Filipino ESL Teachers’ Attitudes, Practices and Challenges

in Using Peer Correction Strategy in Teaching Writing

Ria Marie V. Robles

Jorge M. Padilla National High School
Division of Nueva Ecija
riamarie.robles@deped.gov.ph

Joel M. Torres
Department of Secondary Education, College of Education
Central Luzon State University
joel_torres@clsu.edu.ph

Abstract. The 21st century educational system claims to be learner-focused where collaborative
learning is given emphasis to strengthen learner’s autonomy. In this case, peer correction is
seen essential helping students learn from the correction they give and receive from their
peers. The present quantitative-qualitative study aims to describe the attitudes, practices and
challenges of 55 English teachers from 21 senior high schools in Nueva Ecija when using
peer correction strategy in teaching writing. Relationships between participants’ profile (i.e.,
sex, age, length of service, highest educational attainment, specialization, number of
teaching load, number of relevant training/s) and their attitudes, practices and challenges in
using peer-correction strategy were also explored. Results show that participants have
positive attitude toward peer correction strategy, often use peer correction strategy and
experience a number of challenges when the strategy is used in their classes. Of the seven
profile variables, only the participants’ number of relevant trainings established significant
relationship with the problems encountered in when using peer-correction strategy in
classes.

Keywords: writing, peer-correction strategy, attitudes, practices, challenges

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Writing is an opportunity to express ones’ ideas with the purpose of informing,

persuading and entertaining the readers. Undeniably, it is a key skill for language production,
and one of the skills to be developed among student (Abdon, 2018). Its significance increases
when it comes to writing in English language, which is extensively used for global mediation of
knowledge and communication (Mahboob, 2014; Marlina & Giri, 2014; Rillo & Alieto, 2018).
In education, writing skill plays an important role in educational success since often, course
materials in academic careers are mostly examined in one main area, which is in the form of
essay test. Authorities agree that writing is one of the highest forms of academic skills for it
reflects a person’s level of language competence, concept development, and abstraction (Pablo &
Lasaten, 2018). Hence, students are supposed to be able to convey their ideas and understanding
by writing. However, writing is seen a difficult skill specifically in English as second language
(ESL) contexts in which students face many challenges in writing. Nunan (1989 in Fareed,
Ashraf & Bilal, 2016) and Richards and Renandya (2002 in Torres & Medriano, 2020) argue that
writing is an extremely challenging cognitive activity which requires the learners to have control
over various factors ranging from learners’ academic background and personal interest to various
psychological, linguistic and cognitive phenomena. Similarly, Bourdin and Payol (1994 in Torres
& Flores, 2017) noted that composing written texts is arguably the most cognitively taxing of
language production task requiring the integration of multiple processing demands across lower
order (such as handwriting and spelling) and higher order (ideas generation and organization)
skills. Remarkably, teaching writing becomes even more complicated for teachers who are not
even writers themselves. For Griffiths and Cansiz (2015) in a context where there is little
exposure to the target language, the role of the writing teachers is the most challenging one.
Hence, writing teachers play a critical role in determining students’ successes and failures in
their academic endeavors.

In the continuous quest to improve teaching methods, the humanity has sought and
examined a variety of techniques and ideas, examining each to discover it had any concrete
benefits that would outweigh its detractions (Ryoo & Wing, 2012). Traditionally, teachers are
the only ones who give corrections and feedbacks to their students’ written outputs, though there
are times when students are tasked to check the objective part of their quizzes or tests. As such,
teachers are introduced to a familiar classroom practice of collaborative specifically in the
context of writing. Hence, learner-oriented techniques of error correction, such as peer correction
or self-corrections have surfaced (Sultana, 2009).

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009),

teachers in northwest Europe, Scandinavia, Australia and Korea are more inclined to consider
students as active participants in the process of acquiring knowledge than to see the teacher’s
main task of transmitting information and demonstrating correct solutions.

In the last two decades, research on language education has given considerable attention
to the concern as how to give feedback to students’ written outputs. Similarly, though there are
studies that have already established the advantages and disadvantages of using peer correction
strategy in teaching writing, as well as learners’ attitudes and experiences in using the strategy,
there is still a scanty research that looked into the ESL teachers’ attitudes, experiences and
challenges in using the strategy in their respective class. Teachers’ beliefs, practices and attitudes
are necessary to understand and improve educational processes. They are closely linked to
teachers’ strategies for coping with challenges in their daily professional life and to their general
well-being, and they shape students’ learning environment and influence student motivation and
achievement. Hence, the present study explores what ESL teachers go through the process of
using peer correction technique in their respective classes. Specifically, this research looked into
the Filipino ESL teachers’ attitudes, practices and challenges in using the peer correction strategy
in their respective classes. Relationships of Filipino ESL teachers’ socio-demographic profile to
their attitudes, problems and practices in using the peer correction strategy were also explored.
1.2 Related Studies
1.2.1 Peer Correction Strategy in the ESL Writing Class

In Communicative Language Teaching Approach, errors are natural outcomes of

communicative competence. Same goes to the role of teacher who changes from the sole source
of information to facilitators, monitors, advisors and more tolerant towards students’ mistake
(Itmeizeh, 2016). The gaps and deficiency in the writing competence of the students requires
correction and guidelines to be given to them. This idea introduces that assistance and correction
is not always done by the teacher.

Among the many kinds of formative assessment applied in the writing class, peer
correction is used by the teacher to push students to learn independently and learn with the help
of others (Shuman,1998 in Marhaeni & Kusuma, 2018). However, in the survey conducted by
Panadero and Brown (2017), it was found that teachers like the instructional use of peer
correction but it is used occasionally due to inherent difficulties (e.g. students’ possible lack of
objectivity).

1.2.2 Attitude toward Peer-Correction Strategy

A survey of available literature as regards the attitudes toward peer-correction strategy

revealed that the studies (e.g., Rollinson, 2005; Pratiwi, 2012; Hong, 2016; Chen & Lin, 2008)
were limited to students’ attitudes toward the strategy and only one (e.g., Rollinson, 2005)
endeavored on teachers’ attitudes.

Rollinson (2005) did a study that explored on students’ perception as regards peer-
correction activity in writing class. The researcher found that students have positive response to
the strategy for it provides a number of benefits from personal to social skill development. In
terms of personal development, it teaches learners to think more critically since they are
expected to critically examine their peer’s writing and become effective self editor. Pratiwi
(2012) also found that the students have also positive perception toward peer-correction. The
study participants revealed that peer-correction provides them multiple benefits from personal to
social skill. Personal benefits as perceived by the students include: they become faster and it has
become easier for them to do the tasks, learn new thing, more courageous in delivering ideas,
learn from their own and their friends’ mistakes, and motivated to write betters. Social benefits
include having active interaction with the teacher and their friends. From the technique, they also
learn to respect each others and learn from the others. Meanwhile, Hong’s (2016) finding
contradicts that of Rollinson (2005) and Pratiwi (2012). In Hong’s (2016) study, he found that
the students have very negative perceptions of peer correction. From the data he obtained, he
deduced that students did not take much in doing peer correction. It seems like peer-correction
become the relaxing and chatting session. The students did not value peer-correction as a helpful
way to improve their writing. Students also feel doubtful about the quality of peer suggestion
and hesitated to use peer comments in their revision. They still prefer teacher correction than
peer correction because they still believe that the teacher ‘know more’.

