This quasi-experimental study investigated the effect of structured peer assessment on revision of an argumentative writing. Two intact classes (N = 22, 26) were randomly assigned to be the trained and control groups. The latter received no facultative resources, while the former participated in structured peer assessment based on Calibrated Peer Review™, a web-based program purposefully designed for students to receive peer-assessment training, assess their peers' writing, and make written commentary online. At the end of the treatment, both groups revised their writing. The trained group revised their writing more extensively, outperforming the control group on frequency and type of revision, as well as the holistic quality of argumentative writing. After structured peer assessment, participants of the trained group became critical of their own work and invested more effort in spontaneous revision to produce higher-quality argumentative writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakemanR. (2005) Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures design. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384.
2.
BlainS. (2001) Study of verbal peer feedback on the improvement of the quality of writing and the transfer of knowledge in Francophone students in Grade 4 living in a minority situation in Canada. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 14, 156–170.
3.
BreuchL-A. J. (2004) Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. New York: State Univer. of New York.
4.
CameronC. A.EdmundsG.WigmoreB.HuntA. K.LintonM. J. (1997) Children's revision of textual flaws. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 667–680.
5.
CheungaY. L. (2011) Critical feedback on peer review research. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 535–538.
6.
ConnorU.AsenavageK. (1994) Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257–276.
FaigleyL.WitteS. (1981) Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
9.
FitzgeraldJ. (1994) Revision. In PuvesA. C.PapaL.JordanS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language arts: A project of the National Council of Teachers of English. Vol. 2. New York: Scholastic. Pp. 1045–1047.
HewettB. L. (2000) Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265–288.
12.
HylandK.HylandF. (2006) Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
13.
LiuJ.HansenJ. (2002) Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: Michigan Univer. Press.
14.
LundstromK.BakerW. (2009) To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewers' own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
15.
MendonçaC.JohnsonK. E. (1994) Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.
16.
MinH. (2005) The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
17.
NelsonG.CarsonJ. G. (1998) ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131.
18.
OlejnikS.AlginaJ. (2003) Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8, 434–447.
19.
PetersonS. (2003) Peer response and students' revisions of their narrative writing. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3, 239–272.
20.
PorteG. (1996) When writing fails: How academic content and paste learning experiences shape revision. System, 24, 107–116.
21.
RollinsonP. (1998) Peer response and revision in an ESL writing group: A case study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer. Autónoma de Madrid.
22.
RollinsonP. (2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 227–252.
23.
SaitoH.FujitaT. (2004) Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31–54.
24.
ShawV. N. (2002) Peer review as a motivating device in the training of writing skills for college students. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33, 68–76.
25.
SommersN. (1982) Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148–156.
26.
TsaiY. C. (2009) A synchronous peer review and revision: On written argument. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM.
27.
TsuiA. B. M.NgM. (2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
28.
TuziF. (2004) The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217–235.
29.
VillamilO. S.De GuerreroM. (1998) Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514.
30.
YasudaS. (2004) Revising strategies in ESL academic writing: A case study of Japanese postgraduate student writers. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14, 91–112.
31.
YehH.YangY. (2011) Prospective teachers' insights towards scaffolding students' writing processes through teacher-student role reversal in an online system. Education Technology Research and Development, 59, 351–368.
