PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a worldwide shift in higher education, transitioning from traditional in-person teaching to online instruction. Consequently, there is a need to reevaluate classroom assessment methods for language educators. It involves a departure from summative assessment to formative assessment and sustainable assessment practices. As part of this paradigm shift, academia has placed significant emphasis on developing evaluative judgement and integrating peer feedback. This study focuses on a 12-week English expository writing course, where 66 English Linguistic undergraduates at a Malaysian public university actively participated in technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback under the guidance of two instructors to enhance their development of evaluative judgement in argumentative writing. The thematic analysis of transcript data from semi-structured interviews unveiled that the participants encountered challenges in utilising teacher feedback to enhance their peer feedback skills, overcoming socio-affective barriers to providing and receiving constructive feedback with an open mind and coordinating group members to collaborate effectively in an online environment. They generally held a positive stance towards technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback, acknowledging the advantages of honing evaluative judgement in argumentative writing as providers and receivers of feedback. This study aims to contribute to the discourse regarding students’ openness to peer feedback (i.e., peer feedback orientation) and the challenges and benefits they encounter within the digital learning environments, which have become increasingly common in higher education, with the goal of fostering evaluative judgement within and beyond the writing course.

• Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Dawson, P., & Boud, D. (2018). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work, (pp. 7–17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315109251-2

• Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133

• Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

• Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2024). Engaging secondary school students with peer feedback in L2 writing classrooms: A mixed-methods study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 81, 101337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101337

• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

• Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877

• Esfandiari, R., & Myford, C. M. (2013). Severity differences among self-assessors, peer-assessors, and teacher assessors rating EFL essays. Assessing writing, 18(2), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2012.12.002

• Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

• Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1

• Huang, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Facilitating L2 writers’ metacognitive strategy use in argumentative writing using a process-genre approach. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 1036831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036831

• Kasch, J., van Rosmalen, P., & Kalz, M. (2023). A thematic analysis of factors influencing student’s peer-feedback orientation. In O. Noroozi & B. De Wever (Eds.), The power of peer learning: Fostering students’ learning processes and outcomes (pp. 265-282). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29411-2_12

• Kasch, J., van Rosmalen, P., Henderikx, M., & Kalz, M. (2022). The factor structure of the peer-feedback orientation scale (PFOS): Toward a measure for assessing students’ peer-feedback dispositions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1893650

• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). Classroom-oriented research from a complex systems perspective. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 377-393. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.3.2

• Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13054

• Liu, C., & Yu, S. (2022). Reconceptualizing the impact of feedback in second language writing: A multidimensional perspective. Assessing Writing, 53, 100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100630

• Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582

• Malaysian Examinations Council. (2019). Malaysian University English Test (MUET): Regulations and test specifications. Selangor: Malaysian Examinations Council.

• Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Effects of an engaging process-genre approach on student engagement and writing achievements. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 38(5), 487-503. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2021.1982431

• Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714

• Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76, 467-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3

• Tai, J., Canny, B. J., Haines, T. P., & Molloy, E. K. (2016). The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: Opportunities in clinical medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21, 659-676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-015-9659-0

• Vasu, K., Ling, C. H., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2016). Malaysian tertiary level ESL students’ perceptions toward teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-assessment in their writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(5), 158-170. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.5p.158

• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Wood, J. (2021). A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(8), 1173-1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1852174

• Wood, J. (2022). Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 327-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544

• Wood, J. (2023). Enabling feedback seeking, agency and uptake through dialogic screencast feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(4), 464-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2089973

• Wu, J. G., Yang, Z., Wu, S., & Zou, D. (2024). Unveiling the synergy of peer feedback and the Metaverse. Computers & Education: X Reality, 4, 100056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100056

• Xie, X., Nimehchisalem, V., & Rafik-Galea, S. (2022). Paradigm shifts in peer feedback within learning-oriented language assessment. ASEAN Journal of Applied Languages, 1(1), 20-34.

• Xie, X., Nimehchisalem, V., Yong, M. F., & Yap, N. T. (2024). Malaysian students’ perceptions towards using peer feedback to cultivate evaluative judgement of argumentative writing. Arab World English Journal, 15(1), 298-313. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol15no1.19

• Yang, L. F., Zhang, L. J., & Dixon, H. R. (2023). Understanding the impact of teacher feedback on EFL students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101015

• Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461-493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161

• Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. (2020). A synthetic review of a decade of peer feedback research in China: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 28(1), 48–56.

• Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417