For Rollinson (2005), peer correction is a lengthy one. Reading a draft, making notes,
then either collaborating with one another to reach a consensus and write comment or engaging
orally the writer within a feedback circle, will take a significant amount of time. Students also
prefer teachers’ feedback over that of their peers due to several reasons such as the lack of
confidence in their peer reviewers and being aware of their own linguistic limitations, the
familiarity and belief that the teacher is the only reader who is more experienced and can give
better quality feedback (Chen & Lin, 2008 in Itmeizeh, 2016). Some learners even had problems
with the concept of peer feedback. They also felt they did not know how to advice properly
(Tang & Tithecott, 1999 in Ryoo & Wing, 2012). In addition, Rollinson (2005) also underscored
that teachers’ perception as regards their roles and the peer feedback process when incorporating
peer feedback in composition class are skeptical. Some teachers may not feel comfortable to
hand over their responsibilities to the students and they may find it difficult not to interfere the
student-readers during the feedback sessions, which might cause students’ less confidence and
commitment.

1.2.3 Teachers’ Experiences in Using Peer Correction Strategy

Kuswandono (2005) found that most of writing teachers, who use peer correction strategy
in their classes, have encountered students who often make faulty corrections. This can be
associated with what Villamil and De Guerrero (1998) mentioned that the maximum potential of
an intermediate ESL student is still not comparable with the writing ability of an expert. Hence,
it would be unrealistic to demand that the students’ revised drafts must be free from errors. For
Swan and Lakpin (1995) as quoted by Villamil and De Guerrero (1998), faulty correction can be
a manifestation of language growth as they contend:

Incorrect solution in students’ output could be indicative of important language

learning processes. False repairing, overcorrecting, or leaving errors uncorrected
are typical behaviors of students whose linguistic systems are in a state of
development (p.507).

Various authors (i.e., Hansen & Liu, 2015; Lim, 2010; Morra & Romano, 2009;
Rollinson, 2005) pointed out the need for students to be trained how to do peer feedback
effectively. According to them, the teacher can model the whole process, show examples,
explain and provide guidelines for peer review and peer editing by highlighting good response
strategies, explaining the purpose of peer feedback, showing students what to look for, how to
give written comments, and how to edit on the paper using correction symbols. They also
pointed out that students need to be trained how to give constructive and effective comments
with respect such as asking questions for clarification and giving positive suggestion and
constructive comments to their peers’ written work. Further, the teacher should also familiarize
students with the steps of peer correction and the checklist by showing samples and explaining
its purpose to help them focus on important areas of the writing assignment.

According to Hyland (2000 in Fareed & Ashraf, 2016), teacher should give students
ample time to do written feedback and encourage both readers and writers to discuss their peers’
work. In addition, teacher should be aware of their roles not to over control the students’
interactions. Finally, the teachers can encourage students to take more responsibility for their
own writing by allowing them to make their own decision about their use and sources of
feedback.
1.2.4 Methodology Issues of Peer Correction

Compared to methods of teacher feedback, Ryoo and Wing (2012) noted that there is a
scanty research as regards effective strategies for peer correction that has been introduced. Early
research into peer feedback of L2 writing appeared to be more likely pedagogically motivated,
such as student centered learning (Jacobs & Zhang, 1989 in Fareed, Ashraf & Bilal, 2016) and
establishing critical thinking skills (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994 in Ryoo & Wing, 2012) than
examining its effectiveness as a successful aid for learning. In the beginning of year 2000,
researchers have diverted their focus to find practical means to facilitate the giving and receiving
peer correction. For instance, while examining benefits of peer correction, Tsui and Ng (2000 in
Ryoo & Wing, 2012) found that written peer comment worked better when the students had an
opportunity to orally communicate to peer partners. Through oral communications, learners tried
to cooperatively find efficient means of expressing their thoughts and arguments. Thus, Tsui and
Ng argue that peer’s written comments are more effective when they are complimented by oral
responses.

When implementing peer correction strategy in a writing class, Cho and MacArthur
(2010) mentioned that the standard has been to pair students with a single partner with whom
they would work, and while this remains the most accepted methodology, there is some proof
that multi-peer review groups increase the benefits of the peer review process. The same authors,
using 28 undergraduate students who feedback from a single expert, single peer and multiple
peers, attempted to find how peer correction was related to revision, and how revisions affected
quality. The result of their study show that feedback by multiple peers induced more complex
repair revisions to clarify their texts compared to teacher or single peer feedback. This can be
attributed to the idea that multiple peer correction helped students develop their audience
awareness by providing responses from the perspective of multiple readers.

1.3 Research Questions

The present study intends to answer the following questions:

1. What are the respondents’ attitudes toward peer correction strategy?

2. What are the respondents’ practices when using the peer correction strategy in class?
3. What are the challenges encountered by the respondents in using the peer correction
strategy?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ profile and their:
4.1 attitudes towards peer correction;
4.2 practices when using peer correction; and
4.3 challenges encountered when using peer correction strategy?

1.4 Theoretical Framework

 Peer Correction is based on Wittrock’s Generative Learning Theory and Vygotsky’s
notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (Gonzales & Torres, 2015; McLeish, 2009 in
Gonzales & Torres, 2016; Pan & Wu, 2013). Vygotsky defined ZPD as the distance between the
actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peer. It describes the current or actual level of development of
the learner and the next level attainable through the use of mediating semiotic and environmental
tools and capable adult or peer facilitation. The idea is that individuals learn best when working
together with others during joint collaboration, and it is through such collaborative endeavors
with more skilled persons that learners learn and internalize new concepts, psychological tools,
and skills (Shabani, Khatib & Ebadi, 2010). For Machpherson (2015), cooperative learning such
as peer correction strategy requires students to work together and help each other in the
realization of specific and attainable learning goals.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research Design

The study is quantitative-qualitative in nature and utilized the descriptive, predictive,

inferential, non-experimental research design. Johnson (2000 cited in Perez & Alieto, 2018)
claimed that a study with a primary objective of describing the phenomenon is classified as a
descriptive study. According to Shuttelworth (2008 in Marcelo, 2020), descriptive research
involves observing and describing the behavior of a subject without influencing it in any way.
On the other hand, if the main goal of the study is to predict or forecast an event it is classified as
predictive. Moreover, the study involves some types of comparison or contrast and may attempt
to discover a cause and effect relationship that exists between. Finally, the study is considered
non-experimental since no manipulation of variables was performed and no establishment of
neither a control nor experimental group was realized (Torres, & Alieto, 2019a; Torres, & Alieto,
2019b). In the case of this study, the goals are: one is to describe the Filipino ESL teachers’
attitudes, practices and challenges encountered in using peer-correction strategy in their classes;
second is to predict the relationship between socio-demographic profile and the attitudes,
practices and problems encountered in using peer-correction strategy. To substantiate the
quantitative data obtained in the study, qualitative research was used (Wisdom & Creswell, 2009
in Torres, Collantes, Astrero, Millan & Gabriel, 2020). This was done by providing an open-
ended question at the end of the questionnaire. Responses in the open-ended question served as
the study’s qualitative data. Participants’ responses were coded. Data from the open-ended
question were matched for convergence and divergence in the participants’ responses in the
survey.

