The Impact of Self and Peer Assessment on L2 Writing: The Case of Moodle Workshops

  • Abdelmajid Bouziane
  • Hicham Zyad


This chapter reports on an empirical study investigating the effects of technology-mediated self- and peer assessment on L2 students’ writing development in tertiary education. Couched within socio-cultural and activity theories, the study rests on the understanding that effective learning results from collaboration, experiential learning, and hands-on, meaningful activities. Using a quasi-experimental pre-/post-test between-group research design, a group of 48 semester two students were exposed to a blended writing course over 12 weeks. Besides the process-based writing activities carried out in class, the students were divided into groups of four and were required to download multiple supplementary materials from Moodle and post their essays in an online workshop for discussion and exchange of feedback. Pre- and post-test score comparisons revealed that although both groups made progress in certain aspects of complexity and accuracy, the experimental group significantly scored higher in accuracy metrics. Qualitative analysis of students’ feedback comments showed that their noticing ability improved as demonstrated by a decrease in unhelpful comments and an increase in meaning-level comments. The implications of the results obtained for an effective blended writing course are discussed.


ELT Self-assessment Peer assessment Moodle Writing pedagogy 


  1. Altstaedter, L. L. (2016). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1–15.
  2. Andrade, H. L., Du, Y., & Mycek, K. (2010). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and middle school students’ writing. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asghar, M. (2013). Exploring formative assessment using cultural historical activity theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 18–32.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, A. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, A. (2016). Writing student-generated scoring rubrics: Examining their formative value for improving ESL students’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 29, 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chelli, S. (2013). Developing students’ writing abilities by the use of self-assessment through portfolios. Arab World English Journal, 4(2), 220–234.Google Scholar
  7. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Covill, A. E. (2012). College students’ use of a writing rubric: Effect on quality of writing, self-Efficacy, and writing practices. The Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  10. Engestrom, Y. (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fahimi, Z., & Rahimi, A. (2015). On the impact of self-assessment practice on writing skill. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 730–736.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, K., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing, knowledge, and motivation of young struggling writers: Effects of self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support. American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 295–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. V. Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 201–224). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schunk, D. H. (2014). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York: Pearson College Division.Google Scholar
  19. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Swain, M., & Lapkin. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Mind in Society The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Mind in So, 159.
  22. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1978). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdelmajid Bouziane
    • 1
  • Hicham Zyad
    • 1
  1. 1.The School of HumanitiesHassan II UniversityBen M’SikMorocco

Personalised recommendations