 3 59 

13 S13 14 12 11 2 2 50 

Total Mean Score 49,15 

 
The researcher discussed the typical rating of students' speaking abilities in this area, 

including content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. 

Table 2. Descriptive Statistic of Student's Pretest 

 N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 

PreTest 13 33 64 49,15 9,335 

Valid N 13     

(listwise)      

 
Pretest results. In addition to stating that the mean score of the students' pretest was 

49,15 with a standard deviation of 9,335, it also reveals that the highest student score was 
64 and the lowest was 33. 

Content 

Table 3. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Content in The Pretest 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 27-30 0 0 
Very Good 15-26 4 30.7% 

Good 12-14 3 23,3% 

Fair 9-11 4 30,7% 

Poor 5-8 2 15,3% 

Total 13 100% 

 
The displays the frequency and content % of the students' answers on the pretest that 

came before the treatment. With a percentage of 30.7%, four pupils got the very good 
category. Three pupils received a percentage of 23.3% for the "Good" category, four 
received a percentage of 30.7% for "Fair," and two received a percentage of 15.3% for 
"Poor." 

Organization 

Table 4. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Organization in Pretest  

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 18-20 0  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

132 
 

Very Good 15-17 4 30,7% 

Good 12-14 1 7,7% 

Fair 9-11 6 46,3% 

Poor 5-8 2 15,3% 

Total 13 100% 

 
The frequency and percentage of organization among the students during the 

pretest are shown in the above table. With a percentage of 30.7%, these four pupils were 
given the Very Good category. One student received a Good category, worth 7.7%, six 
students received a Fair category, worth 46%, and two students received a Poor category, 
worth 15.3%. 

Vocabulary 

Table 5. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Vocabulary in The Pretest 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 18-20 0  
Very Good 15-17 2 15,3% 

Good 12-14 6 46,3% 

Fair 9-11 4 30,7% 

Poor 5-8 1 7,7% 

Total 13 100% 

 
The frequency and percentage of vocabulary used by the students in the pretest prior 

to treatment are shown in the table above. A Very Good category was awarded to two 
students with a percentage of 15,3%, a Good category to six students with a percentage of 
46%, a Fair category to four students with a percentage of 30,7%, and a Poor category to 
one student with a percentage of 7,7%. 

Grammar 

Table 6. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Grammar in The Pretest 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 23-25 0  
Very Good 20-22 0  

Good 16-19 4 30,7% 

Fair 9-15 9 69,3% 

Poor 5-8 0  

Total 13 100% 

 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

133 
 

The frequency and proportion of grammar used by students during the pretest are 
displayed in the table above. Nine students received a Fair category with a percentage of 
69.3%, while four students received a Good category with a percentage of 30.7%. 

e. Mechanic 

Table 7. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Mechanics in the Pretest 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 23-25 5 0 
Very Good 20-22 4 1 

Good 16-19 3 6 

Fair 9-15 2 6 

Poor 5-8 1 0 

Total 13 100% 

 
In the pretest before the treatment, the shows the frequency and proportion of 

mechanics among the pupils. Six students received an of 46.3%, six students received an of 
46.3%, and one student received a Very Good category with a percentage of 7.7%. 

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics of Writing Aspects in Pre-test 

 N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 

Content 13 6 16 11,62 3,280 

Organization 13 6 16 11,54 3,017 

Vocabulary 13 8 16 12,00 2,415 

Grammar 13 2 17 12,31 4,191 

Mechanics 13 2 4 2,62 ,650 

Valid N (listwise)      

 
The table above shows the descriptive statistics for the pretest's writing sections. 

With a mean of 11,62 and a standard deviation of 3,280, the content value varies from 
6 to 16, with a range from 6 to 16. The organization reports that the average score is 11,54, 
with a maximum of 16, a minimum of 6, and a standard deviation of 3,017. The 
vocabulary score varies from 8 to 16, with a mean of 12 and a standard deviation of 2,415 
in between. Maximum grammatical value is 17, maximum standard deviation is 4,191, 
minimum grammatical value is 2, and mean grammatical value is 12. According to the 
final calculations, the mean is 2,62, the standard deviation is, and the minimum and 
maximum values are, respectively. 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