2.2. Research Setting and Respondents

The study was conducted from December 2019 to March 2020 in 21 Senior High Schools in six
municipalities and one high-urbanized city in the province of Nueva Ecija. The researchers used total
enumeration of the 55 teachers handling English subjects (i.e., Reading and Writing Skills; Oral
Communication, 21st Century Literature; English for Academic and Professional Purposes; Creative
Writing; Creative Non-Fiction).
 An overwhelming majority (40 or 72.72%) of the respondents are females and the
remaining (15 or 27.72%) are males which is a trend noticed among pre-service (Alieto, 2019;
Alieto, Ricohermoso, & Abequibel, 2020; Alieto & Rillo, 2018; Buslon, Alieto, Pahulaya, &
Reyes, 2020; Somblingo & Alieto, 2019) and in-service teachers (Alieto, Devanadera, &
Buslon, 2019; Antonio, et al., 2020; Jacinto & Alieto, 2020).

In terms of age distribution, more than one-fourth (18 or 32.73%) belong to 26 to 30

years old age bracket and the remaining belong to 25 and below (12 or 21.82%), 31 to 35 years
old (8 or 32.73%), 36 to 40 years old (7 or 12.73%), 41 to 45 years old (4 or 7.27%), 46 to 50
years old (4 or 7.27%) and 51 to 55 years old (2 or 3.64%). As regards respondents’ length of
service, majority (30 or 54.55%) have been in the service for less than five years and less than
one-fourth (13 or 23.64%) have five to 10 years length of service. In terms of highest educational
attainment, more than half (33 or 60%) have obtained MA units while 10 or 18.18% have
completed their master’s degree.

Meanwhile, there are 7 or 12.273% who obtained PhD units and 2 or 3.64% who have
completed their doctorate programs. Respondents’ total number of teaching loads range from
four to six hours a day. Most of the respondents (22 or 40%) have five hours of teaching load
while the remaining have four hours (17 or 30.91%) and six hours (16 or 29.09%) of teaching
loads. None from among the teacher respondents have teaching loads of more than six hours.
Majority (33 or 60%) have attended 1 to 5 relevant trainings and there are 7 or 12.73% who
reported that they have attended more than 16 trainings related to the teaching of writing.
Meanwhile, there are few (7 or 12.73%) who mentioned that they have not attended any training
related to the teaching of writing.

2.3 Research Instrument

To gather the needed data, a researcher-made instrument was devised. However, some
items in the instrument were adopted from other studies or reliable sources from the internet. The
instrument consists of four parts discuss as follows.

The first part of the questionnaire was designed to elicit information on the respondents’
sex, age, length of service, highest educational attainment, specialization, number of teaching
loads and number of relevant trainings and seminars attended on the teaching of writing.

Part II (Attitudes toward Peer Correction Strategy) aims to determine the respondents’
attitudes on the use of the peer correction strategy during their writing class. This part consists of
14 statements. The first seven items pertain to the respondents’ positive attitude about the
technique, while the last seven items have to do with the participants’ negative attitude about the
technique.

Part III (Practices when using Peer Correction Technique) was used to explore how do
participants apply the strategy in their respective writing classes. This part has seven items.
 Part IV (Challenges in using Peer Correction Technique) determines the challenges
encountered by the respondents in using the technique in their classes. It consists of 12-items.

Before administering the instrument, it was first presented to experts on the field of
educational measurement and evaluation, and experienced researcher for scrutiny and content
analysis. Suggestions from the reviewers were noted and incorporated. Then, the instrument was
pre-tested to 20 non-participants to determine its reliability. Internal consistency was determined
using the Cronbach’s Alpa. Reliability coefficient obtained during the pilot testing is 0.903. This
means that the researcher-made instrument is reliable and can be administered to the participants.
After the instrument has been pilot-tested, final version of the instrument was drafted.

2.4 Data Gathering Procedures

Permission had been secured from the schools’ division superintendent, and school heads
to conduct the study in their respective schools. Letters to the principals concerned were also
sent.

Upon the approval of the request to administer the instrument to the respondents, one of
the researchers met the respondents to discuss the nature and purpose of the study. Afterwards,
date was scheduled for the administration of the questionnaire. On the appointed day, before the
administration of the questionnaire the participants were once more informed that participation is
voluntary and that it has no merits whatsoever in their ratings. Further, the participants were
assured of confidentiality of their provided information. After answering, participants submitted
the questionnaire. Upon handing over of the instruments, the researcher checked for possible
missed numbers, double entry and the like which would disqualify inclusion for analyses.

2.5 Data Analysis

The raw data generated from the questionnaire were tabulated, organized and analyzed.
Interpretation of the computed mean scores was presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Ratings for Computed Mean Scores

Interpretation for Parts II and IV Mean Scores Interpretation for Part III
Strongly Agree 3.25 – 4.00 Always
Agree 2.50 – 3.24 Often
Disagree 1.75 – 2.49 Seldom
Strongly Disagree 1.00 – 1.74 Never

Based on the research question and hypotheses of the study, the data gathered were analyzed by
assessing the following statistical methods using he Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS) Software version 14. Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, means
and standard deviations and rankings was used to describe the participants’ socio-demographic
profile such as sex, age, teaching position, length of service, highest educational attainment,
specialization, number of teaching loads, and number of relevant training. Pearson Product
Moment Correlation was used to establish the relationship between the independent and
dependent variables. Finally, responses from the interview were coded and analyzed for themes
following what previous researcher (e.g., Dornyei, 2007) did in analyzing interview transcripts.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Attitude toward peer-correction strategy

