Original Research

SAGE Open
October-December 2023: 1–18
Ó The Author(s) 2023
The Incorporation of Facebook-Based DOI: 10.1177/21582440231203462
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Peer Comments Into Writing Revisions:
A Framework for Social-Network Peer
Commentaries

Vu Phi Ho Pham1 and Thi Kim Phung Luong1

Abstract
This study determined the degree to which students used peer feedback from Facebook to revise their writing papers and
explored the students’ perspectives on a framework of using a social network for peer commentaries. The study enrolled
two intact groups, 40 students in the control group and 32 students in the experimental group, at a university in Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam. The student’s initial and final drafts, peer reviews, and semi-structured interviews were used to collect
data. The results indicated that 45% of changes were made in response to peer reviews, while 55% were made solely on the
basis of the student’s own judgments. Additionally, the overall number of revisions made by students was greater than the
number of revisions caused by comments at higher levels such as ‘‘Clause,’’ ‘‘Sentence,’’ and ‘‘Paragraph.’’ Numerous previous
studies refuted the current study’s results, raising questions for researchers/instructors considering using Facebook as a
forum for their writing classes because the students become more responsible for developing their writing skills.

Keywords
Facebook-based peer feedback, comments, revisions, responding emails, social network, incorporation

Introduction allows writers to reconsider their peers’ comments as often

Peer feedback, peer comment, or peer review, in general,
constitutes an important aspect of improving writing
(Pham, 2021a, 2021b; Pham, Huyen, et al., 2020b). It is an
effective pedagogical tool to encourage learners to facili-
tate further writing development. By engaging in peer feed-
back and receiving comments from other peers, students
can be exposed to broader readers’ views than just those
of their teachers. According to Liu and Hansen (2002),
employing peer feedback activities in the writing classroom
brings the students to the roles of teachers for each other,
and they take responsibility for their own learning.
In addition, when learners read their peers’ writing
papers to provide comments to help improve each other’s
writing quality (Pham, 2021b), they attempt to be critical
readers; the students feel confident in their ability to com-
ment on their peers’ work (Berg et al., 2003). Vu et al.
(2022) stated that peer feedback activities helped increase
online interactions between students and teachers and
helped them become more confident in the learning pro-
cess. Min (2008) states that peer feedback allows reviewers
more time to form explicit comments in English and
as they want when revising their drafts. Peer feedback can
influence the revisions by the students’ writers (Pham,
2021b). Pham and Usaha (2016) found that the total
number of revisions made by the student writers was
larger than the total feedback delivered by peers, contri-
buting to improving students’ writing quality.
On social networking sites such as Facebook, posts
and comments are displayed in chronological order,
making it convenient for students to read and comment
on each other’s drafts. In order to enhance the students’
engagement in peer feedback activities, researchers
around the world employ media or social networks in
their writing classrooms, and Facebook is not an
1
Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam
Corresponding Author:
Vu Phi Ho Pham, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Lang University, 69/68
Dang Thuy Tram, Ward 13, Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City 700000,
Vietnam.
Email: ho.pvp@vlu.edu.vn

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
exception. Living in an era of industrial 4.0, Facebook
offers students a myriad of opportunities for students to
practice and enhance their writing skills. First, concern-
ing collaboration, Facebook offers excellent potential for
collaboration among learners since the learning platform
on Facebook can engage learners in creating knowledge
and participating in the learning process (Freishtat &
Sandlin, 2010). Also, Facebook promotes the level of
interaction both between the teacher and students and
between students, making it possible for teachers to dis-
cuss assignments with their students outside of the class-
room (Yunus et al., 2012). Similarly, Tran (2019) also
claimed that Facebook is a tool to increase the interac-
tion between students and teachers. It helps the teachers
connect their students for assignments and improve stu-
dents’ performance (Chugh & Ruhi, 2018).
Facebook will benefit language classrooms by facilitat-
ing communication and interaction. Facebook, according
to Özdemir (2017), is the simplest method to communi-
cate with others and could be used to improve intercul-
tural communication effectiveness. Özdemir discovered
that the Facebook discussion group performed signifi-
cantly better than the in-class discussion group.
Moreover, according to Cerdà and Planas (2011), using
Facebook in the classroom is advantageous because it
encourages student interaction, online discussions, and
group work, particularly among students who are hesi-
tant to participate in face-to-face activities. Wang and
Vásquez (2014) state that Facebook could be used to help
L2 learners enhance their writing performance by allow-
ing students to practice writing outside of the classroom.
In addition, Börekci and Aydin (2020) suggest that EFL
instructors establish a positive environment for Facebook
interaction to support their student’s academic and per-
sonal development. Consequently, it is an excellent
instrument for students to provide peer feedback. Online
peer remark activities on Facebook provide an interactive
environment for EFL students to enhance their writing
by exchanging peer comments and revising drafts.
Second, the students can have a broader audience
when they post their writing on a social networking site
like Facebook fosters their sense of audience. According
to Yunus et al. (2012), students are likely to take
accountability for their words since they have a larger
audience when posting their drafts on Facebook. Also,
by commenting on a peer’s draft on Facebook, students
can reach a wider audience, encouraging them to put
more effort into writing high-quality comments. This
also motivates shy students to actively participate in peer
comment activities (Yunus et al., 2012). Third, the fact
that students can access a variety of drafts, peer com-
ments, and teacher comments on Facebook enables them
to receive enough input in order to develop their writing
skills (Yunus et al., 2012). Therefore, Tran and Van
Nguyen (2020) state that flipped classroom with
Facebook will engender students’ engagement in the
learning process.
In short, using Facebook in blended learning can
facilitate students’ writing process in higher education by
supporting collaborative learning, creating motivation,
and providing great input. However, engagements in
learning activities in this kind of social media, such as
discussion, interaction, or communication, seemed not
enough if the researchers failed to investigate the lan-
guage production, in this study, writing revision, that
Facebook might facilitate (Pham, 2016). The purpose of
the current study would fill in this gap.
Literature Review
Numerous studies have been performed on qualified peer
comments and their effect on the revision and writing
quality of ESL/EFL students. Also, students’ perceptions
of the use of Facebook peer feedback were also explored.
Regarding incorporating peer comments into revision,
Min (2006) experimented to determine which essay types
yielded better results. All participants were sophomores.
When training students, results showed that they incorpo-
rated a lot of advice into their revisions, accounting for
77%. After participating in peer feedback, the researchers
found it beneficial to their revisions and were willing to
incorporate it into their program (Min, 2006).
Although it is claimed that peer feedback is the case
of a blind leading a blind and that peer feedback quality
is doubtful due to students’ limited knowledge and com-
petence in generating comments, a number of studies
have found evidence that peer comments are, to some
extent reliable and beneficial in EFL teaching and learn-
ing contexts. Pham (2021a) designed a model of com-
mentaries to train students to be effective reviewers in
every teaching section. After learning the teachers’ model
of commentary, the study found that the students tended
to produce better peer feedback to trigger revisions.
Remarkably, the students claimed no statistically differ-
ent effects between the lecturer’s feedback and peer feed-
back on the student’s writing revisions. In order words,
the students’ feedback is as beneficial to the student writ-
ers as the teacher’s feedback. Hence, quality peer feed-
back should be addressed in other studies.
As the implementation of peer feedback is still contro-
versial, several studies on the impacts of peer feedback
on revisions have been done to work out whether peer
comments are beneficial in EFL teaching and learning
contexts by examining their impacts on revision and writ-
ing performance. Pham and Usaha (2016) employed a
blogging platform to help students provide feedback to
help each other improve their writing quality. The study
also investigated the ratios that the students incorporated
Pham and Phung
peer feedback via the blog into their writing revision.
The study found that the total revisions that the students
made were more than the total feedback provided by
peers. The study also pointed out that the writers’ revi-
sions at lower levels, such as word or phrase, didn’t need
much help from their group members, whereas those at
higher levels, such as sentences or paragraphs, needed
much help from peers.
Recently, as part of the current project, Pham, Phung,
et al. (2020a) investigated whether Facebook peer com-
ments affected students’ writing quality and whether they
were more effective than the traditional peer comment
mode. Seventy-two native Vietnamese students from two
distinct curricula at HCMC University of Science partici-
pated in the study. The only difference between the two
groups was that one received peer feedback on papers in
person and the other via the Facebook social network.
The pre- and post-tests were assessed by inter-raters and
analyzed using t-tests in the SPSS software. Both tradi-
tional and Facebook peer comments significantly
impacted students’ writing quality, but Facebook peer
comments were more effective than traditional peer com-
ments. However, this investigation failed to explain why
the student papers were distinct. The current study should
be expanded to include an in-depth analysis of students’
writing revisions and qualitative data to examine students’
opinions after receiving feedback on Facebook.
After determining that few studies had conducted in-
depth investigations of incorporating peer feedback into
revision, Pham, Huyen, et al. (2020b) conducted a study
at a university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, to fill this
gap. The study included 92 English-major students from
two academic writing classes. In 11-week courses, they
were taught how to provide feedback to their peers.
According to the study’s findings, the majority of peer
feedback was revision-oriented; thus, the majority of the
feedback was incorporated into the students’ writing
revision. Their writing products become of higher quality
as a result. This study did not investigate the students’
perspectives on peer feedback activities.
Due to its popularity and its high potential for being
applied in teaching English writing, researchers have
conducted many studies exploring the effects of
Facebook as a platform for peer comments on improv-
ing students’ writing quality. Researchers in Asia, such
as Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, and Vietnam, conducted
most previous studies on the application of Facebook to
teaching English writing. These studies mainly focused
on whether exchanging peer comments on Facebook
affects students’ writing quality, students’ attitudes, and
the extent to which students incorporate peer comments
into revisions.
Concerning students’ views on using Facebook as a
tool to assist them in improving their writing
3
performances, several studies in Asia, specifically in
Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, Japan, and Vietnam, have
been undertaken to explore the students’ perceptions.
Yusof et al. (2012) examined the benefits of using
Facebook Notes for guided peer feedback throughout
the writing process. The research comprised 20
Malaysian students. The students were taught how to
use Facebook peer commenting. The students were
encouraged to comment on Facebook. Students’
Facebook posts and interview responses were analyzed.
The study found that the students in a mixed-ability class
gained positive attitudes toward using Facebook as a
tool in the writing classroom. They regarded the
Facebook peer comments as a way to strengthen their
pre-writing and self-editing abilities. They liked the activ-
ities because they are usually online. This research
focuses on peer comments throughout the academic writ-
ing preparation stage. The study took 4 weeks. These
flaws may have skewed the study’s conclusion.
Wichadee (2013) investigated the impact of Facebook-
based peer comments on students’ writing ability, atti-
tudes toward using Facebook to provide peer comments
and the extent to which comments were incorporated
into revisions. Thirty EFL freshmen from a private Thai
university took part in the study. The study’s findings
revealed that Facebook-based peer comments signifi-
cantly improved the revised drafts. The findings also
revealed that students’ peer comments were primarily
focused on content rather than grammatical errors. Most
frequently, spelling, tenses, and content comments were
incorporated into revisions. The interview analysis
revealed that students have a positive attitude toward
using Facebook to deliver peer comments. Similarly,
Sukhwartnarueput and Wasanasomsithi (2012) also
found that the students enjoyed interacting with friends
and professors through Facebook.
Razak and Saeed (2015) studied peer writing revisions
in a Facebook group to determine what kind of contri-
butions students’ peer feedback had on their written
compositions outside of the classroom. Fourteen interna-
tional students wrote a paragraph, responded to the
other students’ drafts, and made revisions to their own
based on peer feedback on Facebook. According to the
research, the students added, substituted, permuted, and
consolidated most of the changes. The activities also
showed that students felt an interactive, well-established,
and educated community based on shared interests and
participation.
Dizon (2016) conducted a quasi-experimental study to
compare the effects of writing on Facebook versus writ-
ing on paper and pencil on improving L2 writing flu-
ency, lexical richness, and grammatical accuracy among
university students in Japan. The results of the data anal-
ysis revealed that the experimental group made more
4 SAGE Open
significant gains in terms of writing fluency. Neither
group made significant progress in lexical richness or
grammatical accuracy. Because this study compared the
effects of Facebook-based teacher comments versus pen-
and-paper teacher comments on students’ writing perfor-
mance, peer comments were not included.
To find out more about the advantages of utilizing
Facebook Groups to teach writing to Vietnamese high
school students, Nguyen and Dao (2015) involved 55
11th graders from a high school in Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam. The experimental group used Facebook to
share assignments and communicate with classmates and
lecturers. Pre- and post-test surveys collected data.
Instructors and classmates were asked to participate in
English conversations and post homework on Facebook.
The study found that using a Facebook group improved
students’ writing skills and attitudes toward using
Facebook for educational purposes. Likewise, Phuong
and Phuong (2016) in Vietnam also claimed that students
favor using Facebook for peer comment exchange.
Research Gaps
Concerning the previous research’s emphasis, although
there are several studies on computer-mediated peer
comments and the impact of Facebook on students’ writ-
ing quality (Jiang & Ribeiro, 2017), there are few studies
on how Facebook peer comments affect non-English
majors’ revision. The majority of the previous study on
peer criticism on Facebook has been conducted using
quantitative or qualitative methodologies. In the context
of research in Vietnam, though the results about peer
feedback in technology environments had possible effects
on students’ writing revisions (Pham, 2021b, 2021a,
2023; Pham & Usaha, 2016; Pham et al., 2020a, 2020b),
few studies have explored students’ perspectives about
this area. Also, few studies have compared the impact of
Facebook peer comments on students’ work to that of
other kinds of peer evaluation. Ferris (2003) advised
addressing the contradictory results of peer comments.
Numerous research on this area lacks data gathering and
analytic triangulation.
If students are well instructed in the peer feedback
process, they will help their peers in revision sessions and
enhance their writing performance. Studies on the impact
of peer feedback on revisions and writing performance
have yielded both positive and negative results due to dif-
ferent contexts and ways peer feedback is carried out. In
the local context, students’ writing skills were seen as a
lack of motive in writing, and they had to struggle with
writing (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2022; Pham, 2021a, 2023;
Tran, 2021). They had limit vocabulary and ideas to
develop their writing skills (Ngo & Tran, 2021). The
present study is initiated by the positive findings from
previous research about the levels of revisions made
thanks to peer feedback. The study is conducted in an
attempt to further those studies by working out the ratios
and the levels of revisions triggered by peers to examine
the effects of peer feedback on revisions in a Vietnamese
learning context. Additionally, the students’ perceptions
of these activities are examined.
Research Questions
1. Do Facebook peer comments impact the stu-
dents’ writing performances? If yes, to what
extent do the students incorporate Facebook-
based peer feedback into their revisions?
2. What are the students’ perspectives on using
Facebook-based peer commentary activities in
studying writing in terms of preferences, utility,
and impacts?
Research Methodology
The sample for this study was drawn using convenience
sampling from HCMC University of Science (HCMC
US), one of the member units of Ho Chi Minh City
Vietnam National University, one of the largest universi-
ties in Vietnam with seven member units (Vietnam
National University HCMC, 2021). The sample included
72 individuals from a population of 1,000 freshmen, all
of whom were studying English-2 and belonged to two
entire classes between the ages of 18 and 20. The
researcher used convenience sampling since she was sup-
posed to teach these particular courses that semester. As
a result, the courses selected were based on the research-
er’s planned teaching obligations, enabling simple access
for the study. Due to their availability at any given
moment, the two chosen classes attended English-2 con-
currently, enabling the researcher to gather data from
both courses. Their pre-intermediate English proficiency
corresponded to the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages level A2 (CEFR). They had
been instructed to write a descriptive paragraph in
English-1 but not in email writing at the time of this
research. They were expected to spend a total of 60 hr in
their English-2 course over the course of a 15-week seme-
ster honing their four English skills. In terms of writing
abilities, students were to be taught how to compose an
email in response to a written request.
The researcher randomly assigned one English-2 class
with biology majors to the control group and another
class with information technology majors to the experi-
mental group. Both classes had an equal probability of
being randomly assigned to the control or experimental
group. Participants were not compelled to join either the
control or experimental groups. They may choose to
Pham and Phung
participate in either group: if they were disinterested in
the medium used to exchange writing and peer com-
ments, they could request permission from the instructor
to join the other group. Individuals were sorted into four
groups in both the control and experimental groups,
although the technique for grouping participants differed
between the control and experimental groups. In the for-
mer, participants were permitted to pick their own
groupmates in order to maintain close closeness while
exchanging drafts and comments. In the latter, the
researcher randomly divided participants into groups
since they would be exchanging remarks over Facebook.
This was a quasi-experimental study with pre- and
post-test control groups (Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell,
2009). This is a common quasi-experimental design in
which the experimental and control groups are chosen
arbitrarily. Two groups are administered a pre- and post-
test, but only the experimental group receives the treat-
ment. This research design aided in examining the impact
of Facebook-based peer comment activities on students’
writing quality and presented a causal analysis of the
variables. A pre-test and a post-test were administered at
the beginning and conclusion of the course, respectively,
to ensure that all participants were at the same level prior
to treatment and to evaluate their efficacy. The indepen-
dent variables are peer remark activities via Facebook
versus paper-and-pen, and the dependent variable is stu-
dents’ English writing quality. Figure 1 presents the
research design of the current study.
Figure 1. The writing cycle for writing assignments (Pham et al., 2020a).
5
Assigning Students to Peer Commenting
Groups
The size of peer commenting groups was carefully moni-
tored in this study. A group’s size, say Liu and Hansen
(2002, p. 62), ‘‘may affect any group task.’’ Students’ lev-
els of skill and maturity also have a role. Many studies
have discussed the pros and cons of big peer commenting
groups. A large group benefited both professors and
students. On the one hand, larger classes are easier to
manage (Liu & Hansen, 2002). However, large group
members can gain significant advantages from their
peers. In a larger group, students must read and com-
ment on more drafts, allowing them to learn more from
their peers. More groups have a wider variety of talents,
knowledge, experience, and skills, making them better
for various activities (Liu & Hansen, 2002). A bigger
peer commenting group also allows for greater social
engagement and meaningful negotiation.
Large groupings have many advantages but also dis-
advantages. First, both individuals offering and receiving
peer critiques may perceive the disadvantages of large
groups. According to Lin and Warden (1998), larger
group peer comments were less helpful because members
were more inclined to make superficial remarks with no
explanation or rationale. Giving peer feedback on too
many pieces of work may be draining for many students.
Second, instructors struggle to ensure equitable involve-
ment in big groups. In fact, larger groups have less equal
6 SAGE Open
member participation (Liu & Hansen, 2002). Third, large
gatherings may cause problems. Wheelan and McKeage
(1993) claim that bigger groups suffer from disputes and
clique formation because members are less able to com-
prehend one another. Also, physical distance complicates
close family relationships.
Taking into account the benefits and drawbacks of
large groups, the researcher divided the students into
two groups of four (Pham, 2023). However, the larger
minimum group size of three members ensured that each
group operated efficiently, even if one or more members
dropped out of the course or ceased participating in peer
commenting activities. In addition, throughout the seme-
ster, students remained in the same peer commenting
groups to continue learning about their peers.
The number of students in each peer commenting
group was the same in both the control and experimental
groups, but the researcher allocated students differently in
each group. In the control group, students formed peer
commenting groups at their own discretion. This ensured
that all students got along in their groups and could easily
gather after class for peer feedback. The teacher created a
Facebook group for the experimental group and made
sure everyone joined. The group was set as private so that
only the students in the group could see the entries each
other. Students were then placed in peer commenting
groups based on alphabetical order in the class roster.
Using an asynchronous platform like Facebook, students
in these peer commenting groups were less likely to be
affected by proximity or personality differences.
The Pedagogical Rationale for Utilizing
Facebook as a Platform in an EFL Writing
Class
Facebook provides several possibilities for kids to improve
their writing abilities. First, in terms of collaboration,
Facebook is a great place for learners to collaborate and
create knowledge (Freishtat & Sandlin, 2009). Also,
Facebook encourages interaction between teachers and
students, allowing teachers to discuss assignments with
students outside of the classroom (Yunus et al., 2012).
Pham (2016) claims that Facebook cooperation helps stu-
dents produce language. Online peer comment activities
on Facebook allow EFL students to improve their writing
skills by exchanging peer feedback and revising their own
drafts. Second, Facebook affects student motivation
(Yunus et al., 2012). The fact that students can reach a
larger audience by posting their work on Facebook fosters
their sense of audience. Students who post their drafts on
Facebook have a larger audience, according to Yunus
et al. (2012). With Facebook comments, students may
reach a larger audience, which pushes them to write better
comments. This encourages hesitant students to peer
comment (Yunus et al., 2012). Third, students may access
a variety of drafts, peer comments, and instructor com-
ments on Facebook, allowing them to improve their writ-
ing abilities (Yunus et al., 2012). Students can view and
comment on others’ drafts on social networking sites like
Facebook since postings and comments are chronologi-
cally ordered. In summary, using Facebook in blended
learning may help students write better by encouraging
cooperation, motivating them, and offering plentiful
feedback.
The Writing Cycle of the Training
The researchers utilized Pham, Phung, et al.’s (2020a) writ-
ing assignments for each writing assignment. Each writing
cycle lasted two weeks. The instructor began by introdu-
cing both classes to the writing topic. In addition, she
introduced the students to the topic and its associated ter-
minology. In addition, she instructed the students to com-
pose their responses to the emails, the genre of the writing
assignments. The students were then instructed to complete
their first English writing assignment on a paper sheet dur-
ing class. Then, they were instructed to revise their manu-
scripts before distributing them to colleagues for feedback.
Students in the experimental group were then required to
post their English writing on the group’s Facebook page
for their peers to comment on. For the instructor to know
who commented on which posts, the students used their
identities in the Facebook group. The preponderance of
posts and remarks were composed in the English language.
The students in the control group were instructed to write
their comments on the paper and then meet in person to
share them. Students in both courses were then instructed
to revise their manuscripts and either submit them to the
instructor or post them on the Facebook page if they were
in the experimental group. The instructor reviewed and
commented on the manuscripts of the students in the con-
trol group, rectifying errors and making written notes. The
instructor commented on the Facebook postings of the
experimental group by composing her remarks directly
beneath the students’ posts in the ‘‘Comment Section.’’
Both students were then required to revise their manu-
scripts and compose their final essays.
This cycle was repeated three times, corresponding to
the course’s three writing assignments.
Revision Analysis Rubric
The researchers gathered students’ drafts and critiques
from the experimental group for content analysis. The
researchers analyzed the experimental group’s first and sec-
ond versions and peer comments to determine the extent
to which students incorporated peer feedback into their
revisions. To analyze the content of the experimental
Pham and Phung
group’s drafts and comments, the researchers repeatedly
copied students’ writing and comments from the Facebook
Group and saved them in a Word document in case stu-
dents deleted their posts and comments or even removed
their Facebook account from the Facebook Group.
The amount to which peer comments were absorbed
into revisions was determined by a content analysis of
students’ first and second versions and peer comments.
Robson and Kieran (2016, p. 349) describe content anal-
ysis as ‘‘the quantitative examination of what is included
in a document.’’Cohen et al. (2007) define content analy-
sis as a three-step method. The first phase comprises seg-
menting the text into analysis units, coding, and
classifying the analysis units. The second phase is com-
parison, which entails comparing categories. The last
stage is a conclusion, during which the researchers draw
a theoretical conclusion from the text.
The researchers employed a revision analysis rubric to
make steps 1 and 2 of the study more methodical and
Figure 2. The Facebook group interface.
7
manageable. The rubric for revising was adapted from
Pham’s (2014, p.77) ‘‘Coding approach for textual revi-
sion.’’ He developed this coding system to ascertain the
percentage of students that incorporate peer feedback
from blogs into revisions. This criterion aided the
researchers in identifying whether the changes made in
their second versions were totally due to peer comments,
somewhat due to peer comments, or not due to peer
comments at all. Eight types of modifications were made:
punctuation, spelling, grammar, expression, phrase,
clause, sentence, and paragraph.
Feature ‘‘Compare Two Versions of a
Document’’ of Microsoft Word
While content analysis can be a taxing and time-
consuming process, computerization can help alleviate
the burden of the task and bring tremendous benefits
(Robson & Kieran, 2016, p. 256). For example, with the
8 SAGE Open
Figure 3. The layout of the function ‘‘compare’’ two versions of a document in Microsoft Word.
help of computer software, researchers can easily manip-
ulate and display text in various ways. Therefore, in the
current study, in order to compare the revision made by
the student writers after receiving Facebook-based peer
comments with their first drafts to answer research ques-
tion 2, the researchers made use of the function
‘‘Compare two versions of a document’’ of Microsoft
Word together with the revision analysis rubric. Figure 2
presents the Facebook group interface.
After collecting students’ drafts and comments and
saving them in the form of Microsoft word documents,
the researchers used the function ‘‘Compare two versions
of a document’’ of Microsoft Word by choosing
‘‘Review’’!‘‘Compare’’!‘‘Compare two versions of a
document’’ on the Menu Bar. The reason why the
researchers made use of this function to help her to ana-
lyze students’ drafts and comments to answer research
question 2 was that it makes the coding process less
laborious since it highlights every single change, includ-
ing formatting, inserting, deleting, etc. that a writer made
on a document. Figure 3 presents the function of ‘‘com-
pare’’ two versions of documents in Microsoft Word.
Data Collection and Analysis
The manuscripts, first and second drafts, and semi-
structured interviews of all students were compiled for
analysis. To answer the first research question, the
researchers contrasted the writing performances of the
two groups to determine the extent to which peer com-
ments influenced the students’ revisions of their writing.
The IIG Vietnam (2017)’s 10-band scoring rubric (see
Appendix) was used to grade students’ pre-test and post-
test papers in this investigation. Two of the raters in this
study were colleagues of the researcher, who taught
English at HCMC University of Science. Before partici-
pating in this study, both were instructed by IIG
Vietnam on how to utilize the grading rubric. The corre-
lation coefficient between the control group’s pre-test
and post-test scores were r = .729, p = .000, r = .868,
p = .000; and that of the experimental group’s were
r = .808, p = .000; and r = .840, p = .000. Second, the
researchers used the function ‘‘Compare two versions of
a document’’ of Microsoft Word to compare students’
first and second drafts for each writing assignment. All
the changes, including insertions, deletions, moves, and
formatting, were highlighted on Microsoft Word. Then,
the researchers used the Revision analysis rubric to cate-
gorize the changes made in the second drafts into eight
corresponding levels in the rubric.
Next, the researchers carefully compared the peer
comments and the changes made to the second drafts to
see whether the changes were made based on peer com-
ments, partly based on peer comments, or not based on
peer comments. If a change was made exactly following
the suggestion in a peer comment, that change was coded
as ‘‘based on the comment’’; if a peer comment triggered
a change, but it did not adopt the suggestion in the peer
comment, it was coded as ‘‘partly based on the com-
ment’’; if a change was made without any suggestion
from peer comments, it was coded as ‘‘not based on the
comment’’ (Pham & Usaha, 2016)
Pham and Phung
Finally, the researchers added the total number of
changes made to the second draft and the total number
of each type of change to report the results in a summary
table. The researchers also used descriptive statistics to
represent the percentages of each type of change made to
the second draft.
To respond to the second research question, qualita-
tive data collected from the semi-structured interviews
were analyzed to answer this research question. Sixteen
students from the experimental group were invited to
participate in the semi-structured interviews. The inter-
views took place during the during second-half till the
end of the course to explore in-depth information from
the participants. Since the interviews were conducted in
Vietnamese, the researchers laboriously translated the
interview scripts from Vietnamese into English. First, the
researchers read the transcripts carefully a few times in
order to pick up the thread running through these inter-
views and highlight appropriate ideas. Then, the
researchers read the transcripts again and labeled high-
lighted ideas with codes. The translated transcripts were
also informed to the interviewees to make sure all the
meanings of their opinions remained or if they wished to
change some information. Next, she crumbled these
codes into twelve themes. All these steps were done on
the computer using the word processor Microsoft Word.
Results/Findings
Research question 1: Do Facebook peer comments
impact students’ writing performances? If yes, to what
extent do the students incorporate Facebook-based
peer feedback into their revisions?
The main purpose of the first research question was to
investigate the ratios of incorporating Facebook-based
peer comments into students’ writing revision. In order
to respond to it, first, comparisons of the student’s writ-
ing outcomes were made to investigate whether the peer
comments on the two modes impacted the students writ-
ing revision. Then, only comparisons of the first and sec-
ond drafts of the students in the experimental groups
were analyzed. Forty written papers of the control group
in the pre-test were compared to 32 papers from the
experimental group.
Table 1. Comparison of the Pre-Tests* Between the Control and Experimental Groups.
Tests Group N M
Pre-test Control 40 5.73
Experimental 32 5.903
*
Independent sample t-tests.
9
In order to compare the mean scores of the two
groups, tests of normality were run to see if the scores of
the students in the pre- and post-tests were normally dis-
tributed. If the null hypothesis was not rejected, para-
metric tests would be employed. On the contrary, the
non-parametric tests would be used. A Shapiro-Wilk’s
test (p . .05) for the pre-tests of the two groups indicates
that the pre-test scores were approximately normally dis-
tributed for both the control and experimental group,
with a Skewness of 20.372 (SE = 0.374), and a Kurtosis
of 20.642 (SE = 0.733) for the control group, and a
Skewness of 20.287 (SE = 0.414), a Kurtosis of 21.135
(SE = 0.809) for the pre-test of the experimental group.
This indicates that the comparison of the pre-tests
between the two groups could be run with a parametric
test. However, Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p \ .05) for the post-
test of the control group indicates that the post-test
scores of the control group were not approximately nor-
mally distributed, with a Skewness of 20.795
(SE = 0.374), and a Kurtosis of 1.520 (SE = 0.733) for
the control group. In this case, the Mann-Whitney U
Test of the non-parametric test was run to compare the
results of the post-tests of the two groups. Table 1 pre-
sents the comparisons of the student’s writing perfor-
mances in the pre-tests between the two groups.
The results of the independent sample T-test are shown
in Table 1. The mean score on the pre-test for the control
group is M = 5.730 (SD = 0.872), while the mean score
on the pre-test for the experimental group is M = 5.903
(SD = 0.621). The control group’s average pre-test score
(M = 5.730; SD = 0.872) is lower than the experimental
group’s (M = 5.903; SD = 0.621). The mean difference
between the two groups’ pre-test scores is MD = 20.173.
However, the independent sample t-test analysis indicates
that the pre-test scores of the two groups are not signifi-
cantly different (p = .329). Table 2 compares the students’
writing performances in the post-tests between the two
groups. As a result, there is no statistically significant dif-
ference in students’ writing quality in the control and
experimental groups prior to treatment. This conclusion
was made to facilitate any further conclusions concerning
the impacts of peer commenting on Facebook and pen-
and-paper peer commenting activities.
As mentioned earlier, the scores of the post-test of the
control group were not approximately normally
SD MD t df p
0.872 20.173 20.982 69.168 .329
0.621
10 SAGE Open

