A peer-assessment framework for developing sociolinguistic appropriateness in academic writing

Abstract

The article addresses the development and piloting of a peer-assessment framework aimed at improving sociolinguistic appropriateness in students’ academic writing. The goal is to describe the framework structure and evaluate the reliability of its use within the course «Practical Course of the First Foreign Language» (English) for undergraduate linguistics students. The participants were 22 students aged 18-21 (B1 and B2 levels). The framework operationalises appropriateness through five parameters: register and degree of formality, consideration of addressee and communicative purpose, speech etiquette, ways of expressing criticism and disagreement, degree of categoricalness and mitigation strategies. Each parameter is specified through level descriptors and examples, which reduces reliance on general impressions and makes peer feedback more comparable within the group. The procedure included drafting, receiving two peer reviews based on the framework, revising the text with reference to specific criteria, and discussing disputed cases in class. The effect and applicability of the framework were examined using Cambridge exam-format pre- and post-tests with an analytic 0-20 scale, supplemented by a 0-5 appropriateness criterion, as well as by analysing agreement between peer reviewers and the stability of expert scoring through re-rating a subset of scripts after 2-3 weeks. The results indicate growth in appropriateness scores and a more focused pattern of revisions, supporting the framework as a tool for standardising peer feedback and managing comment quality in a study group. Limitations relate to the quasi-experimental design and different proficiency levels across groups.