Presented in Table 2 is the summary of the respondents’ attitudes toward peer correction
strategy. Of the 14 statements, 11 statements obtained weighted means ranging from 3.25 to 4
with verbal description of ‘Strongly Agree’, while only three statements have weighted means of
2.50 to 3.24 with ‘Agree’ as verbal description. The three statements that got the highest
weighted means are: Statement 3, “Peer-correction technique helps students develop their social
skills” (x̅ =3.65); Statement 12, “Students’ social skills are developed in peer correction
technique” (x̅ = 3.51); and Statement 6, “Peer-correction technique helps in achieving a better
classroom atmosphere” (x̅ =3.44). From the foregoing results, it could be inferred that the
participants look at peer-correction as a strategy that provides students the opportunity to
establish harmonious working relationship with their classmates which could result in a
classroom atmosphere that can be conducive to learning. This concurs with Azarnoosh’s (2013)
premise that peer correction in writing creates opportunities for interaction. Similarly, the
foregoing result supports Sulatana’s (2009) observation that peer-correction as a technique has
been supported by the language teaching theories such as humanism, communicative language
teaching and learner-centered teaching. It also strengthens Rollinson (2005) and Falchikov (2002
in Mamo & Yigzaw, 2016) idea that peer feedback is less threatening than teacher feedback
since students are more comfortable with their classmates due to the fewer barriers of status and
authority between and among them and can encourage a number of generic learning outcomes
associated with working together such as communication orally and in writing negotiation skills,
group planning and team work. Thus, getting corrected by own friends evokes less anxiety and
that the involvement of peers in the correction process makes the classroom atmosphere more
supportive and friendlier. As Rana (2012 in dela Rama et al., 2020) pointed out, positive attitude
is as essential signifier of willingness and primary step in effective integration.

The three statements that got the lowest mean scores are: Statement 9, “Peer-correction
technique consumes most of the instructional time” (x̅ =3.02); Statement 13, “Using peer-
correction technique helps improve students’ writing skills” (x̅ =3.20); and Statement 5, “Peer-
correction technique increases objectivity in assessment” (x̅ =3.22). Participants’ agreement on
Statement 9 corroborates Rollinson’s (2005) notion that peer-correction activity takes much on
the instructional time particularly when students are not used to the lengthy peer-correction
process that involve reading and making notes, collaborating with another reader to arrive in
agreement, and providing a written suggestion or engaging in a discussion with the writers – all
of which take a significant amount of time. For instance, Teacher 11 mentioned, “peer-
correction strategy could aid the students’ skills to be more effective and enjoyable,” and
Teacher 13 responded that, “it is beneficial in teaching writing and it might help learners to
improve their writing.”
 Responses of the other participants (Teacher 3, Teacher 5, Teacher 8, Teacher 9, Teacher
13, Teacher 15) also adhere to the idea that the strategy helps improve the writing skills of the
students. Meanwhile, the response of Teacher 28, “This technique will give more room for
accurate assessment because checking will be done twice [by the] peer tutor and teacher,”
Table 2.
Respondents’ Attitude toward Peer-Correction Strategy
A Attitude toward Peer-Correction Strategy WM SD Interpretation
1.Using peer correction strategy in class can promote
3.31 .932 Strongly Agree
better understanding among students.
2.Using peer correction strategy in class can help
3.35 .664 Strongly Agree
students develop their writing skills.
3. Peer-correction strategy helps students develop their
3.65 .776 Strongly Agree
social skills.
4. Peer-correction strategy helps students develop their
3.33 .825 Strongly Agree
personal skills.
5. Peer-correction strategy increases objectivity in
3.22 .525 Agree
assessment.
6. Peer-correction strategy helps in achieving a better
3.44 .753 Strongly Agree
classroom atmosphere.
7. Peer-correction strategy helps students to think more
critically since they are expected to critically examine 3.35 .902 Strongly Agree
their peers’ writing and become effective self-editor.
8. Peer-correction strategy helps student to have
3.29 1.211 Strongly Agree
harmonious relationship.
9. Peer-correction strategy consumes most of the
3.02 .832 Agree
instructional time.
10. Students benefit cognitively/intellectually in peer
3.36 .642 Strongly Agree
correction strategy .
11. Students are developed personally in peer-correction
3.33 .543 Strongly Agree
strategy.
12. Students’ social skills are developed in peer
3.51 .985 Strongly Agree
correction strategy.
13. Using peer-correction strategy help improve
3.20 .932 Agree
students’ writing skills.
14. It help students boost their confidence and
commitment in class when peer-correction strategy is 3.25 .894 Strongly Agree
employed.
Overall Weighted Mean 3.33 Strongly Agree

supports the participants’ agreement on Statement 5. However, the response of Teacher 52, “Yes
for now I realize that peer-correction strategy can be a technique in developing writing skills of
students and might as well lessen the burden of teachers in checking, however, as regards to
objectivity in assessing the performance of the student, it could not be reliable because it is the
teacher himself who knows what to assess,” adheres to participants’ agreement on Statement 13
but contradicts their agreement on Statement 5. This only corroborates the result that Statement 5
is one of the items that received lowest mean score. This suggests that there are ESL teachers
who raise doubts as regards the strategy’s objectivity in assessing learners’ skills.

The responses in the open-ended question also captured some of the respondents’
negative perceptions on the strategy. For instance, Teacher 26 mentioned, “The negative thing is
that some students are so much relying on their classmates and neglect to develop their own
creativity.” The response of Teacher 26 does happen in times when other students have limited
knowledge of the basics and mechanics and writing so they are left with the option of just merely
depending on their partner and no longer using, exploring and nurturing their own skills. There
are also times, as what Teacher 31 mentioned that, “Most of my students are not interested or are
poor in writing skills.” As such, those who are not interested to participate in the peer-correction
tasks become passive throughout the activity. This is also what Teacher 1 opined, “It is
beneficial to those who have good background in grammar, but it is a burden to those who
cannot perform editing or peer-correction.”

Meanwhile, the qualitative data also captured some of the strategy’s positive effects that
were not reported in the quantitative data. For example, Teacher 35 reported that the strategy
promotes critical thinking among the students, while Teacher 24, Teacher 39, and Teacher 3
mentioned that the strategy helps learners to develop awareness of their skills. For instance,
Teacher 24 responded in the open-ended question:

“If facilitated and administered properly, peer-correction strategy can be very

beneficial in teaching writing. It is through this strategy where students become
aware of their own writing skills on a wider perspective and become aware of
[the] comments and constructive criticisms.”