134 
 

Posttest 

Table 9. Students’ Overall Scores in Post-Test 

No Student C O V G M Scoring of Test 

1 S1 11 11 11 11 11 11 
2 S2 15 15 15 15 15 15 

3 S3 12 12 12 12 12 12 

4 S4 16 16 16 16 16 16 

5 S5 12 12 12 12 12 12 

6 S6 7 7 7 7 7 7 

7 S7 9 9 9 9 9 9 

8 S8 9 9 9 9 9 9 

9 S9 6 6 6 6 6 6 

10 S10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

11 S11 15 15 15 15 15 15 

12 S12 15 15 15 15 15 15 

13 S13 14 14 14 14 14 14 

Total Mean Score 55,08 

 
The study's findings demonstrated the average rating due to the fact that writing 

challenges students in a number of areas, including content, business, vocabulary, grammar, 
and mechanics. with a final score of 55,08 on average following treatment. 

Table 10. Descriptive Statistic of Student's Posttest 

 N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 

PreTest 13 34 66 55,08 10,112 

Valid N 13     

(listwise)      

 
The descriptive facts of the scholars' submit-take a look at results are displayed in 

Table 4.10. The bottom pupil score is 34, and the exceptional is 66, in step with this 
explanation. Additionally, it stated that the students' put-up- test had a median score of 
55,08 and a preferred deviation of seven.235. 

Content 

Table 11. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Content in Post-Test 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 27-30   
Very Good 15-26 6 46,3% 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

135 
 

Good 12-14 4 30,7% 

Fair 9-11 1 7,7% 

Poor 5-8 2 15,3% 

Total 13 100% 

 
The table above shows the frequency and content percentage of the students' post-

test responses. Six students received the very good classification after achieving a 46.3% 
percentage. Four students received the Good category, one student received the Fair 
category, and two students received the Poor category, for a cumulative percentage of 
30.7%. 

Organization 

Table 12. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Organization in Post-Test 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 18-20 1 7,6% 
Very Good 15-17 2 15,3% 

Good 12-14 6 46,3% 

Fair 9-11 2 15,3% 

Poor 5-8 2 15,3% 

Total 13 100% 

 
The table above displays the frequency and level of organization among the students 

during the post-test. These pupils achieved a percentage of 7.6% in the Excellent category. 
Six students scored in the fair range (46.3%), two students scored in the decent range 
(15.3%), and two students scored in the very good range (2%). The next category, with a 
percentage of 15.3%, was given to two pupils. 

Vocabulary 

Table 13. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Vocabulary in Post- Test 

Classification Score Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 18-20 2 15,3% 
Very Good 15-17 2 15,3% 

Good 12-14 4 30,7% 

Fair 9-11 2 15,3% 

Poor 5-8 3 23,3% 

Total 13 100% 

 

The table above displays the frequency and percentage of vocabulary used by the 
students during the publish-test. after administering the medication. There were two 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

136 
 

college students who got a high-quality class with a percentage of 15,3%, students 
who got an excellent percentage-based total category of 15,3%, four students were given 
an excellent category with a percentage of 30,7%, two students were given an honest class 
with a percentage of 15,3%. Following this, three college students received poor grades with 
a 23.3%. 

Grammar 

Table 14. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Grammar in Post-Test 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 23-25 0 0% 
Very Good 20-22 0 0% 

Good 16-19 1 7,6% 

Fair 9-15 12 92,4 

Poor 5-8 0 0% 

Total 13 100% 

 
The table above shows how often and how much grammar was used by students 

during the post-test. With a percentage of 92.4%, twelve students were placed in the fair 
category, while one student was placed in the good group with a percentage of 7.6%. 

Mechanic 

Table 15. Students' Frequency and Percentage of Mechanics in Post-Test 

Classification Score 
Pretest 

Frequency Percentage (%) 

Excellent 5 0 % 
Very Good 4 3 23,3% 

Good 3 3 23,3% 

Fair 2 7 53,8% 

Poor 1 0 0% 

Total 13 100% 

 
The table above displays the frequency and percentage of mechanics utilized by the 

students in the post-test following the treatment. Three students obtained a Very Good 
category with a percentage of 23.3%, three students received a Good category with a 
percentage of 23.3%, and seven students received a Fair category with 53.8%. 

Table 16. Descriptive Statistics of Writing Aspects in Post-test 

 N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 

Content 13 5 19 13,85 4,375 

Organization 13 7 18 12,62 3,280 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

137 
 

Vocabulary 13 7 19 12,77 3,898 

Grammar 13 10 17 13,62 2,022 

Mechanics 13 2 4 2,69 ,855 

Valid N 

(listwise) 

     

 
The table above shows the descriptive statistics for the pretest's writing sections. 

With a mean of 13,85 and a standard deviation of 4,35, the content value spans from 5 to 
19, with a range in between. The organization reports that the average score is 12,62, with 
a maximum of 18, a minimum of 7, and a standard deviation of 3,280. With a mean 
score of 12,77 and a standard deviation of 3,898, the vocabulary score varies from 7 
to 19. With a mean of 13.62 and a standard deviation of 2.022, grammar scores range from 
10 to 17, with a range of scores. According to the final calculations, the mean is 2,69, 
the standard deviation is, and the minimum and highest values are, respectively. 

The Evaluation of Students' Pre- and Posttest Scores 

Table 17. Comparison of the Student's Pretest and Posttest Results 

No Classification Score 

Pretest Pos-test 

Frequency 
Percentage 

(%) 
Frequency 

Percentage 
(%) 

1 Excellent 90-100 - - - - 

2 Very Good 80-89 - - - - 

3 Good 70-79 - - - - 

4 Fair 60-69 1 7,6% 5 38,4% 

5 Poor ≤60 12 92,3% 8 61,5% 

Total 13 100% 13 100% 

 
Table 17 displays a comparison of the findings from the pretest and Posttest. A student 

with a percentage of 7.6% obtained a fair. A percentage of 92.3% earned the Fair category 
for twelve pupils. On the Posttest, eight students scored in the bad group with a percentage 
of 61.5%, compared to five students who scored in the fair category with a percentage of 
38.4%. 

The Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of the Pretest and Posttest 

Table 18. The Paired samples Statistic of Pretest and Post-test Paired Samples Statistics 

Mean N 
Std. 

Deviation 
Std. Error Mean 

Pair 1 Pretest 49.15 13 9.335 2.589 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

138 
 

 Posttest 55.08 13 10.112 2.804 
 

Table 18 displays the matched sample statistics for the pretest and Posttest. 
According to the student's pretest, the result was 49.15. The pretest and posttest standard 
deviations were 9.335 and 10.112, respectively, while the posttest mean score was 55.08.  

Table 19 The Paired Samples Correlations of Pretest and Post-test Paired Samples Correlations 

 N Correlation Sig. 

Pair 1 Pretest & Posttest 13 .755 .003 

` 
The correlation between the pretest and post-test for paired samples is shown in 

Table 19. As can be seen, the value is 755. 

Table 20. The Paired Samples Test of Pretest and Post-test Paired Samples Test 

Paired Differences 

T df 
Sig. (2-
tailed) Mean 

Std. 
Devia 

tion 

Std. Error 

Mean 

95% Confidence 
Interval of the 

Difference 

Lower Upper 

Pair 1 
Pretest-
Posttest 

-5.923 6.849 1.900 -10.062 -1.784 -3.118 12 .009 

 
Table 20 displays the results of the paired samples test for the pretest and post-test. 

Test = 3.118 and df (degree of freedom) = 12, according to the researcher. On the other 
hand, the t-table is 2,179, the pdf is 12, and the significance level is 5%. According to the 
data shown above, the probability value was less than a=0.003 (a=0.001.0.005), hence the 
test is greater than the table. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) was accepted while the null 
hypothesis (Ho) was refuted. One may argue that students use peer evaluation to hone their 
writing abilities. 

DISCUSSION 

Researchers discovered various issues in class 10 SMA 13 Luwu Timur, including a 
lack of vocabulary that makes it challenging for students to express their views in writing, 
which can leave them perplexed about how to convey their ideas. The researcher 
discovered a useful learning method for pupils to use in order to address these writing 
skill issues. Peer review is a type of. 

The researcher discovered that students had trouble writing since the majority of 
them did not comprehend the material in the first meeting's session. Many of them still 
give arbitrary answers. Students continued to make the same error at the second and third 
meetings, which was that they continued to be perplexed. However, with continuous 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

139 
 

explanations from researchers, students are interested in trying. But from the fourth 
meeting until the last meeting, they tried to write well. In the post-test, students' writing 
ability increased. Writing ability improves: Students can understand what is written. 

