Pan-Art Pedagogy. Theory & Practice Philology. Theory & Practice Manuscript

Archive of Scientific Articles

ISSUE:    Pedagogy. Theory & Practice. 2026. Volume 11. Issue 4
COLLECTION:    Foreign Language Teaching

All issues

License Agreement on scientific materials use.

A didactic model for developing sociolinguistic appropriateness in foreign language academic writing for linguistics undergraduates through the integration of prompts based on artificial intelligence and peer assessment

Ivan Evgenievich Rodikov
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba, Moscow
Submitted: April 17, 2026
Abstract. The research aims to theoretically substantiate and describe a didactic model for developing sociolinguistic appropriateness in foreign language (L2) academic writing among linguistics undergraduates by integrating prompts based on artificial intelligence (AI-based prompts) and peer assessment. The article presents the model’s structure and details its implementation within a face-to-face English academic writing course as part of the “Practical Course of the First Foreign Language” discipline. The described model involves a sequential workflow: drafting, obtaining AI-based prompts via standardized requests (considering genre and addressee), self-correction, peer review by two classmates using an analytical rubric, and final editing. The analytical rubric provides a unified criterion-based foundation for the formative assessment of the text’s sociolinguistic appropriateness and is utilized both during peer review and when evaluating AI-generated recommendations. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the development of a reproducible formative assessment procedure for L2 academic writing, in which AI-based prompts and peer assessment are unified by a common criteria framework. As a result of testing the model through a formative experiment, it was established that the score increase in the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group: 3.6 points on the total scale and 1.2 points for the sociolinguistic appropriateness component, compared to 1.4 and 0.4 points, respectively. Approximately 40% of the edits in the experimental group were related to register, speech etiquette, audience awareness, and the degree of hedging (categoricalness). The findings suggest that the proposed model is a promising didactic solution for organizing step-by-step L2 academic writing within face-to-face educational settings.
Key words and phrases:
социолингвистическая уместность
академическое письмо на иностранном языке
подсказки на основе искусственного интеллекта
взаимооценивание
формирующее оценивание
sociolinguistic appropriateness
foreign language academic writing
prompts based on artificial intelligence
peer assessment
formative assessment
Reader Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded here.
References:
  1. Золотарёв М. В. Искусственный интеллект как генератор обратной связи при обучении академическому письму // Вопросы методики преподавания в вузе. 2024. Т. 13. № 4. https://doi.org/10.57769/2227-8591.13.4.04
  2. Короткина И. Б. Академическое письмо: процесс, продукт и практика. М.: Юрайт, 2019.
  3. Мелёхина Е. А. Взаимооценивание как средство развития навыков академического письма у магистрантов // Актуальные проблемы филологии и методики преподавания иностранных языков. 2020. Т. 14.
  4. Орлова Т. С. Использование ChatGPT в рамках обучения иноязычному письму студентов неязыковых вузов // Педагогика. Вопросы теории и практики. 2025. Т. 10. Вып. 8. https://doi.org/10.30853/ped20250141.
  5. Полюдова Е. Н. Социолингвистическая компетенция на занятиях английского языка в высшем образовании: монография. М.: Знание-М, 2024.
  6. Савкина Е. А. Параметры социолингвистической компетенции участника межкультурной коммуникации // Общество. Коммуникация. Образование. 2020. Т. 11. № 3. https://doi.org/10.18721/JHSS.11309
  7. Сысоев П. В. Использование технологий искусственного интеллекта в обучении иностранному языку: тематика методических работ за 2023 год и перспективы дальнейших исследований // Вестник Тамбовского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2024. Т. 29. № 2. https://doi.org/10.20310/1810-0201-2024-29-2-294-308
  8. Barrot J. S. Using ChatGPT for second language writing: pitfalls and potentials // Assessing Writing. 2023. Vol. 57. Art. 100745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100745
  9. Black P., Wiliam D. Assessment and classroom learning // Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. 1998. Vol. 5. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
  10. Carless D., Boud D. The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018. Vol. 43. Iss. 8. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
  11. Double K. S., McGrane J. A., Hopfenbeck T. N. The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: a meta-analysis of control group studies // Educational Psychology Review. 2020. Vol. 32. No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
  12. Fleckenstein J., Liebenow L. W., Meyer J. