🔄 First Visit: Redirecting automatically to original journal site...
⏸️ STOP REDIRECT & STAY ON PAGEPEER FEEDBACK, SELF-EVALUATION, AND THEIR IMPACT ON WRITING PROFICIENCY OF PAKISTANI ESL STUDENTS
Abstract
Abstract
This study examines how structured peer feedback and guided self-correction affect the essay writing proficiency of Pakistani ESL undergraduates. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design was employed with 90 sophomore students enrolled in a Functional English course at a private university in Karachi, Pakistan. Participants were divided into three intact groups of 30: a peer feedback group (Group A), a self-correction group (Group B), and a control group (Group C) using conventional unguided editing. Both experimental groups used guideline manuals, which included instructions for content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanical corrections. Students' essays were scored using the ESL Composition Profile by Jacobs et al. (1981). Post-intervention analysis indicated that both Group A (average = 81.06) and Group B (average = 80.83) outperformed the control group (average = 73.86), whereas there was no statistically significant difference between the two experimental groups (p = .985).
This study examines how structured peer feedback and guided self-correction affect the essay writing proficiency of Pakistani ESL undergraduates. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design was employed with 90 sophomore students enrolled in a Functional English course at a private university in Karachi, Pakistan. Participants were divided into three intact groups of 30: a peer feedback group (Group A), a self-correction group (Group B), and a control group (Group C) using conventional unguided editing. Both experimental groups used guideline manuals, which included instructions for content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanical corrections. Students' essays were scored using the ESL Composition Profile by Jacobs et al. (1981). Post-intervention analysis indicated that both Group A (average = 81.06) and Group B (average = 80.83) outperformed the control group (average = 73.86), whereas there was no statistically significant difference between the two experimental groups (p = .985).