Main Article Content


A good writing skill could be a benchmark of someone’s good ability in English.  This study aims find the way how the practice of cooperative assessment can diminish errors and mistakes in students’ writing and to see students’ view towards cooperative assessment method in writing class. Qualitative approach by using case study method was selected, and the data were taken by means of observation, document analysis and interview towards the fourth semester students of Serambi Mekah University Banda Aceh, Indonesia in 2018/2019 academic year. The findings shown that there were three techniques of cooperative assessment that may lessen errors and mistakes in students’ writing, namely; peer review, lecturers’ feedback and classroom reviewing activity. In students’ view, cooperative assessment has some benefits (improving grammatical awareness, improving students’ vocabularies, and improving the structure of students’ writing) as well as drawbacks (peer errors in editing, and time consuming). Therefore, it is recommended that students make their errors and mistakes diary notes and lecturers are advised to start making grammar errors and mistakes checklists based on the learning objectives for students’ peer reviewing practice.


Cooperative assesment Private University Writing Practices

Article Details

How to Cite
Akmal, S., Dahliana, S., & Fadhila, R. (2020). COOPERATIVE ASSESSMENT WRITING PRACTICES AT AN ACEHNESE PRIVATE UNIVERSITY: HELPING OR TROUBLING?. JL3T (Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Language Teaching), 5(2), 107-119.


  1. Amin, B. (2014). Lexical error in writing English words made by students of the junior high school. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris, 3(1), 107-133.
  2. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: principles and language practices. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
  3. Cole, F. (2015). Effective strategies for improving writing skills of elementary English language learners. Chicago: ERIC.
  4. Feltsen, P. (2009). Language acquisition and the errors we make. (Thesis). Sundsvall: Mid Sweden University.
  5. Graham, S., & Hebert, M. (2016). Writing to read: a meta-analysis of the impact ofwriting and writing instruction on reading. Harvard Educational Review, 81(4):710-744. doi: 10.17763/haer.81.4.t2k0m13756113566
  6. Klimova, B. (2013). Approaches to the teaching of writing skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 112, 147–151. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1149
  7. Laguador, J. M. (2014). Cooperative learning approach in an outcomes-based environment. International Journal of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, 2 (2), 2311-3782.
  8. Quarstein, V. A., & Peterson, P. A. (2001). Assessment of cooperative learning: A goal criterion approach. Innovative Higher Education, 26(1), 59-77.
  9. Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2003). Cooperative learning and achievement: Theory and research. Handbook of psychology, 177-198.
  10. Saad, M. R., & Sardareh, S. (2013). Defining assessment for learning: a proposed definition from a sociocultural perspective. Life Science Journal 10(2), 2493-2497.
  11. Zechia, D., Balagiu, A., & Patesan, M. (2016). The benefits of cooperative learning. International conference knowledge-based organization, 22 (2), 478–483.