3.2 Practices when using peer correction strategy in class

As regards the respondents’ practices when using peer-correction strategy in class, Table 3
shows that of the seven statements, only Statement 3, “I give students some essential instructions
and focus on the specific area of the writing such as content organization, grammar, syntax,
word-choice, and mechanics among others” obtained a mean score of 3.29 described as
“always”. The remaining statements got mean scores with ‘often’ verbal description. It could
also be observed that Statement 1, “I use peer-correction strategy in my writing class” obtained
the lowest mean score of 2.65 described as often. Given the findings that almost all of the
statements obtained ‘often’ as verbal description indicates that most of the participants do not
always incorporate in their respective classes the various peer-correction strategies such as
providing students with scaffolding tools like brief instructions on how the technique is done,
exercises on peer-correction, and checklist of what to evaluate on their classmates’ paper.
Further, it could also be deduced that respondents often allocate time for peer-correction in class.
Table 3.
Respondents’ Practices when using Peer-Correction Strategy in Class
Practices when using Peer-Correction Strategy WM SD Interpretation

1. I use peer-correction strategy in my writing class. 2.65 .985 Often

2. I provide the students with scaffolding tools such as
mini lessons, peer editing training and checklist which
2.98 Often
should be cumulative with each new grammatical item .921
taught in class.
3.I give students some essential instructions and focus on
the specific area of the writing such as content,
3.29 Always
organization, grammar, syntax, word-choice, mechanics .523
among others.
4. I familiarize students with steps of peer correction and
the checklist by showing samples and explaining its
2.96 .651 Often
purpose to help students focus on important areas of the
writing assignment.
5. I give students ample time to do written feedback and
encourage both readers and writers to discuss their peers’
2.93 .853 Often
work

6. Before asking students to engage in peer-correction

technique task, I first model the whole process, show
examples, explain and provide guidelines for peer review 3.13 .921 Often
and peer editing.

7. I provide students with checklist by showing samples

and explaining its purpose to help them focus on 3.11 .686 Often
important areas of the writing assignment
Overall Weighted Mean 3.01 Often

The foregoing quantitative findings are substantiated by the qualitative data. For instance,
three of the respondents (Teacher 12, Teacher 50, Teacher 52) answered in the open-ended
question that they never used the strategy in their writing class, while there were two (Teacher 1,
Teacher 24) who mentioned that they seldom used the strategy. For Teacher 52, the strategy is
used but not during writing class. Meanwhile, Teacher 24 reiterated the idea that the strategy
only works for advanced students and that it may take much of the time allotted for instruction.
Below are the responses of Teachers 1 and 24 in the open-ended question:
 “Honestly, I never use peer correction in my writing class. I apply peer correction
only to test structure as multiple choice, or the objective type of tests.”
(Teacher 52)

“I seldom use peer-correction technique. It is highly effective in high-achieving

student compared to low performing ones. Training students to edit consumes a
lot of time.” (Teacher 24)

From the response of Teacher 7, “I used peer-correction once, [but] it did not work well,”
it can be surmised that ESL teachers, at first, may have a hard time to see the effectiveness of the
strategy that may lead them to unsubscribe to the strategy. This reflects the fact that there are a
number of ESL teachers who are not equipped with the basic skills in implementing the strategy
in their respective classes, which may result in the the strategy’s failure to achieve its purpose.

It is also interesting to note and report the specific practices applied by some of the
respondents that were coded from their responses in the open-ended question. Below is Teacher
11’s actual response:

“The practices that I have in using peer-correction are: mini lessons on

proofreading and editing, practice drill on peer editing symbols, and feedback. We
also have the pre-writing activity, during writing activity and post writing activity.
I also give samples and always engage my students in giving critique or
comments about the written outputs which were peer edited by them.”

Teacher 5 reported using a sample written output of one of the students, whose identity is
not revealed to class, then present it to the whole class and together they will have to identify the
errors present in the sample written output. Teacher 13 mentioned about the use of think-pair-
share strategy. Teacher 17 and Teacher 36 practice includes proofreading activity where students
check their peers’ paper focusing on the errors on mechanics, grammar, choice of word,
consistency among others. Giving of guidelines and checklist before the start of the peer-
correction activity was a common practice among Teacher 3, Teacher 9, Teacher 10, Teacher 22,
Teacher 25, Teacher 27 and Teacher 46. What follows below is Teacher 22’s illustration on the
specific practice applied.

“In paragraph development, each student will identify the lapses made that
include the language use, layout, and sentence structure. By following the
checklist given by the teacher, they are able to fully understand the concept being
taught in paragraph development. Complexity of the topic became simple at this
point.”

In Teacher 22’s response above, the importance of providing the students with checklist
before actually engaging to peer-correction has been emphasized. Hence, discussion of what to
do and how to do it is necessary for the strategy to be effective. Meanwhile, Teacher 18
mentioned about the use of explicit teaching. Teacher 18 gave a detailed overview of the
techniques followed when the strategy is in placed. Below is Teacher 18’s practice:
 “As I do explicit teaching, I model what corrections are needed first in the sample
work flashed on screen. I also will do the same as I write on-the-spot and made-up
examples on the bond paper. After which, I will instruct the students to check on
the important aspects of content (semantics) and constructional (syntax), never
leaving behind the intended meaning (pragmatics).”

3.3 Challenges encountered in using Peer-Correction Strategy

Table 4 shows that the respondents strongly agree to all the 12 statements which imply
that they do experience those challenges when the strategy is used in their classes. The
foregoing result echoes the findings of previous researchers that students might feel reluctant to
correct their friends’ errors (Nelson, 1996), feel inferior to his or her peers after his or his written
output has been corrected (Harmer, 2007), and reluctant on giving their work to their peers for
correction since they do not want their classmates to know the errors they commit. (Sultana,
2009). Given the nature of the task as well as the writing capabilities of the learners, the
foregoing result supports the idea that despite the education sector’s effort, in general, and of the
ESL teacher, in particular, to empower learners to become active knowledge generators, the
reality is that there are instances, specifically during writing classes, that their suggestions are
still less preferred compared to that of the teachers. With their peers’ writing skills, it is also
expected that students would not have given their full confidence to the latter. From this it can be
surmised that there are instances in which students do not value their peers’ knowledge, thus they
do not conform to the comments provided by their peers. As such, it poses a challenge among
ESL teachers on how they are going to promote the technique during their writing classes given
that teachers themselves feel that their students value more the comments of their mentors over
their peers. Thus, there is a need on the part of ESL teachers to fully-develop students’ editing
skills so that their comments will also matter to their classmates. Likewise, the respondents also
agree that there is a need for the clear guidelines as to how the technique is used.

The statement that obtained the lowest mean score of 3.08 and with “agree” verbal
description is Statement 1, “Students are not fully-equipped with the writing competencies to
participate effectively and efficiently in peer-correction technique”. The other three statements
that garnered low mean scores equivalent to 3.14 with “agree” verbal description are: Statement
7, “Students are not trained to do peer correction in class”; Statement 10, “The corrections and
comments made by the students in their peers’ outputs are not correct”; and Statement 12,
“Students do not know how to comment or to correct the written outputs of their classmates”.
Table 4.
Challenges encountered in using Peer-Correction Strategy
Challenges encountered in using Peer-Correction WM SD Interpretation
Strategy
1. Students are not fully-equipped with the writing
competencies to participate effectively and efficiently in 3.08 Agree
1.232
peer-correction strategy.
2. Clear guidelines on how to use peer-correction strategy in
3.56 .895 Strongly Agree
the class is not appropriate.
3.I am not fully trained or equipped with the skills on using
3.17 .687 Agree
peer-correction strategy in my writing class.
4.Students do not understand the marks or the corrections
3.29 .342 Strongly Agree
made by their peers on their papers.
5. Peer correction strategy is not applicable to big class size
3.21 .543 Agree
of 40-50 students.
6. Students are shy to correct the written outputs of their
3.27 .682 Strongly Agree
classmates.
7. Students are not trained to do peer-correction in class. 3.14 .664 Agree
8. Students do not accept the comments and corrections
3.43 .657 Strongly Agree
made by their classmates in their written outputs.
9. Students are not familiar with the peer-correction
3.32 .632
technique. Strongly Agree
10. The corrections and comments made by the students in
3.12 .651 Agree
their peers’ outputs are not correct.
11. Students prefer their teachers’ feedback over that of
3.31 .775 Strongly Agree
their classmates/peers.
12. Students do know how to comment or to correct the
3.16 .446 Agree
written outputs of their classmates.
Overall Weighted Mean Strongly
3.26
Agree

