EFL LEARNERS' EXPERIENCES OF PEER FEEDBACK IN PARAGRAPH WRITING THROUGH CLOUD COLLABORATION

Online peer feedback has become common in university writing classrooms due to the availability of computer technology. This study aimed to explore EFL learners' experiences engaged in online peer feedback on writing through cloud collaboration. This study was an extension activity of the paragraph writing class for two weeks, in which ten participants voluntarily took part in it and were monitored by two instructors. The peer feedback exchanges, text revisions, and comments from interviews were qualitatively analyzed, and the emerging patterns of interaction were quantified. The results showed that the involvement of the participants in online peer feedback via cloud collaboration facility enabled students to detect and comprehend numerous writing problems, as well as revise and improve their work; both revision and non-revision-oriented feedbacks are part of the overall online textual interaction and communication that can be used to help them develop their second language; and the students also expressed different perspectives about whether they appreciated or disliked their online peer feedback experience. This study also provided some implications and recommendations for further research.


INTRODUCTION
Collaboration skills refer to a person's capability to work together to solve problems and answer questions, work effectively in teams to achieve common goals, and assume shared responsibility for completing tasks (Ravitz et al., 2012). Collaboration in the learning process is a form of cooperation to help and complement each other to perform specific tasks to obtain a predetermined goal (Kemdikbud, 2017). It is also a learning approach that involves groups working together to solve problems, complete tasks, or produce certain products (Srinivas, 2011). Collaborative activities in writing task, or collaborative writing, helps students to think critically and express themselves more openly, resulting in improved writing abilities (Luna & Ortiz, 2013), and it also allows students to learn through the language they use in the discussion process, which improves their writing skills (Zhang, 2018). These are also in line with Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development, which holds that knowledge is formed due to social interaction (Saville-Troike, 2012).
Peer feedback is a part of the process-oriented approach in writing. This approach is based on the notion of Zone Proximal Development (ZPD), often known as the zone of optimal development. With the process of interaction/collaboration with other individuals, learners can attain optimum gains (Vygotsky, 1978). Writing tasks that follow a processoriented approach can help students become more self-reliant (Alwasilah, 2006). The approach offers activities that good writers do: planning, revising, rearranging and deleting, multi-drafting, and producing the final piece. It is an answer to the weaknesses in the product approach, i.e., excessive emphasis on linguistic knowledge (Stanley, 1993). However, this strategy is unconcerned with grammar and sentence structure, pays little attention to the final result, and requires much time (Onozawa, 2010), and it provides inadequate input to linguistic knowledge (Badger & White, 2000). As a response to the drawbacks, an extended activity to overcome the weaknesses students show in writing can be carried out (Hyland, 2003).
Peer feedback in collaborative writing provides comments on others' works in pairs or small groups (Hansen & Liu, 2005). Comments toward each other's writing in face-to-face classroom settings can provide EFL students with a favorable circumstance to exercise their English Language skills in a meaningful context. Furthermore, it is also helpful for EFL students to develop collaboration skills, awareness as

