Fostering revision of argumentative writing through structured peer assessment.

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 facilitative 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.