Qualitative data gave some light on the quantitative findings as regards the problems that
participants encounter in using the strategy. Some of the problems that were found from the
participants’ responses in the open-ended question were: students are not competent enough to
do peer editing (Teacher 47); time allotment and puts pressure on the part of students (Teacher 6,
Teacher 17, Teacher 22, Teacher 46); students do not accept the comments made by their
classmates (Teacher 45); students do not have a thorough understanding of the rationale and
concepts of the strategy (Teacher 9, Teacher 15, Teacher 17, Teacher 20, Teacher 26, Teacher
40); there are students who monopolized the activity that make others become passive (Teacher
39); the strategy is also applicable to students who are skilled in writing (Teacher 4, Teacher 5,
Teacher 7, Teacher 10, Teacher 11, Teacher 18, Teacher 21, Teacher 37, Teacher 38); students
are hesitant to correct their peers’ written outputs (Teacher 3, Teacher 8, Teacher 13, Teacher 24,
27, Teacher 36); and comments made by students are inaccurate and unclear (Teacher 19,
Teacher 23, Teacher 25, Teacher 32, Teacher 35, Teacher 36).
In a nutshell, the prime concern of ESL teachers in the use of the peer-correction strategy
was captured in the Teacher 18’s response in the open-ended question as follows:

“The number one struggle [in using peer-correction strategy] comes with the
students’ familiarity and mastery of the art of editing and proofreading their
classmates’ works. If the students are unfamiliar with the conventions of
correcting their classmates’ output, it will really be a struggle; in truth, may
actually slow down of the progress of growth to some other students.”

3.4 Relationship between respondents’ profile and attitude towards peer correction

Summarized in Table 5.1 is the correlation results between respondents’ profile and
attitudes toward peer-correction. Results reveal that all of the respondents’ profile variables have
no significant relationship to their attitudes on the teaching strategy on writing. The foregoing
findings does not concur with the results of the study conducted by OECD in 2009 that compare
to their male counterparts, there is a lesser tendency among female teachers to look at teaching as
the direct transmission of knowledge. Likewise, the foregoing result does not conform with that
of a more recent study conducted by Madhdi and Al-Dera (2013). Meanwhile, the result as
regards no significant relationship between respondents’ age and attitude toward peer-correction
strategy corroborates with that of Mahdi and Al-Dera (2013). However, it corroborates with the
findings of Karami and Barekat (2014) among EFL teachers that there is no significant
relationship between teachers’ gender and their attitudes.

Table 5.1 Relationship between Respondents’ Profile and Attitudes toward

Peer-Correction Strategy

Attitudes
Profile r-value p-value Interpretation
Sex .053 .701 No significant relationship
Age -.126 .358 No significant relationship
Length of Service -.125 .361 No significant relationship
Highest Educational Attainment -.007 .960 No significant relationship
Major .132 .336 No significant relationship
Number of Teaching Loads -.165 .228 No significant relationship
Relevant Training -.029 .832 No significant relationship
*correlation is significant at 0.05 level
 The results on the no significant relationship between respondents’ length of service and
their attitude on peer-correction strategy as well as the respondents’ major or specialization also
contradict the OECD’s (2009) findings that seasoned teachers have higher self-efficacy beliefs
than those of the less experienced teachers, and that mathematics and science teachers,
humanities, social sciences and languages teachers have different beliefs in teaching than the
ones teaching creative and practical subjects. However, the findings on the relationship between
highest educational attainment and attitude towards the strategy conforms with that of the OECD
(2009) findings that there is no significant difference as regards teachers’ beliefs and educational
attainment.

3.5. Relationship between respondents’ profile and practices when using peer-correction
strategy

Similar with the results in 3.4, no significant relationship has been established between
participants’ profile and practices when using peer-correction strategy. This means that
participants sex, age, length of service, highest educational attainment, major, number of
teaching loads and the number of relevant trainings attended have no relationship on their
practices specifically in employing peer-correction strategy in their respective classrooms.

The result that there is no significant relationship between respondents’ sex to their
practices while using peer correction strategy in their classroom contradicts the OECD’s (2009)
findings that female teachers frequently use structuring and student-oriented practices (e.g., peer-
correction strategy in writing class) and are more often involved in co-operative activities than
their male colleagues. Similarly, the result on the no significant relationship between
participants’ major or specialization and practices refutes the OECD’s (2009) findings that the
mathematics, science teachers and humanities teachers use more structuring practices and less
student-oriented practices and enhanced activities (e.g., peer-correction strategy in teaching
writing) than the Likewise, the result that there is no significant relationship between
participants’ length of service and practices does not support the OECD’s (2009) findings that
teachers with more professional experience report using structuring practices more often.
However, it substantiates Mahdi and Al-Dera’s (2013) finding that there is no significant
relationship between teachers’ length of service and teaching practices. Furthermore, the result
that there is no significant relationship between the number of relevant trainings participated in
by the participants and their practices when using peer-correction strategy in their writing class
confirms the OECD’s (2009) findings that the net effects of days professional development are
small and only significant in few countries whereas indicators of participation in networks and
mentoring have significant and stronger net associations with teaching practices in a majority of
countries.