39-62
http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v10i1.25134 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license readers, and writing quality (Hanjani & Li, 2014). However, in the face-to-face setting, students are limited to their cultural background, which influences their participation in discussion, and to their level of English proficiency, which affects their capability to give and understand comments in a collaboration (Liu & Hansen, 2002). Furthermore, there are a number of issues that arise from the classroom setting peer feedback, including students' infrequent use of peer feedback, learners' predisposition to address local issues in texts, such as grammar and vocabulary, more repeatedly as compared to global issues in writing, such as content and organization (Cho & Schunn, 2007) and feeling of discomfort and anxiety (Wu et al., 2015).
The development of internet technology played an important role in overcoming the cultural background and language proficiency that inhibit participation in learning (Wu et al., 2015;Saeed & Ghazali, 2017;Kurniawan et al., 2020;Pitaloka et al., 2020). In general, some studies found that EFL students had positive perceptions toward internet technology use in their learning process (Abdullah et al., 2015;Sepahpanah et al., 2015;Loeneto & Kurniawan, 2021;Irana et al., 2021). Internet technology has allowed the facilitation of online peer feedback activities, either synchronously or asynchronously, through various media such as Facebook, online discussion forums, and cloud collaboration tools (wiki, google doc, etc.) (Bradley, 2014;Ho, 2015;Inderawati et al., 2018;Kurniawan et al., 2020). Furthermore, Guardado and Shi (2007) concluded that Online peer feedback offers benefits in terms of interactive textual interchange and increased student engagement. They added that the influence on revision differs depending on the contextual situation.
The outbreak of COVID-19, in which Almost half a billion students worldwide were compelled to abandon their face-to-face learning activities (UNESCO, 2020), has led to a dominant mode of e-learning that combines online synchronous and asynchronous learning. Although currently we have transformed into Post Covid-19 and adapted to the near-normal situation, the e-learning mode is not totally abandoned but has been reconstructed as a complement to classroom teaching and learning.
In the Indonesian context, as a result of the pandemic, the government has committed to improving online learning and pushing universities to develop a robust eLearning platform. Other than its compatibility with the current situations, online peer feedback in collaborative writing also offers group cohesion as a result of beyondclassroom writing activity (Razak & Saeed, 2014) or in other words, online activities can provide off-class voluntary learning activity which maximizes the effects of peer feedback in collaborative writing (Chen, 2016).
The current study focuses on EFL undergraduate learners' involvement in asynchronous peer feedback in Google Docs due to the problems and issues that arise from face-to-face peer feedback in writing classes and the strength of online peer feedback. The research questions are formulated as follows: (1) What problems in writing does the feedback from EFL students address in evaluating their works through Google Docs?; (2) How did the participants perceive their experiences in responding to the peer feedback through Google Docs addressed to them?.

METHOD
The current study collected and analyzed data using a qualitative research approach. The rationale for this approach is that studies exploring the dynamics of group learning in general and learners' peer feedback in particular have demonstrated the benefits of qualitative methodologies (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2013). The study took a case study technique, which focuses on explaining and understanding a phenomenon (Creswell, 2012). This method may also be used to look at EFL Students' Peer Feedback Experiences in Paragraph Writing via Cloud Collaboration.

Context and Participant
The present study concentrated on cloud technology-based peer feedback as a structured extension activity of the paragraph writing courses in the department. The participants were ten preservice English teachers in their first year of study. Ten participants were selected out of twenty-four students in the paragraph writing course based on their agreement and availability to be included in the study. Since they were in the initial stage of English teacher training, their writing ability was very much the reflection of the training they had prior to their admission to the department. Their English learning was of Indonesian background in which they were taught writing using a conventional technique that emphasizes individual writing rather than peer or group writing and is almost entirely dominated by the teacher. They reported that they struggle with producing a good piece of writing. Google Docs was selected as the tool for asynchronous cloudcollaboration peer feedback. The rationales for choosing it were that it offers potential in its interactive interface (Zhou et al., 2012;Yim et al., 2014;Alharbi, 2019;Orehovački, 2011;Jeong, 2016;Yang, 2010), higher possibility of participation (Yim et al., 2014;Brodahl et al., 2011;Bradley & Thouësny, 2017;Rowe et al., 2013;Erturk, 2016), and positive impact on revision (Kurniawan & Suganda, 2020;Wang, 2017;Jeong, 2016;Bradley & Thouësny, 2017).