There were variances in the test results of the students following the treatment 
phase, according to the experimental class that examined the writing skills of the students. 
It is clear that the average score climbs from 33 at the pretest stage to 34 at the post-stage. 
The component of listening comprehension received the highest score from the students, 
with a maximum score, and the average score was from the pretest session. Students 
received a maximum score of 66 and an average of 55.08 during the post-test session. In 
this situation, children learn more vocabulary from each of their works in addition to 
being able to understand the topic. 

This study was conducted with several results. First, the advantages of applying new 
knowledge. This study supports prior research by Suriani Binti Bakar (2022), which found 
that educators may more readily convey knowledge by utilizing learning approaches. 
Researchers in this study found suitable learning techniques to help students' writing 
skills. Second, according to Astuti (2018), Peer review enhances kids' writing abilities. 
Herawati (2019) claims that peer criticism enhances pupils' writing abilities 

The novelty of this research is in the peer review section. The most important part of 
the peer is feedback, suggestions, and improvements that can make students aware of 
mistakes in Writing. Peer review is an easy method. 

CONCLUSION 

The conclusion that may be reached is that the peer review for children to 
understand the efficacy of teaching writing sentences to 10th-grade students of SMA 13 
Luwu Timur. The writing abilities of students are greatly influenced. This shows that using 
peer review in an environment where students may share their papers can help them 
develop their writing abilities. Through their friends' writing, they can learn new things 
and gain fresh perspectives, and they can also develop their writing talents going forward. 

The English teacher has to not forget the appropriate approach primarily based on 
the students' needs. Except, discovering the students' needs and lacks can be a beneficial 
guide for the teacher in serving a better lesson system. Using peer overview can be an 
opportunity approach for teaching writing competencies and motivating for kids to realize 
the facts correctly. This research investigates that scholars who take part in the use of peer 
overview become extra enthusiastic in writing classes. Furthermore, instructors can use 
peer review as a proposal for getting to know techniques with other kinds of speech in 
teaching.  

Every kid has the chance to give a fantastic performance. To attain the learning 
objectives, nevertheless, the students frequently require a technique to assist them in 
comprehending the instruction and the key skills in certain circumstances and scenarios. 
Peer evaluation is therefore anticipated to aid students in improving their academic 
performance. Additionally, it is anticipated that using peer evaluation would help students 
find motivation for their work. (Brown, Douglas, 2000)  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

140 
 

To assist the pupils in improving their writing abilities, the researcher suggests 
doing a similar research study. It is anticipated that other research will use the peer 
review implementation as a model or source of inspiration. The researcher also 
anticipates that additional researchers will. (Moore, 2020) 

REFERENCES 

Adventris Ndohna Ruru, T. & Sulistiyo T. (2020). Journal of Research on English And 
Language Learning.  

Alfaki, I.M. (2015). University Students' English Writing Problems: Diagnosis and Remedy. 
International Journal of English Language Teaching, Vol. 35, No. 3. 2015. 

Anderson, M. (2003). Text Type in English. Macmillan Educational Australia PTY LTD.  

Apsari, Y. (2017). The Use of Picture Series in Teaching Writing Recount Text. Journal of 
English Language Teaching in Indonesia, Vol. 4, No. 3, 51-56. 

Astuti. (2013). The Effectiveness of Peer Feedback to Improve the Writing Ability of the 
Tenth Grade Students of SMA Kanisius Harapan Tirtomoyo in the Academic Year of 
2012/2013. Journal Research, Vol. 112, No.1. 

Bartles, Nat. (2003). Written Peer Response in L2 Writing. English Teaching Forum: 
Germany. 

Brown, D.H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, 
Second Edition. Pearson Education, Inc. 

Detapratiwi, R." The Impact of Team Pair Solo Technique and Round Robin Technique on 
Students Ability in Writing Descriptive Text." Journal of English Language Teaching 
2 (2013). 

Dietsch, B.M. (2006) Reasoning and Writing Well: A Rhetoric, Research Guide, Reader and 
Handbook. Graw Hill Marion Technical College. 

Faundi. (2016). The Implementation of Peer Review Technique in Teaching Writing.  
English Educational Journal, Vol. 19, No. 7, 402-414. 