Meanwhile, the result that there is no significant relationship between participants’ age
and their practices is similar with that of Mahdi and Al-Dera (2013). In the same vein, the result
that there is no significant relationship between participants’ highest educational attainment and
practices when using peer-correction strategy substantiates that of the OECD (2009).
Table 5.2 Relationship between Respondents’ Profile and Practices when using
Peer-Correction Strategy
Practices
Profile r-value p-value Interpretation
Sex .119 .388 No significant relationship
Age -.168 .221 No significant relationship
Length of Service -.079 .566 No significant relationship
Highest Educational Attainment .045 .745 No significant relationship
Major -.018 .894 No significant relationship
Number of Teaching Loads .101 .462 No significant relationship
Relevant Training .095 .490 No significant relationship
*correlation is significant at 0.05 level

3.6 Relationship between participants’ profile and challenges encountered when using peer-
correction strategy

Table 5.3 shows that of the seven profile variables, only the number of relevant trainings
has established significant relationship with the problems encountered when using peer-
correction strategy. This coincides with the OECD’s (2009) findings that professional
development activities like trainings and seminars are aimed at changing teachers’ knowledge
and beliefs and instructional practices which can result in the kinds of problem they may
encounter when using peer-correction strategy in their writing classes. Meanwhile, the result that
there is no relationship between the participants’ length of service and the problems encountered
when peer-correction strategy is used in the writing class disputes the OECD’s (2009) finding
that experienced teachers report a better classroom climate, that is they encounter lesser
classroom problems than the novice ones. This means that the problems that the seasoned and the
novice teachers encounter when they apply the peer-correction strategy in their respective classes
do not differ. Simply put it, the foregoing result implies that the longer the teacher has been in
service does not mean that they have lesser problems encountered in teaching writing to their
students. From this, it can be surmised that regardless of the participants’ length of service, still it
does not affect the extent of problems prompting their respective writing classes.
Table 5.3 Relationship between Respondents’ Profile and Problems Encountered when
using Peer-Correction Strategy
Challenges
Profile r-value p-value Interpretation
Sex -.120 .383 No significant relationship
Age .171 .212 No significant relationship
Length of Service .118 .390 No significant relationship
Highest Educational Attainment .160 .242 No significant relationship
Major .150 .275 No significant relationship
Number of Teaching Loads -.108 .430 No significant relationship
Relevant Training .311* .021 Significant relationship
*correlation is significant at 0.05 level

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Results may indicate that professional development in the forms of trainings, seminars,
mentoring and establishing networks can be effective in instructing and inspiring teachers to use
modern and multifaceted practices, particularly student-oriented practices and enhanced
activities. As OECD (2009) puts it, teachers who report using student-oriented practices and
enhanced activities relatively often are generally more motivated to learn and apply innovative
teaching strategies and thus engage in more professional development.
Filipino ESL teachers in the study perceived peer-correction as a strategy that gives
learners the avenue to maintain harmonious working relationship with their fellow learners
which could be translated in a classroom environment that can be conducive to learning. This
supports the observations of different scholars (e.g., Azarnoosh, 2013; Sultana, 2009) that peer-
correction strategy is anchored on humanism, communicative language teaching and learner-
centered teaching language theories.

Though respondents did not always utilize in their respective classes the different peer-
correction strategies like providing students with scaffolding tools (e.g. brief instructions on how
the strategy is done, exercises on peer-correction, and checklist of what to evaluate on their
classmates’ paper), they have developed their own techniques in applying the peer-correction as
strategy in their class. Some of their developed practices are guided by the ideas and theories by
other practitioners while others were developed based on their critical reflections and analysis of
their own practices. One of the pressing issues faced by Filipino ESL teachers in the study,
whenever they apply peer-correction strategy in their classes, is when the ESL learners under
their tutelage still prefer their comments or corrections on their papers than that of their fellow
learners. Hence, this impedes the ESL teachers in fully-utilizing and promoting the strategy.

Giving teacher with stable and successful professional development experience is a way
to improve the quality of teaching and learning in educational institutions. Fareed, Ashraf, and
Bilal (2016) stressed the importance of effective writing teachers, who are trained not only in
effective teaching practices but also in giving positive and constructive feedback. However, as
revealed in the study, teachers lack the needed skills and training to properly carry out peer-
correction strategy in the class. Hence, it is a must for ESL teachers to be trained in
implementing peer-correction strategy on their respective classes. Likewise, it is also
recommended that the ESL teachers may look at the possibility of incorporating classroom
discussions on peer-correction strategy with focus on error correction, feedback and writing to
help the learners to have full grasp on how feedback is intended to affect their writing and why it
is given in a particular way.

Apart from the training plan, it is also recommended that a professional organization of
ESL writing teachers in the province may also be established. Through this, there will be an
avenue for the ESL writing teachers to share their thoughts, principles and best practices in
teaching writing with focus on the use of the peer-correction strategy. This is in line with the
OECD’s (2009) conclusion that the kind of professional development a teacher engages in is
more important than the amount of time invested. Hence, professional development activities
that take place at regular intervals and involve teachers in a rather stable social and collaborative
context (i.e. networks or mentoring) have significant and stronger association with teaching
practices than regular trainings and workshops.

Future studies may consider exploring the ESL teachers’ cognition on the teaching of
writing and see if their cognition is congruent to their actual practice. The small number of
participants may limit the findings’ certainty and applicability (Tan, Polong, Collantes, Torres,
2020), hence future studies may include bigger sampling. It is also noteworthy to explore in
future studies if ESL teachers’ perceptions toward peer-correction differ when they are grouped
based on their profile variables. Finally, it is of significant interest to know in future studies if
Filipino ESL teachers have become more accepting of the varieties of English (e.g., Philippine
English) that students use in their L2 composition (Torres, 2019).

REFERENCES

Abdon, M. (2018). Students’ Writing Proficiency and Level of Anxiety toward Academic
English Writing. Asian EFL, 20(12.4), 30-52.
Alieto, E. (2018). Language Shift from English to Mother Tongue: Exploring Language Attitude
and Willingness to Teach among Pre-service Teachers. TESOL International Journal,
 13(3), 134-146.
Alieto, E., Devanadera, A., & Buslon, J. (2019). Women of K-12: Exploring teachers’ cognition
in language policy implementation. Asian EFL Journal, 24(4.1), 143-162.
Alieto, E. Ricohermoso, C., & Abequibel, B. (2020). An Investigation on Digital and Print
Reading Attitudes: Samples from Filipino Preservice Teachers from a Non-metropolitan-
based University. Asian EFL, 27(4.3), 278-311.
Alieto, E., & Rillo, R. (2018). Language attitudes of English language teachers (ELTS) towards
Philippine English. Dimension Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 13(1), 84-110.
Antonio, A., Probitchado, R., Ricohermoso, C., Saavedra, A., & dela Rama, J.M. (2020). Gender
Differences in Technological Competence among Science Teachers: Implications.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(7), 13257-13268.
Azarnoosh, M. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: Attitudes and friendship
bias. Language Testing in Asia, 3(11), 1-10.

Buslon, J., Alieto, E., Pahulaya, V., & Reyes, A. (2020). ender Divide in Attitude towards
Chavacano and Cognition towards Mother Tongue among Prospective Language
Teachers . Asian EFL, 27 (3.1), 41-64.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning
and Instruction, 20, 328-338.

de la Rama, J.M., Sabasales, M., Antonio, A., Ricohermoso, C., Torres, J., Devanadera, A.,
Tulio, C., & Alieto, E. (2020). Virtual Teaching as the 'New Norm’: Analyzing Science
Teachers’ Attitude toward Online Teaching, Technological Competence and Access.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29 (7), 2705-12715.

Dornyei, Z., (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. OUP, Oxford.

