The major objective of th is study was to inves tigate th e effectiveness of p ee r feedbackrn!ecllniqu e in Raya / Meklwni I]''' gra de student s' compos ition wri ting. Th e specific objectivesrnwere: a) to exa mille in what aspects of th e writing skill the techn iqu e was more he lpfitl tornthe learners, b) to fin d out th e percep tions of the students to wa rds the practice of p eerrnfeedba ck, and c) to find alit so me of the possible adva ntages and drawba cks of thisrntec liniqlle.rnTo acllieve these objectives a sa mple of 32 students were selected random ly and th ernrequired da/a were collected through exp eriment and students qu es tionnaire. The 32rnsaillp ies of th e st udy were divided into two equal treatm ent groups. Th e first experimentalrngroups were laught through strict adherence to th e p eer feedback. Bu t th e control groupsrnwe re laught wit hout peer f eedback treatment. This was purpos efitlly don e to see to whatrnextent sludents who received p ee r feedback showed significan t diffe re nce in their writingrn{Jelformance with sludenls who did nol get such trea tm ent. Th e adm.inistere d qu estio nnairernwas diss eminllted to the 16 exp e rim ental students who knew more about how peer f eedbackrnis practiced in writillg classes.rnThis exp erimental study lasted for two month s. During th e first two we eks of th e studyrnpretes t was give n in order to see whet her th e two groups had sim ilar p e rformanc e inrnparagraph writing. Th en, training was given to th e exp erim ental grou p on how they canrnreceive and give peer feedback for one mOllth . The remaining two weeks were used forrnposlles t writing to both groups. Two qualified writing teachers rated th e pre alld posttestrnres ults of th e two g roups. The first and th e secon d revised draft of expe rim enta l g roup andrnth e firs t but ul/revised draji of the control group we re submitted to be marked by the twornrat ers. Allalysis of th e res ults was don e lI sing I-test set at 0.05 level of significance and 30rn(N-2) degree of freedom. Analysis of th e students' p erceptiolls towards the use of peerrnfeedback tech nique was also don e qualitatively and quantitatively,rnThe ca lculated t-test res ult revealed that there is no statistically sign ifica llt difference ill th ernoverall writing pelformance between s tudents who received p eer feed back wit h studentsrnwithout such treatment. As a res ult of this the formulated null hypothesis, no signijica ncerndifferenc e in o ve rall writing pelformance between th e two groups is accepted. However, th ernstu dy showed th at, p eer feedba ck has strong co rrelation with students' progress onrncohesion, mechanics and sp eiling features of writing. Th e analysis 0/ the data obtainedrnthrough student questionnaire indicated that students had positive attitude to wa rds th ernpractice of p eer revision.rnTh erefo re it was reco mm ended that if th ere is a nee d to bring remarkable change and exten sivernprogress in co hes ion, mec hanics (m d spelling asp ects of writillg, we ll managed and consistentrnpeer revisio n training is co nsidered necessa ry, Furth erm ore Engli sh language teachers shouldrnmot ivale their sllldenls to cOlll lll ent each oth er 's paper in stead of dominant!F employing tea cherrnfeedbuck as a sale effective technique in composition classes.