Writing and Cloud-Collaboration Process
All the activities were conducted online. The live online discussions and writing material presentations were held through the university's learning management system (LMS), while the asynchronous activities (peer feedback and instructors' feedback) were administered through Google Docs. The writing process was adapted from a process-oriented approach to writing (Emig, 1971;Hyland, 2003;Oshima & Hogue, 2007), with the following steps: (1) topic selection, (2) prewriting, (3) draft writing, (4) revising, (5) editing, and (6) publication. Two types of paragraphs were assigned to the students: process and comparatives. The students were prepared for writing and peer feedback using cloud collaboration by discussing their needs and putting them into groups before the writing and peer feedback began. The process of writing one paragraph took one week. It took two weeks to finish the two paragraphs. Two instructors were involved in the activity to ensure all the process of writing and the feedback ran smoothly. The instructors created folders on "Google Drive" labeled with each participant's name before the activity began. All of the actions related to the writing process were saved in those folders. On the first day of the week, in the synchronous online sessions, the instructors presented material on how to write a good paragraph and also on how to give feedback on others' paragraphs. After that, the participants were asked to write a paragraph of 200 -300 words. Then, they discussed having the paragraph's general topic to write. Later, it proceeded into a small group discussion of three or four. The small group discussion resulted in a more specific topic to write about. They then wrote the outline of the paragraphs and picked up the draft and the paragraph. The drafts were written on Google Docs and accessible to the other participants and the instructors. Over the next two days, the small group members reviewed the paragraph written by others in their group and provided feedback through Google Docs. This peer feedback process was continued for the next two days by the whole participants giving feedback on other participants' paragraphs. After this process, the participant revised and edited their paragraph by considering the input from their peers. The instructors also gave feedback on the sixth day, and the participants made revisions and edits accordingly before the week's final day. On days 2 -5, the instructors gave no feedback but facilitated the process and only intervened when necessary.
Although the instructors provided their feedback, they were not collected as data since this study focuses on peer feedback.

Data collection and analysis
The data collected were from participants' communication or the peer feedback on Google Docs on days 2 -5 from the two weeks of process writing. The feedback was stored automatically by Google Docs. However, since participants can edit and delete their feedback after posting, the instructors save the feedback in Microsoft Word file format at the end of each day. In addition, after the writing process, the participants were interviewed, which lasted an average of 30 minutes and was conducted in English. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed. This current study data analysis focused on peer feedback and interviews.
We used a five-stage procedure (organizing, coding, clustering, quantification, interpreting, and reporting) (Gibbs, 2002) to analyze the qualitative data from peer feedback and interviews. The data coding from the feedback was based on the coding scheme from a similar previous study (Liu & Sadler, 2003). However, the researcher created the definitions based on the instructions given to learners on 43-62 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v10i1.25134 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license the first day of the week, as seen in Table 3. The focus area of the feedback was used as the basis for the coding, whether it was global (content, organization, and argumentative genre and purpose) or local (language, including grammar and meaning, and mechanics).
The feedback was further coded into whether or not they were revisionoriented or non-revision-oriented (Liu & Sadler, 2003). Revision-oriented focused on the issue in the paragraph, leading to a revision, while the other did not. Moreover, the non-revisionoriented feedback was coded using a scheme from an online peer learning study (Janssen et al., 2007): Social support and care, Maintaining good relations, Shared understanding, and Social ties. The clustering stage involved categorizing the feedback into two groups: revision-oriented and nonrevision-oriented. The coding and classification steps were reiterated repeatedly as the discovered categories or patterns were refined until the two coders agreed 91% of the time. The next step involved quantifying the qualitative data of revision-oriented comments, text revisions, and nonrevision-oriented comments in general. The final step concentrated on interpreting and reporting the findings following the study objectives, data analysis, and clustering.

44-62
http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v10i1.25134 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license The interview was conducted based on the adapted interview guide with the following questions: (1) Did you find the activity beneficial? (2) Do you like to provide and receive online peer feedback? Why do you think that is? (3) How did you provide online peer feedback? (4) How did you use online peer feedback to help you revise? (5) Is face-to-face peer feedback better than online peer feedback? (6) What difficulties did you encounter during online peer feedback? Please compare your experiences with peer feedback received face to face (Guardado & Shi, 2007). Finally, interviewees' remarks were utilized to analyze students' perceptions of using or ignoring online peer feedback in their revisions.
The research design has been clearly described and is appropriate for the study. The purpose, content, and usage of data collection tools have also been explained and justified.