Fareed, M., Ashraf, A. & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems, factors and
suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4(2), 81-92.

Gonzales W.D.W., & Torres, P.L.O. (2016). Filipino ESL learners’ attitudes toward
cooperative learning and their relationship to reading comprehension. TESOL
International Journal, 11(2), 70-90.

Griffiths, C. & Cansiz, G. (2015). Studies in second language learning and teaching. SSLLT,
5(3), 473-493.

Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal,
59(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (7th ed.) London: Pearson
 Longman.

Hong, F. (2016). Students’ perception of peer response activity in English writing instruction.
CELEA Journal, 29(4).

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London:

Pearson.

Itmeizeh, M.J. (2016). Impact of peer correction on reducing English language students’
mistakes in their written essays in PAUC and learners’ attitudes towards this technique.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(11), 2068-2078. Retrieved from DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0611.02

Jacinto, M.J. & Alieto, E. (2020). Virtual Teaching Attitude and Technological Competence
among English as Second Language (ESL) Teachers: Implications for the Management
of Learning. Asian EFl, 27(4.4), 403-433.
Johnson, B. (2010). Toward a New Classification of Nonexperimental Quantitative Research.
Educational Researcher, 3-13. In Perez, A.L., & Alieto, E. (2018). Change of “Tongue”
from English to a local language: A correlation of Mother Tongue proficiency and
Mathematics achievement. The Asian ESP Journal, 14(7.2),136-150.
Karami, S. & Barekat, B. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ gender and their
emotional attitudes. The Iranian EFL Journal, 10(2), 363-381. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312384254_The_Relationship_between
_Teachers%27_Gender_and_Their_Emotional_Attitudes

Kuswandono, P. (2005). Fostering learner autonomy through peer correction in writing

as a process. LLT Journal, 8(1), 15-26.

Macpherson, A. (2015). Cooperative learning group activities for college courses. Surrey, BC
Canada: Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

Mahboob, A. (2014). Epilogue: Understanding language variation: Implications for EIL

pedagogy. Switzerland: Springer.

Mahdi, H.S. & Al-Dera, A.S. (2013). The impact of teachers’ age, gender and experience on the
use of information and communication technology in EFL teaching. English Language
Teaching, 6(6), 57-67. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1077056.pdf

Mamo, B. & Yigzaw, A. (2016). EFL teacher’s conceptions and attitudes of peer-assisted
learning in English classes. Ethiopia Journal of Education and Science, 11(2), 17-
32.

Marcelo, M.S.A. (2020). Attributes of K to 12 teachers, school factors and pupils academic
 performance in selected schools in Talavera North District, Schools Division of Nueva
Ecija. Master’s Thesis. Central Luzon State University. Philippines

Marlina, R., & Giri, R. (2014). The pedagogy of English as an international language:
Perspectives from scholars, teachers, and students (Vol. 1). Springer.

Mendonca, C.O., & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities
in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.

Morra, A.M., & Romano, M.E. (2008). University students’ reaction to guided peer feedback of
EAP compositions. JCLL, 35, 19-30.

Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of EFL peer response group

interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

OECD (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS.
TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1787/97892606870

Pablo, J.C.I. & Lasaten, R.C.S. (2018). Writing difficulties and quality of academic essays of
senior high school students. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 6(4),
46-57.

Panadero, E. & Brown, G. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive
experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133-156.

Perez, A.L., & Alieto, E. (2018). Change of “Tongue” from English to a local language: A
correlation of Mother Tongue proficiency and Mathematics achievement. The Asian ESP
Journal, 14(7.2),136-150.
Pratiwi, A.M. (2012). Peer editing in the teaching-learning process of writing descriptive
text at the second year of SMPN 3 Pekalongan East Lampung. Bandar Lampung:
Lampung University.

Rillo, R. & Alieto, E. (2019). Indirectness Markers in Korean and Persian English Essays:
Implications for Teaching Writing to EFL Learners. English as an International Journal,
13(2.2), 165-184.

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

Ryoo, M.L. & Wing, M.L. (2012). Skill level based cooperative peer feedback in EFL
writing students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(1), 95-131.
Shabani, K. & Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development:
Instructional implications and Teachers’ Professional Development. English Language
Teaching, 3(4), 237-248.

Shuttleworth, M. (2008, September 26). Explorable. Retrieved from Descriptive Research

Design: https://explorable.com/descriptive-research-design

Somblingo,R., & Alieto, E. (2019). English language attitude among Filipino prospective
language teachers: An analysis through the Mentalist theoretical lens. The Asian ESP
Journal, 15(2), 23-41.
Sultana, A. (2009). Peer correction in ESL classrooms. BRAC University Journal, 6(1),
11-19.

Richards, J.C., & Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An anthology of
current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tan, R.K., Polong, R.B., Collantes, L.M., Torres, J.M. (2020). Influence of small group
discussion on the English oral communication self-efficacy of Filipino ESL learners in
Central Luzon. TESOL International Journal, 15(1).

Tang, G.M. & Tithecott, J. ((1999). TESL Canada Journal, 16(2), 20-38.

Torres, J.M. & Medriano, R. (2020). Rhetorical Organization of Ilocano and Tagalog Pre-
service teachers in their argumentative essays. The Asian EFL Journal, 27(2.2.), 261-286.

Torres, J.M., Collantes, L.M., Astrero, E.T., Millan, A.R., & Gabriel, C.M. (2020). Pandemic
humor: Inventory of the humor scripts produced during the COVID-19 outbreak. The Asian
EFL Journal, 7(3.1), 138-164.

Torres, J.M. (2019). Positioning Philippine English grammar and lexicon in four discourse
quadrants. The Asian EFL Journal, 22(2). 253-276.

Torres, J.M. & Alieto, E.O. (2019a). Acceptability of Philippine English grammatical and
lexical items among pre-service teachers. The Asian EFL Journal, 21(2.3), 158-181.

Torres, J.M. & Alieto, E.O. (2019b). English learning motivation and self-efficacy of Filipino
senior high school students. The Asian EFL Journal, 22(1), 51-72.

Torres, J.M. & Flores, E.R. (2017). Exploring the role of L2 in L1 writing: Clues from English
teachers’ think aloud protocols. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 48, 30-50.

Tsui, A.B.M. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
Villamil, O.S. & De Guerrero, M.C.M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on
L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ms. Ria Marie V. Robles is a public Senior High School teacher at Jorge M. Padilla National
High School- Division of Nueva Ecija. She completed Master of Arts in Education major in
English at Wesleyan University - Philippines.

Dr. Joel M. Torres is an Associate Professor at the Secondary Education Department, College
of Education, Central Luzon State University. He completed Doctor of Philosophy in Applied
Linguistics at De La Salle University-Manila. He co-authored research articles in the fields of
Philippine English, Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, Second Language Acquisition and
Learning, Discourse Analysis, and Language and Gender that were published in Scopus-indexed
and internationally refereed journals.