Fikri, C. (2016). The Effectiveness of Dictogloss Technique on Students' Writing of 
Descriptive Text. UIN Syarif Hidayatullah 

Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. Pearson Educational Limited. Longman. 

Hidayatullah, M.S. & Handayani, A.E. (2018). The Effect of Learning English by Using 
Pictures Map Towards Students' Ability in Writing Descriptive Paragraphs at the 
Second Year of MTS Nurul Wahid Bukit Kapur Dumai. Doctoral Dissertation, 
Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau. 26-30. 

Hansen, J.G. & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding Principles for Effective Peer Response. ELT Journal: 
Oxford University Press. 

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

141 
 

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. Longman. 

Kalsum, U. (2016). The Effectiveness of Using Picture in Teaching Writing of Descriptive 
Text at the Eighth Grade Students of MtsN Purworejo in the Academic Year of 
2015/2016. English Education Program. Universitas Muhammadiyah Purworejo. 

Leny, S. (2015). The Effectiveness of Peer Review to Teach Writing at Ninth Grade of SMPN 
1 Sekampung Academic Year 2014/2015. Teaching and Teacher Education. 

Lewis, M. (2022). Giving Feedback in Language Classes. The University of Auckland; SEAMO 
Regional Language Centre Vol. 45. No.1 

Luber, J. (2016). Descriptive Text.  http://juliantluber.blogspot.com/2014/04/descriptive-
text.html. 

Mariah. (2017) Improving Students' Writing Descriptive Text Ability by Using Peer 
Feedback Technique at Ten Grade Students of Man Sipirok South Tapanuli. A Thesis 
43, no. 9. 

Mashadi. (2014). Improving Students' Writing Abilities Through Peer Feedback Technique 
at Class VII D of SMP Negeri 1 Mlati in the Academic Year of 2012/2023. A Thesis. 

McMorran, Chris. Peer Review in Student Writing: Managing Chaos with Turnitin. BuzzEd. 

Mehrdad, M. (2011). Online and Face-To-Face Peer Review: Measures of Implementation in 
ESL Writing Classes'. Asian EFL Journal. 

Muslimah. (2018). The Effect of Story Pyramid Strategy Toward Students' Writing Narrative 
Text. Journal Research Vol. 29, No.2. 

Muthoharoh (2018). Using Feedback in Teaching Writing Descriptive Text. English 
Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3. 

Oshima, A. & Houge (2007). Introduction to Academic Writing (Third Edition). York: 
Pearson Education, Inc. 

Permanasari. "Kemampuan Menulis Teks Deskripsi Siswa Kelas VII SMP Negeri 1 Sumber 
Jaya Lampung Barat. ”Jurnal Pesona 99, no. 4 (Januari 17, 2020). 

Pratiwi. K. (2021) Students Difficulties in Writing English (A Study at The Third Semester 
Students of English Education Program at University of Bengkulu Academic Year 
2011-2012. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching Vol. 3, No. 2. 

Purna, D. (2017). The Impacts of Peer Reviewing on EFL Writing Skills. State University of 
Makassar. 

Rahimah. (2020). An Analysis of Peer Feedback towards the Students Writing Skill at Mas 
Bustanul Ulum. A Thesis. 

Raimes, A. (1983). Technique in Teaching Writing. Oxford University Press. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://juliantluber.blogspot.com/2014/04/descriptive-text.html
http://juliantluber.blogspot.com/2014/04/descriptive-text.html


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.4, No. 2, April 2023 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

142 
 

Sani, H.E. (2018). The Influence of Using Peer Review Technique towards Students' Recount 
Text Writing Ability at the Second Semester of The Regular Eighth Grade of MTs 
Negeri 2 Bandar Lampung in 2016-2017. Raden Intan State Islamic University 
Lampung. 

Sartika, D. & Arriyani, N (2006) Enhancing Students Writing Skill to Write Descriptive Text 
Using Peer Review and Free Writing Techniques. 

Shukla, S. (2018). Variable, Hypotheses and Stages of Research. Lesser. , 67, 
http:www.researchgate.net/publication/325127119_VARIAB 
LES_HYPOTHESES_D_STAES_OF_RESEARCH_1 

Zemach, D.E. and Rumisek, L. A. (2005). Academic Writing: From Paragraph to Essay. 
Macmillan Publisher Ltd. 

 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/325127119_VARIAB