distributed, and the Mann-Whitney U Test was run to
compare the scores of the post-tests of the two groups.
Table 2 reveals that the total number of observations
was 72 (n = 72; MD = 6.8). The Mann-Whitney U statis-
tic of 853.000 indicates that the sum of ranks for one
group exceeds that of the other group. The z-score of
2.43 indicates that the disparity between the two cate-
gories is substantial. The Mann-Whitney U test results
indicate that there is a significant difference in post-test
scores between the control and experimental groups. The
p-value of .015 is below the commonly employed signifi-
cance threshold of 0.05. Therefore, the observed differ-
ence between the control and experimental groups is
statistically significant. In other words, the data analysis
results indicate that Facebook-based peer comment
activities were more effective at improving students’ writ-
ing quality than paper-and-pen peer comment activities.
The following section presents the analysis of the
ratios of incorporated Facebook peer comments into the
writing revision.
The first and second versions of 72 responding emails
were analyzed to answer this research question. With the
help of the feature ‘‘Compare two versions of a docu-
ment’’ of Microsoft Word, the researchers counted any
single change from the first version to the second version
of 72 responding emails and categorized the changes into
categories in the Revision analysis rubric. The total num-
ber of changes from the first to the second was 1,368.
Table 2. Comparison of the Post-Tests Between the Control and
Experimental Groups.
Independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test summary
Total N 72
Mann-Whitney U 853.000
Wilcoxon W 1,381.000
Test statistic 853.000
Standard error 87.606
Standardized test statistic 2.431
Asymptotic sig. (two-sided test) 0.015
Table 3 illustrates the specific incorporation number
according to different linguistic unit levels and whether
the students’ writers incorporated the peer comments
into their revision.
As can be seen from Table 3, there were a total of 1368
changes, of which 274 changes (20%) were made based on
comments (incorporation), 340 (24.9%) were partly based
on comments (partly incorporation), and 754 (55.1%)
were not based on comments. On average, 15 changes
were made on each draft (Mean = 14.87). In other words,
there are more changes in the second drafts made by the
student writers themselves than the changes based on peer
comments and those partly based on peer comments.
The most frequent level of revision was ‘‘Word’’
(n = 336; 24.6%), in which changes based on comments
accounted for 22.9% (n = 77), changes partly based on
comments accounted for 13.1% (n = 44), and 64% of
the changes were not based on peer comments. It is
noticeable that the total number of changes triggered by
comments was far lower than the number of changes
made by the student writers themselves, with 121 changes
compared with 215, respectively.
The second most frequent level of revision was
‘‘Grammar’’ (n = 229, 16.7%), in which 22.7% of the
changes (n = 52) were based on comments, 37.1% of the
changes (n = 85) were partly based on comments, and
40.2% of the changes (n = 92) was not based on com-
ments. Unlike the ‘‘Word’’ level at which the student
writers made the majority of changes, students made
most of the grammar changes in their second drafts with
the help of peer comments. The changes triggered by
peer comments (n = 137) outnumbered those made by
the student writers themselves (n = 92).
The third most frequent level of revision was ‘‘Phrase’’
(n = 212; 15.5%), in which 14.6% of the changes
(n = 31) were based on comments, 35.8% (n = 76) of the
changes were partly based on comments, and 49.6% of
the changes (n = 105) were not based on comments. It is
evident that at the ‘‘Phrase’’ level, nearly half of the
changes were triggered by peer comments, and the stu-
dent writers themselves made the other half.

Table 3. Revisions From First Versions to Second Versions.

Revisions Based on comments Partly based on comments Not based on comments Total percentage

Punctuation 25 13 54 92 (6.7%)
Spelling 40 4 45 89 (6.5%)
Grammar 52 85 92 229 (16.7%)
Word 77 44 215 336 (24.6%)
Phrase 31 76 105 212 (15.5%)
Clause 22 35 76 133 (9.7%)
Sentence 16 43 105 164 (12%)
Paragraph 11 40 62 113 (8.3%)
Total 274 (20%) 340 (24.9%) 754 (55.1%) 1,368
Pham and Phung
It is also apparent from Table 3 that the number of
changes related to the two levels, ‘‘Punctuation’’ and
‘‘Spelling,’’ ranked the lowest among the eight levels
reported. On the contrary, comments on the ‘‘Word’’
level and ‘‘Grammar’’ levels seemed to influence revisions
the most. It is worth noticing that at macro levels such as
‘‘Clause,’’ ‘‘Sentence,’’ and ‘‘Paragraph,’’ the number of
changes made by the student writers themselves exceeded
the number of changes triggered by comments. This indi-
cates that after obtaining the Facebook-based peer com-
mentary activities, the students took more responsibility
for their studies and paid more attention to the improve-
ment of their writing products.
Research question 2: What are the students’ perspec-
tives on using Facebook-based peer commentary
activities in studying writing in terms of preferences,
utility, and impacts?
To address this question, qualitative data from semi-
structured interviews with all experimental group partici-
pants were analyzed. The themes of the interviews
included (1) preferences for using Facebook for com-
mentary activities in the writing classroom, (2) the utility
of Facebook-based peer comments, and (3) the impact
of Facebook-based peer comments on students’ writing
revisions.
Students’ Preferences for Using Facebook for
Commentary Activities
First, most of the experimental group students were
interested in connecting and discussing their writing with
their friends via Facebook. They preferred reading and
commenting on their peers’ drafts via Facebook to via
paper and pens because ‘‘Giving comments over Facebook
using laptops or smartphones was much more convenient
than writing up a comment on a piece of paper.’’
I think conducting these activities made the course more
interesting than the traditional course. I did not meet any
difficulties; in contrast, I found the course less burdensome
because I could post my writing and comment on my peers’
writing any time before the deadline.
The students also liked their friends to read and com-
ment on their writing via Facebook. Some students par-
ticularly stated that they liked Facebook-based peer
comment activities because they helped them spend
meaningful time on Facebook rather than spending their
time on another social network. In other words,
Facebook-based peer comments were more time-efficient
and could help more peers; the students’ handwriting
was illegible.
11
When a student posts his writing on Facebook, his writing
mistakes can be pointed out right away by his peers and cor-
rected in a minute. In contrast, if a student handed in his
writing to his teacher, those mistakes were usually not cor-
rected right away since teachers tended to correct only mis-
takes made by a majority of students.
The Utility of Facebook-Based Peer Comments
Second, regarding students’ perception of the usefulness
of Facebook-based peer comment activities, the majority
of the students perceived the usefulness of Facebook-
based peer comment activities. They agreed that giving
peer comments via Facebook was convenient, and
exchanging peer comments enabled them to study
English writing in a more relaxing environment.
Every time a post or a comment was posted on the
Facebook group, I received a notification of it from
Facebook. This notification reminded me of the written
assignment, which was helpful because I sometimes forget
home assignments. At no time did I forget to do the writing
assignments, thanks to notifications from Facebook.
Some students found that exchanging comments on
Facebook was motivating since they knew for sure that
their friends would read and provide comments on their
drafts thanks to the notifications of Facebook.
I was a bit motivated to post my writing on Facebook
because I knew my friends would read my posts, and I often
waited in suspense for the comments. These activities moti-
vated me to work harder on my English writing.
Also, the students claimed Facebook-based peer com-
ment activities made them spend more time practicing
writing and helped them better remember the structure of
a responding email. One of the reasons they spent more
time practicing writing must have been that they were
required to give comments in English, not in their mother
tongue, so they had to think a lot before writing. This
seemed to make the learning occur, ‘‘on commenting on
my peers’ writing, I had to struggle to write comprehensible
comments, which helped me improve my writing skills.’’
The Impact of Facebook-Based Peer Comments on
Students’ Writing Revisions
Furthermore, students strongly agreed that, as a result
of Facebook-based peer comment practices, they found
that their writing contained several errors that they were
unable to point out, and they learned different writing
styles and ideas from their friends while also avoiding
mistakes created by their peers. As a result, these exer-
cises supported them in coming up with new ideas for
12
revising their own writing and developing their writing
skills.
Reading my friends’ writing taught me new sentence struc-
tures to convey my ideas. I could also notice the contexts in
which my friends used some structures. I knew these struc-
tures, but it never occurred to me that I could use these
structures in such contexts. Thanks to reading my peers’
writing, I learned the contexts in which I could use the sen-
tence structures that I knew to express my ideas more
clearly.
It was evident that not only giving comments and
reading posts on the Facebook group helped, but peer
comments that students received from their peers played
a key role in the success of the activities.
It is said that ‘‘outsiders see more than insiders.’’ When my
peers read my writing, they assessed my writing from differ-
ent angles; therefore, they could assess my writing impar-
tially, and they could point out many mistakes in my
writing. When my friend proofread my writing, they could
easily point out my mistakes that I could hardly realize since
when I wrote, I focused more on expressing myself in my
writing than the English language rules.
Third, when asked about the impact of Facebook-
based peer feedback on writing revision, students decided
that sharing their writing on Facebook for their friends
Figure 4. Framework for social network (Facebook) peer comments.
SAGE Open
to read and comment on made them think more about
their writing content. This face-saving element stimu-
lated students’ interest in their writing, ‘‘I tried to write
coherent and cohesive emails in order to receive positive
comments from my peers.’’
They agreed that peer comments were helpful to their
revisions and that peer comments via Facebook
Community supported them in reorganizing the ideas in
their emails more logically. These students also reported
that after each revision based on peer input, their sen-
tence structures became more varied, and they improved
their vocabulary, grammar, and spelling, saying that
‘‘realizing errors and redrafting an email several times
helps me improve my emails.’’
The activities were incredibly helpful to me. In a few first
emails that I wrote, I wrote very simple functional sentences.
But when reading my peers’ emails, I found that they used
advanced sentence structures, which I knew but rarely used;
I learned the high-level sentence structures and styles from
my peers to improve my writing skills as a result.
Apart from positive evaluation of Facebook-based
peer comment activities from most students, a few stu-
dents showed indifference to these activities since their
peers did not participate effectively in the activities or
doubted the accuracy of their peers’ comments because
some students did not take it seriously. ‘‘These activities
Pham and Phung
enabled peers to correct each other’s writing. However,
some peers did not do the activities properly, which cre-
ated a lot of difficulties for other peers.’’ In this situation,
a student admitted that ‘‘the problem was that I was too
lazy to take part in the activities fully.’’ It is suggested that
the platform was just a platform. The students should
take responsibility for their learning to take full advan-
tage of it.
From the above findings, the current study invented a
framework in the Figure 4 as follows:
Discussion
Research question 1 investigated whether Facebook peer
comments impact students’ writing performances and
how much they incorporate Facebook-based peer feed-
back into their revisions. The results of the current study
indicated that 20% of the students’ second drafts’
changes were based on comments, 24.9% were made
partly based on comments, and 55.1% were not based
on comments. This means that less than half of the
changes were triggered by peer comments (only 44.9%).
In other words, in the total revision, 45% of the peer
comments were incorporated into writing revisions, and
the writers’ own decisions were revised by 55%. These
results were roughly similar to these of the studies by Liu
and Sadler (2003), Wichadee (2013), and Pham and
Usaha (2016). Liu and Sadler (2003) concluded that
41% of e-comments led to revisions. Similarly, Liou and
Peng (2009) found that peer comments in asynchronous
computer-mediated peer responses triggered 48% of
changes. These results are slightly different from Pham
and Usaha’s (2016) conclusion that peer comments trig-
gered 39% of revisions. These findings are encouraging
as they highlight peer comments’ role in making EFL
writing learners more autonomous. The student writers
were not fully reliant on their peers when revising their
drafts.
The results of the current study confirm the view held
by many researchers (Berg, 1999; Liu & Hansen, 2002;
Pham & Nguyen, 2020; Pham et al., 2022; Tran & Pham,
2023) that students, particularly those who have received
training in peer comments, are able to give useful com-
ments in their peers’ drafts. Vo (2022) found the students
were hppy to welcome both peer and teacher feedback.
Also, the fact that peer comments in the current study
stimulated only 44.9% of changes in the second drafts is
in line with Tuzi (2004)’s conclusion that electronic peer
comments were not the main incentive for revisions. Yet,
they play an important role in the revision process. Thus,
it can be concluded from these findings that the students
are held accountable for their own products. Still, the
impact of peer comments on revisions is undeniable. Not
all peer comments are useful or revision-oriented, but the
13
acts of reading and commenting on their peers’ drafts
and reading comments on their own drafts might have
caused the student writers to reflect on their drafts criti-
cally and have second thoughts about the points they
were not sure in his or her drafts. Whether peer com-
ments are valuable or not, they motivate student writers
to proofread their own drafts again and again to improve
their drafts.
Regarding the levels of revision, the results also
showed that, of the eight levels of revision investigated,
the ‘‘Word’’ level was the most frequent level of revision
(24.6%), which corroborated the findings of previous
studies by Tuzi (2004) and Pham and Usaha (2016), who
discovered that the ‘‘Word’’ level was the most frequent
revisions. Interestingly, at the ‘‘Word’’ level, students
made the majority of the modifications (64%) on their
own, although only 22.9% of revisions at the ‘‘Word’’
level were based on peer feedback, and 13.1% of revi-
sions were partially based on comments. The
‘‘Grammar’’ level was the second most frequently
updated level (=229, 16.7%). In contrast to the ‘‘Word’’
level, peer comments caused more than half of the
changes (59.8%) at the grammar level. As a result, it can
be deduced that students often need peer assistance to
develop their drafts’ grammar. When it came to revisions
at higher levels, such as ‘‘Clause,’’ ‘‘Sentence,’’ and
‘‘Paragraph,’’ the number of changes made by the stu-
dent writers themselves outnumbered the number of
changes caused by comments. This current study’s result
was inventory as it contradicted Pham and Usaha’s
(2016) finding that student writers needed less support
from peers at higher levels. This is partly to confirm that
Facebook aided students in improving their performance
(Chugh & Ruhi, 2018).
The highest level of revision, ‘‘paragraph,’’ was the
third least frequent level of revision, after ‘‘punctuation’’
and ‘‘spelling’’ levels. This result is different from the
findings of Tuzi (2004), Min (2006), and Pham and
Usaha (2016), who found that the ‘‘paragraph’’ level was
among the four most frequent levels of revision. This can
be attributed to the difference in the students’ proficiency
levels and the kinds of writing tasks. Concerning the stu-
dents’ proficiency levels, the participants of the current
study were non-English majors taking a pre-intermediate
level general English course, while those participating in
the studies mentioned above were English majors who
were taking an English writing course. Concerning the
kinds of writing tasks, the participants in the current
study were asked to write a responding email. This non-
academic genre was a short piece of writing and con-
tained far fewer paragraphs than the genres that the par-
ticipants in the other studies were asked to write.
Research shows that novice writers have a tendency to
make surface revisions (Liu & Hansen, 2002).
14
The current study’s findings also showed that the
number of changes related to the two levels,
‘‘Punctuation’’ and ‘‘Spelling,’’ ranked lowest among
the eight levels published, accounting for 6.7% and
6.5% of the total changes made in the second drafts,
respectively. This result appears to be consistent with
the conclusions reached by Liu and Sadler (2003), Tuzi
(2004), Pham and Usaha (2016), and Ho (2015) that at
lower levels of revision, such as ‘‘spelling’’ and ‘‘punc-
tuation,’’ student writers can identify and correct their
mistakes on their own using Microsoft Word’s spelling
check feature, and thus peer comments have an effect at
higher levels of revision. The current study confirmed
the findings of Pham et al. (2020a), who found that
Facebook peer comments improved EFL students’
English writing outcomes.
Research question 2 investigated the students’ per-
spectives on using Facebook-based peer comments in
writing classrooms. Data analysis from the semi-
structured interviews indicates that the students
expressed a highly positive attitude toward Facebook-
based peer comment activities (M = 4.15). This finding
is in line with that of previous studies on the use of
computer-mediated peer comments in teaching writing
conducted by Liu and Sadler (2003), Pham and Usaha
(2016), and Ho (2015). Liu and Sadler (2003) claimed
that giving peer comments on Microsoft Word and
exchanging peer comments via MOO were more appealing
effectively than exchanging peer comments via the tradi-
tional mode. Similarly, Pham (2014) found that students
expressed highly positive attitudes toward the use of blog-
based peer comments in revisions. More specifically, stu-
dents’ positive attitudes toward the introduction of
Facebook-based peer comments in the course support the
findings of previous studies on Facebook-based peer com-
ments by Phuong and Phuong (2016), Suthiwartnarueput
and Wasanasomsithi (2012), Wichadee (2013), Yusof et al.
(2012). Thus, it can be inferred from the results that
Facebook-based peer comment activities are workable,
and teachers can consider applying these to their writing
classes since students express a highly favorable attitude
toward the activities.
With regards to student’s evaluation of the usefulness
of Facebook-based peer comment activities, the students
appreciated the usefulness of Facebook-based peer com-
ment activities. This finding supports the ideas suggested
by many researchers (Chugh & Ruhi, 2018) about the
usefulness of computer-mediated peer comments. This
finding is also consistent with Yunus et al.’s (2012) claim
that Facebook promotes interaction between the teacher
and students and between students.
Regarding students’ evaluation of the effects of
Facebook-based peer comments on their writing revi-
sion, they agreed that they help improve their writing
SAGE Open
quality. This finding confirms the findings of previous
studies by Yusof et al. (2012), Suthiwartnarueput and
Wasanasomsithi (2012), Wichadee (2013), and Phuong
and Phuong (2016). The finding confirms Pham’s (2016)
idea that students’ collaboration via Facebook helps lan-
guage production. This finding aligns with Yunus et al.’s
(2012) view that Facebook enables students to get
enough input by accessing multiple drafts, peer com-
ments, and teacher comments to develop their writing
skills.
However, the present study’s result about the students’
highly positive attitudes toward Facebook-based peer
comments seems to contradict the findings reported by
Xu (2007), Ho and Savignon (2007). Xu (2007) asserted
in his study that the students did not express any overt
preference for either commenting using the functions
‘‘track changes’’ and ‘‘add comment’’ of Microsoft Word
or paper-and-pen peer comments. In contrast, in Ho and
Savignon’s (2007) research, they concluded that despite
many valuable and convenient features of Microsoft
Word, such as ‘‘Track Changes’’ and ‘‘Spelling and
Grammar Checks,’’ they favored face-to-face peer
comments.
Still, it is true from the results of this study that
Facebook-based peer comments did not receive all stu-
dent preferences. This can be explained by the view of
Liu and Hansen (2002) that there exists uncertainty
about peer comments, such as they can be of low quality
since students tend to focus too much on surface struc-
ture and lack investment in peer comments or their
knowledge of English is limited. Nonetheless, the num-
ber of students who did not express a highly favorable
attitude toward Facebook-based peer comments is far
lower than the number of those who did. Hence, writing
teachers need to have Plan B if some of their students
are not interested in these activities when implementing
these activities.
Conclusion
Regarding the extent to which Facebook-based peer
comments are incorporated into revisions, interestingly,
results show that only 44.9% of the changes in the stu-
dent’s second drafts were triggered by peer comments,
which 20% of the changes were based on comments, and
24.9% of the changes were partly based on comments.
The current study found that 55% of the changes were
not based on comments. The student writers made revi-
sions to their papers by their own decision. This indicates
that the students took high responsibility for their learn-
ing process to improve the quality of their writing prod-
ucts. Thus, it can be concluded that Facebook-based peer
comment activities encourage students to revise their
drafts and take more responsibility for their own writing.
Pham and Phung
With regards to the level of revision, the most frequent
level of revision was ‘‘Word,’’ followed by ‘‘Grammar,’’
‘‘Phrase,’’ and ‘‘Sentence.’’ However, it is worth noticing
that at higher levels such as ‘‘Clause,’’ ‘‘Sentence,’’ and
‘‘Paragraph,’’ the number of changes made by the student
writers themselves exceeded the number of changes trig-
gered by comments. After obtaining the Facebook-based
peer commentary activities, the results reveal that the stu-
dents took more responsibility for their studies and paid
more attention to improving their writing products. This
finding contradicted Pham and Usaha’s (2016) finding
that the students needed less help from peers, whereas at
higher levels, the students needed more help from peers.
In other words, Facebook-based peer comments, a social
network, might play an important role in motivating the
students to care more about their writing quality when
they post an entry.
Regarding students’ evaluation of the effects of
Facebook-based peer comments, the students claimed
that it is motivated to conduct peer comments on
Facebook. The students spent more time on the com-
mentary activities because they had to pay lots of atten-
tion to do this activity. The students also revealed that
employing Facebook to learn writing helped them use
time efficiently on this social network. Therefore, writing
teachers can consider implementing Facebook-based
peer comment activities in their writing classes since stu-
dents generally express a highly favorable attitude to
these activities.
The following practical conclusions for L2 writing
instructors are drawn from this research. To begin, more
than half of the adjustments made to the second version
after peer comments were made by student authors, indi-
cating that negative remarks do not always matter.
These awful remarks may be scrutinized later by writing
professors. The beauty of peer comments is that they
encourage student writers to modify and enhance their
drafts, implying that student writers take more responsi-
bility for their studies and develop greater autonomy.
Instructors, particularly those teaching English to non-
majors, should be aware of the value of peer comment
15
activities and include them in their classes to help stu-
dents develop their autonomy. Finally, the present
study’s discovery that students have a favorable attitude
toward Facebook-based peer comment activities offers
writing professors permission to include these activities
in their classes. This is because when the students have a
positive attitude about an activity, they are more likely
to be helpful and eager to participate. These results assist
writing instructors in determining the most appropriate
platform for peer comment activities in their writing
classes. If the students have access to current technology,
such as the Internet and computers, peer comment activi-
ties on Facebook assist them in using accessible technol-
ogies to improve their writing. On the other hand, if the
students are technophobes and prefer the conventional
approach, peer comment activities using paper and ink
are viable substitutes.
While the present research contributed scientific evi-
dence to the literature on EFL peer comments, it did
have several limitations. To begin, the sample for this
research was not drawn randomly; as a result, applicabil-
ity to the study’s population is restricted. Additionally,
since the sample size was limited, the findings of this
research cannot be extrapolated to the whole population
studied. Second, one may claim that submitting a draft
on Facebook required students to use word processors
to verify their grammar and spelling, contributing to the
students’ writing quality development.
The sections that follow provide further research
ideas. Future researchers should employ random sam-
pling to increase the possibility of generalizing results.
Second, in order to fully compare the consequences of
both models, future research should analyze how peer
comments are absorbed into subsequent versions. The
effect of Facebook-based peer comment activities is
assessed only when students publish their drafts to a
closed Facebook Group and exchange asynchronous
peer remarks as ‘‘comments’’ beneath each post. More
studies might be done on synchronous Facebook-based
peer comments and other Facebook features to deter-
mine whether they enhance peer commenting.
16 SAGE Open