RQ1: What problems in writing does the feedback from EFL students address in evaluating their works through Google Docs?
This study attempted to explore the peer feedback the participants offered through Google Docs. Table 4 shows that the generated feedbacks were 337 in numbers. They were categorized into revision oriented (196 feedbacks, 58.16%) and non-revision oriented (141 feedbacks, 41.84%) With sample feedback retrieved from peer feedback sessions, both types and sub-types of peer feedback exchanges are addressed in the following sections.

Revision-oriented feedbacks
The findings indicated that the participants exchanged revisionoriented peer feedback (58.16%). They targeted various problems in paragraph writing at the global and local levels. Only a few global-level feedbacks (5 times, 1.48%) addressed content, organization, and purpose. In the following excerpts, the comment posted by H communicated the content, particularly on the details that need to be elaborated. pointing a lack of flow of ideas and suggested breaking longer sentences into multiple sentences. The participant also addressed a problem related to purpose, as pointed out by FD that the writer needed to clarify his perspective.
On the other hand, the participants more dominantly offered local-level feedback (191 times, 56.68%), which addressed issues of language and mechanics. For instance, in the following excerpts, they targeted the problems on the correct use of pronouns, part of speech, verb tenses, other inflections, and word choices, as pointed out by ZZ, SJ, FJ, and PS. Other instances showed that they also tried to deal with punctuation and capitalization problems, as AT and NF mentioned. The higher number of local level feedbacks might indicate that they have a better understanding of language structure and mechanics, and they need more training in global level feedback such as content organization and purpose. Despite the low number of global level feedbacks, few participants had exhibited their understanding of identifying the problem on content, organization, and purpose, which is far more difficult to distinguish.

Global Level
H: Can you describe the details more?
PS: This sentence is quite long (over 30 words). Consider breaking it up into two or three shorter sentences. FD: which one makes them comfortable? Local Level ZZ: I think "they" is not consistent. Because to change "kedai mahasiswa" to be pronoun, we actually use "it" By the way, thank you so much for this advice. SJ: I don't know it is accurate or not, but from the application itself suggests that it should be "other" If you use the word 'shock' in this sentence, it will become noun, thus i use 'shocked' because it works as a verb FJ: Use verb 1 in a negative sentence of past simple PS: The verb should probably end in "s" because the subject is singular, "Someone comes" AT: There should be a space after the punctuation mark or after comma. NF: This is the pronoun 'I'. I think it is spelled with a capital letter. The Asynchronous interaction on Google Docs had become a medium of training in pinpointing local and global problems in writing and how to let the writer know of the problem before offering a correction, as AT, C, and PS indicated.
AT: Is this the personal pronoun "I"? It is spelled uppercase. PS: This is somewhat unusual. I suggest you to changes "about" with "regarding or as for": Regarding the price

Original text from NS: How to Make Fried Rice
Fried rice is a delicious food that can be easily made from leftover rice, but not everyone knows how to make it. You need ingredients like are eggs, vegetables (cabbage, peas, etc.), and also soy sauce, flavorings and of course rice. So here are some steps to make fried rice using leftover rice.

Revised text from NS: How to Make Fried Rice with Leftover Rice
Fried rice is a delicious food that can be easily made from leftover rice, but not everyone knows how to make it. You need ingredients like eggs, vegetables (cabbage, peas, etc.), and also soy sauce, flavorings and of course rice. So here are some steps to make fried rice using leftover rice.
Compared to the Global one, local-level feedbacks were far higher in number.
From 158 addressed feedbacks, 99 were of language while the other 59 were of mechanics. The local feedbacks were more specific on what to address and usually required only addition, deletion, or alteration of Original text from AC: This campus has a distinctive yellow characteristic, this can be seen from the yellow landmark located in front of the campus area that reads UNSRI, the symbol of Sriwijaya University and also the color of the student's university jacket which is also yellow.
Revised text from AC: This campus has a special yellow characteristic, this can be seen from the light yellow landmark located in front of the campus area that reads UNSRI with the symbol of Sriwijaya University and also the yellow color of the student's jacket.

