This exploratory, qualitative study investigated a peer feedback instructional intervention designed to improve assessees’ ability to incorporate peer feedback into their writing. The eighth-grade Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for writing expect students to develop logically arranged, convincing arguments containing reasons, counterarguments, and rebuttals. In classrooms, students are often asked to participate in peer revision as a way of providing one another with suggestions on written drafts. The research on peer revision has traditionally focused on two approaches: peer assessment, which often takes place in a digital, anonymous environment, and peer response, which generally occurs in an in-person environment, typically classrooms. Both approaches employ small groups, occur after first drafts are completed, and aim for peers to provide feedback to each other that is suggestive in nature and content-specific. Research on peer assessment has shown that for assessors, or students providing the feedback, the ability to monitor one’s own progress and select appropriate strategies improves. However, existing research has not observed a benefit for the assessee, or student receiving feedback. Notably, less research has been performed on the tasks of the assessee during peer assessment.

The classroom intervention studied here included explicit instruction and scaffolds to help students monitor their goals and the needs of the assignment as they reviewed their peers’ feedback. I evaluated students’ ability to monitor during the intervention, in addition to their writing quality before and after the intervention, to measure the success of the study. This study took place in one eighth grade classroom (N=18). Data included students’ outlines, essays, and completed worksheets during the course of the intervention, in addition to pre-test and post-test essays. Due to its continued use in middle school, high school, and university classrooms, argumentative essay was the selected writing genre. The study found that assessees were capable of monitoring while considering peer feedback, and that the instructional scaffolds may have improved their writing. These findings suggest a previously unappreciated benefit of the assessee role during peer revision and call for future studies to investigate whether more structured explicit instruction and scaffolds might further attend to their needs.