Appendix: Scoring Rubric

Adopted From IIG Vietnam (2017)

Quality and variety of

Band your sentences Vocabulary Organization Task completion

10 Only a few non- A wide range of Ideas are relevant and Effectively addresses
impeding minor vocabulary with full effectively organized ALL of the required
errors flexibility and A wide range of tasks
A wide range of accuracy connecting words
structures with full Appropriate tone and
flexibility and register
accuracy
8–9 Some errors in A fairly wide range of Ideas are relevant and Properly addresses
grammar but non- vocabulary logically organized ALL of the required
impeding Attempt some A range of connecting tasks
Attempt to use some advanced vocabulary words with some
complicated Generally appropriate under-/over-use
structures Tone and register
7 Mostly non-impeding Good control of Ideas are relevant Addresses ALMOST
(ONE sentence may familiar vocabulary Appropriate all of the required
be impeding) Attempt some connecting words in tasks (may fall short
Good control of complex/ unfamiliar at least part of the in ONE of the tasks)
simple structures vocabulary response
Attempt to use some Little awareness of the
complex structures audience
5–6 Noticeable errors in Only simple Ideas are relevant but Addresses ONE of the
grammar and usage vocabulary are not connected required tasks OR
and they are Little awareness of the properly Unsuccessfully or
impeding the audience incompletely
meaning in MORE addresses TWO OR
THAN ONE THREE of the
sentence required tasks
Only simple structures
3–4 Frequent errors in Very little or no Some content may be Addresses NONE of
grammar and usage awareness of the relevant the required tasks
and they are audience Missing or obscure though some
impeding the connections content may be
meaning most of the between ideas relevant
time
1–2 Numerous errors in Inappropriate tone or Irrelevant to the task Addresses NONE of
grammar and usage register Missing or obscure the required tasks
and they are connections though some
impeding the between ideas content may be
meaning most of the relevant
time