Feedback from PS: It should be disadvantages
Original text from C: The second advantage is caused by the outdoor situation. There is no roof but there are trees and small tents to cover some areas.
Revised text from C: The second disadvantages caused by the outdoor situation. There is no roof but there are trees and small tents to cover some areas.
Local-level problems are easier to offer since the issues in the sentence are much easier to spot and require less examination to offer feedback. For instance, the excerpts from YIB and SJ clearly showed that the sentences lack verbs, which was exactly what ZZ and H offered them. Interestingly, YIB extended to correct another identical problem to the sentence, although ZZ did not suggest it. However, this was not done by SJ. Another instance is the use of pronoun which was also discussed multiple times by the participants, as shown by AC in his feedbacks to NF. Feedback from AC: change into "these" because it shows the plural things.
Original text from NF: The buildings that are grouped by faculties look like different cities, and also this "cities" have different colors, such as purple, pink, brown, green, blue, orange, etc. Revised text from NF: The buildings that are grouped by faculties look like different cities, and also these "cities" have different colors, such as purple, pink, brown, green, blue, orange, etc.
For mechanics, capitalization and punctuation are the most frequently discussed issues. These two issues are actually almost identical in all languages so it is quite effortless to spot the issues hence the dominant feedback about them, as illustrated in the following excerpts.

Feedback from NF: This sentence does not start with capital letter, and that is incorrect.
Original text from AT: there are four points that are differences and similarities between Indonesia and China.
Revised text from AT: There are four points that are differences and similarities between Indonesia and China.
Feedback from SJ: There should be no space between specifically and coma.
Original text from C: This university is located in Sumatera Selatan, more specifically , in Indralaya and Palembang.
Original text from C: This university is located in Sumatera Selatan, more specifically, in Indralaya and Palembang.
The feedback that the writers thought was incorrect or unnecessary went unaddressed. They frequently responded to the feedback by commenting that the changes were not required or that what they had written had no mistake, as illustrated in the following exchanges and the corresponding sentences.
YIB: Because the subject is "It", you need to change it to "serves" The research question is answered by summarizing the participants' answers to every question. In addition, extracts from the interview transcript will also be displayed to support the summary.
First, the students perceived that the activity could help them improve their writing skills. As some of them pointed out: "Yes I did. I thought that by having peer checking helped me in knowing my writing better. …They can help us in realizing stuff that needs to be improved in our writing." "yes, I feel this paragraph writing class is very useful for me, because it can make me understand better how to write paragraph. " "Yes, I did. I think that activity is very useful for student especially in doing writing. …Students knew their mistakes of grammar and also some typos they have made." All the participants felt the online peer feedback through Google Docs was helpful. They think it helps them identify errors they made and address the problem. Furthermore, they also believe that reading others' pieces of writing has also sharpened their ability to spot errors they made in their writing, and eventually, the activity can help them improve their writing skill.
Second, most students preferred to give and receive feedback anonymously. As indicated in the following excerpt: "I agree to give advice anonymously because I like to use a pseudonym to advise others." "I love giving and receiving peer feedback anonymously because students are more willingness to comment on the mistakes as many as possible." "I prefer to give and receive feedback UN-anonymous. I want my friends to know that the commenter is me because even though I give comment and suggestion, it does not mean I'm correct." Most of the participants agreed that they prefer to give and receive feedback anonymously by using pseudonyms since it can eliminate the pressure of what others will feel concerning their feedback. However, one participant thought it was better to give and 52-62 Third, the participants mainly gave online feedback through Google Docs. As stated in the following: "I gave feedback online through Google Document. So, my friend will send her paragraph writing in the form of Microsoft Word to Google Document." "Usually, I use Ms. Word and send it through email, or I also sometimes use Google Docs." "By using the google form, select the incorrect phrase/word/sentence, then give the correct one or give another suggestion." In giving online feedback, the participants mainly did it through Google Docs. In addition, they also did it using Microsoft Word and email.
Fourth, most students considered the activities to help them write easier. As shown below: "Online feedback really helped me with the revision. …Online feedback from my lecturer and my friends helped me realizing the typos or some grammatical error." "So, it helps me identifying the area that needs to be changed." "Every time I get feedback, I could learn more and more. How to make the sentence properly and grammatically correct, etc." The online feedback, they believed, helps them identify the mistakes they have made in writing easier since the system has made it possible to place the feedback exactly on the parts that need revision.
Fifth, they like to do online peer feedback better. As stated in the following transcription: "I think online peer feedback activity is better than face-to-face because. Sometimes you cannot muster up the words you want to say in front of the people you wanted to give feedback." "I think online is better in this case Because the feedbacks we got can be kept as a file, and we can just open it whenever we want to learn about it again." "I think online peer-feedback activity is better because when we can highlight the certain mistakes. Meanwhile, face-to-face peer feedback is also good but it's only in short time that we remember our mistakes so that I prefer to choose Online Peer Feedback." All participants prefer to do online peer feedback than face-to-face activity. Some of them feel that their unfamiliarity with cloud collaboration technology overwhelmed them at first. However, after several times of trials, it was not a problem anymore. Interestingly, when discussing the challenges of online peer feedback, some claimed that face-to-face was just the same as online learning or even slightly better.