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The author(s) received financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article from
Van Lang University, at Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
ORCID iD
Vu Phi Ho Pham https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7459-8509
References
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL
students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of
Pham and Phung
Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
Berg, I. V. D., Pilot, A., & Admiraal, W. (2003). Peer assess-
ment in university teaching. An exploration of useful designs.
Retrieved June 4, 2020, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/edu-
col/documents/00003178.htm
Börekci, R., & Aydin, S. (2020). Foreign language teachers’
interactions with their students on Facebook. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 217–239. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09588221.2018.1557691
Cerdà, F. L., & Planas, N. C. (2011). Facebook’s potential for
collaborative e-learning. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 8(2), 197–210.
Chugh, R., & Ruhi, U. (2018). Social media in higher educa-
tion: A literature review of Facebook. Education and Infor-
mation Technologies, 23(2), 605–616.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research meth-
ods in education (6th ed.). Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quanlita-
tive, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publica-
tions, Inc.
Dizon, G. (2016). A comparative study of Facebook vs. paper-
and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1249–1258. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1266369
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications
for second language students. Routledge.
Freishtat, R. L., & Sandlin, J. A. (2009). Facebook as public
pedagogy: A critical examination of learning, community,
and consumption. In T. T. Kidd & J. Keengwe (Eds.), Adult
learning in the digital age: Perspectives on online technologies
and outcomes (pp. 148–162). IGI Global.
Freishtat, R. L., & Sandlin, J. A. (2010). Shaping youth dis-
course about technology: Technological colonization, mani-
fest destiny, and the frontier myth in Facebook’s public
pedagogy. Educational Studies, 46(5), 503–523. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00131946.2010.510408
Ho, M. C. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-
mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revi-
sions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.495
Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-
mediated peer review in EFL writing. Calico Journal, 24(2),
269–290.
IIG Vietnam. (2017). Chia se cach cham diem bai thi TOEIC
speaking – TOEIC writing. (workshop on how to score the
TOEIC speaking – TOEIC writing tests). Vietnam National
University HCM City – University of Science.
Jiang, W., & Ribeiro, A. (2017). Effect of computer-mediated
peer written feedback on ESL/EFL writing: A systematic lit-
erature review. Electronic International Journal of Education,
Arts, and Science (EIJEAS), 3(6), 57–79.
Lin, H. J., & Warden, C. A. (1998). Different attitudes among
non-English major EFL students. The Internet TESL Jour-
nal, 4(10), 1–8.
Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on
computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514–525.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005
17
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language
writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press ELT.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer
review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL
students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Sec-
ond Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions
in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Pur-
poses, 27(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.
02.002
Ngo, T. H. T., & Tran, T. T. O. (2021). The English-majored
students’ practices of mind maps in writing skills. Interna-
tional Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(3), 301–312.
Nguyen, H. N., & Nguyen, D. K. (2022). Vietnamese learners’
performance in the IELTS writing task 2: Problems, causes,
and suggestions. International Journal of TESOL & Educa-
tion, 2(1), 170–189. https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.222111
Nguyen, N. V., & Dao, T. M. T. (2015). The use of Facebook
group as an online educational tool in teaching writing to
highschool students. Journal of Foreign Language Studies,
Hanoi University, 43, 48–56.
Özdemir, E. (2017). Promoting EFL learners’ intercultural com-
munication effectiveness: A focus on Facebook. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 510–528. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09588221.2017.1325907
Pham, N. K. T. (2016). Using Facebook to facilitate tertiary-
level students’ learning of english writing through their lan-
guage production. Proceedings of International Conference on
English Language Teaching 2016: Exploring New Paths to a
Better Future of ELTN in a Globalised World, Ho Chi Minh
City, VNU-HCM Publishing House, pp. 633–647.
Pham, V. P. H. (2013). Teaching and learning activities
employed in the academic writing classrooms at the faculty
of foreign languages at HCMC Open University. Journal
of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 3(31),
96–115.
Pham, V. P. H. (2014). E-peer response activities for L2 writing
revision. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
Pham, V. P. H. (2021a). The effects of lecturer’s model
e-comments on graduate students’ peer e-comments and writ-
ing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(3),
324–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1609521
Pham, V. P. H. (2021b). The effects of collaborative writing on
students’ writing fluency: An efficient framework for colla-
borative writing. Sage Open, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2158244021998363
Pham, V. P. H. (2023). The impacts of collaborative writing on
individual writing skills. Journal of Psycholinguist Research,
52, 1221–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-023-09939-2
Pham, V. P. H., Huyen, L. H., & Nguyen, M. T. (2020). The
incorporation of quality peer feedback into writing revision.
The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 45–59.
Pham, V. P. H., Le, T. C., Phan, T. H., & Nguyen, N. H. V.
(2022). The effects of trained peer feedback for high school
18
students. World Journal of English Language, 12(1),
pp. 27–39. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n1p27
Pham, V. P. H., & Nguyen, N. H. V. (2020). Blogging for colla-
borative learning in the writing classroom. International Jour-
nal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL),
10(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2020070101
Pham, V. P. H., Phung, L. T. K., Oanh, T. T. T., & Giao, N.
Q. (2020). Should peer e- comments replace traditional peer
comments? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1),
295–314. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13120a
Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2013). The effectiveness of the
blog-based peer response for L2 writing. Journal of Science
Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 3(3), 27–44.
Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for
L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
29(4), 724–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355
Phuong, H. Y., & Phuong, N. T. Q. (2016). Effects of peer
feedback on Facebook on high school students’ writing per-
formance and attitudes. Proceedings of the International
Conference on English Language Teaching ICELT 2016,
Exploring new paths to a better future of ELTN in a globa-
lised world (pp. 250–267). VNU-HCM Publishing House.
Razak, N. A., & Saeed, M. A. (2015). EFL arab learners’ peer
revision of writing in a Facebook Group: Contributions to
written texts and sense of online community. English Lan-
guage Teaching, 8(12), 11–26.
Robson, C., & Kieran, M. (2016). Real world research (4th ed.).
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Suthiwartnarueput, T., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2012). Effects of
using Facebook as a medium for discussions of English
grammar and writing of low-intermediate EFL students.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(2),
194–214.
Tran, O. T. T., & Pham, V. P. H. (2023). The effects of online
peer feedback on students’ writing skills during corona virus
pandemic. International Journal of Instruction, 16(1),
881–896. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16149a
Tran, T. T. L. (2019). Using Facebook as a tool to improve writ-
ing skills for tertiary students. Proceedings of ELT upgrades
2019: a focus on methodology-ISBN:978-604-67-1450-7.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Loan_Tran4/publica-
tion/341778524_USING_FACEBOOK_AS_A_TOOL_TO_
IMPROVE_WRITING_SKILLS_FOR_TERTIARY_
STUDENTS/links/5ed3b6b2299bf1c67d2cd07a/USING-
FACEBOOK-AS-A-TOOL-TO-IMPROVE-WRITING-
SKILLS-FOR-TERTIARY-STUDENTS.pdf
Tran, T. T. M. (2021). Use of self-regulated learning strategies
in paragraph writing at Van Lang University. International
Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(3), 1–13.
SAGE Open
Tran, Q. T. T., & Van Nguyen, L. (2020). EFL student engage-
ment in an English for specific purposes tourism class: Flip-
ping the class with Facebook. In M. R. Freiermuth & N.
Zarrinabadi (Eds.), Technology and the psychology of sec-
ond language learners and users (pp. 175–202). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-
3-030-34212-8_7
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2
writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Com-
position, 21(2), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.
2004.02.003
Vietnam National University HCMC. (2021). Introduction.
Retrieved July 12, 2023, from https://vnuhcm.edu.vn/ve-
dhqg-hcm/33396864
Vo, T. T. M. (2022). EFL students’ attitudes towards teacher
correction and peer correction in writing skills. International
Journal of Language Instruction, 1(1), 155–173. https://doi.
org/10.54855/ijli.221113
Vu, L. U., Tran, N. M., Le, T. K. H., & Dao, H. L. (2022).
Applying writing feedback orientation and self-regulated
learning writing strategies to EFL students at Van Lang
University during COVID-19. International Journal of
TESOL & Education, 2(5), 64–88. https://doi.org/10.54855/
ijte.22255
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2014). The effect of target language
use in social media on intermediate-level Chinese language
learners’ writing performance. CALICO Journal, 31(1),
78–102. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.31.1.78-102
Wheelan, S. A., & Mckeage, R. L. (1993). Developmental pat-
terns in small and large groups. Small Group Research,
24(1), 60–83.
Wichadee, S. (2013). Peer feedback on Facebook: The use of
social networking websites to develop writing ability of
undergraduate students. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 14(4), 260–270.
Xu, Y. (2007). Re-examining the effects and affects of elec-
tronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class. Reading
Matrix: An International Online Journal, 7(2), 1–21.
Yunus, M. M., Salehi, H., & Chenzi, C. (2012). Integrating
social networking tools into ESL writing classroom:
Strengths and weaknesses. English Language Teaching, 5(8),
42–48. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n8p42
Yusof, J., Ab Manan, N. A., Alias, A. A., & Pandian, A.
(2012). Guided peer feedback via Facebook notes for
mixed-ability ESL learners in the process writing classroom:
an exploratory study. Voice of Academia, 7(1), 14–33.