Discussion
The interaction between the participants was reciprocal asynchronous feedback in which each received and provided feedback. The participant's interaction in online peer feedback through the cloud collaboration facility, as the finding showed, has enabled students to identify and comprehend various writing problems and make revisions and refine their writing. In other words, they achieved better results with the process of interaction or collaboration (Vygotsky, 1978;Kurniawan & Suganda, 2020;, Zhou et al., 2012;Yim et al., 2014, Zhu et al., 2017Karsenti & Gauthier, 2018;Min et al., 2018;Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014 (Chang, 2012;Bradley, 2014;(Long & Richards, 1987). The findings also indicated that the participants had higher numbers of revision-oriented feedback. These higher numbers might be caused by the more time they have to reflect on giving feedback and responding to them as compared to the face-to-face peer feedback in which they are required to provide and respond to the feedback at the allocated time. This aligns with the role of asynchronous online tools, including cloud collaboration tools, in promoting reflection on problems in writing through the time distance between feedback provision and reaction (Liu & Sadler, 2003). This is supported by what the participants pointed out that the activity aids them in identifying errors and resolving them and that reading other people's work has improved their capacity to notice errors in their work. This is also partially backed up by the concept that the primary mediating influences on the dimensions of collaboration were forms of communication, task representations, matches/mismatches between participants' self-perceived and other-perceived roles, and peer feedback perceptions (Cho, 2017).
The online peer feedback in writing activity through cloud collaboration technology rooted its concept in the process-oriented approach to writing. The findings that the interactions in online peer feedback empowered the participants in improving their writing and their belief that it improved their capacity to identify their own writing errors is in line with the process-oriented approach in teaching writing (Hayes, 2012). The participants offered global-level writing in the activity at a deficient level compared to what they offered in locallevel problems. This might be due to the participants' lack of writing experience and insufficient knowledge of global issues and the topics of their essays (Liang, 2010). The difficulties English teachers have implementing complicated processes of processoriented-approach writing, such as brainstorming, prewriting, drafting, and editing, as well as the emphasis of EFL traditional classroom practices on local writing features, may also have contributed to the problem (Ariyanti, 2016).
The non-revision-oriented feedback accounted for almost half of the total number. Although these feedbacks are not the primary target, they are without importance which depends on the purpose of the peer feedback. Both revision and nonrevision-oriented feedback from the whole online written interaction and communication can be input into their second language learning in general. It

55-62
http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v10i1.25134 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license is generally understood that second language learning depends on input that converts into the intake when used in meaningful communication (Long, 1985;Guan et al., 2006). This aligns with the concept that knowledge is actively formed through discussion and collaboration (Ravitz et al., 2012). In other words, the interaction of participant feedback is the power in the background that help English learner improve their language. The nonrevision-oriented feedbacks are essential in that they help to create group cohesion (Bradley, 2014;Liang, 2010) and eventually can assist in creating a comfortable atmosphere for collaboration.
The peer feedback activities through cloud collaboration were perceived as a positive experience, as supported by their interview results. All the participants felt the online peer feedback through Google Docs was helpful. They commented that the activity helped them to be better at writing and, more specifically, it helped them be more conscious of their own writing.
Anonymity certainly contributed to their positive experience in the peer feedback activity. Only one participant reported that he preferred to know the peer's identity that gave the feedback. Almost everyone felt that giving and receiving feedback anonymously using pseudonyms is preferable since it removes the pressure of others' reactions to their input. Their experience in using Google Docs as the facility for peer feedback collaboration was with minimal difficulty. However, few participants described their difficulty when using Google Docs initially. They stated that the online feedback made it simpler to identify the problems they had made in writing since the system allowed them to place the feedback precisely on the spots that needed improvement. They generally believe online feedback via cloud collaboration technology is more convenient and accessible, regardless of location or time. The positive experience is also reflected in the higher revision rate in addressing the revisionoriented feedback. On the other hand, the participants' exchanges in nonrevision-oriented feedback were lighthearted and cheerful.
Although it was not perceived as a negative experience by the participants, some challenges were also faced in doing the peer feedback activity. Some felt that the feedback provided by peers was too challenging to understand and later caused difficulty in responding or addressing the problem. However, this difficulty eventually resulted in more extended exchanges discussing the content of the feedback, which was a well-written language practice. Other challenges were poor internet connection and unsupported devices. Despite these interview comments, Google Docs do not need a solid internet connection or an advanced device (Google, 2021). Some believed their lack of knowledge of cloud collaboration technology initially overwhelmed them. However, after repeated trials, it was no longer an issue.
One participant felt uncomfortable with the anonymity and perceived that communication would be more accommodating if both parties knew each other. Interestingly, when discussing the challenges of online peer feedback, some claimed that face-toface was just the same as online learning or even slightly better.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION
The findings and discussions of this study have led to some conclusions and implications. First, as the findings demonstrated, the involvement of the participants in online peer feedback via cloud collaboration enabled students to detect and comprehend numerous writing problems, as well as revise and improve their work. This is not to imply that peer feedback should take the place of teacher or instructor input entirely. On the other hand, they must employ technology to inspire students and increase peer feedback outside of traditional writing courses without undermining regular and formal writing classes. Second, revision and non-revision-oriented feedbacks are part of the online textual interaction and communication that can help them develop their second language. As is generally understood, learning a second language is dependent on input, which transforms into intake when the language is employed in meaningful communication. Third, the findings also reveal individuals' divided perspectives about whether they appreciated or disliked their online peer feedback experience. The findings support the shift in learners' and teachers' responsibility for language learning in asynchronous environments. Learners are expected to take more active roles in their learning, with instructors/teachers serving as facilitators and providing support as needed.
Although the current study's findings appear optimistic, future research should consider a few limitations. To begin with, the number of participants is extremely limited. As a result, future studies should focus on a diverse variety of learners in order to allow findings and implications to be generalized to multiple contexts. This

57-62
http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v10i1.25134 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license study did not measure the participant's progress but focused on their experience and perceptions. Future study can also extend their observation of the experience and measure the participant's progress. A comparison between synchronous and asynchronous peer feedback can also be made to see each mode's contribution to writing progress and experience. attitudes towards information technology and the relationship with their academic achievement.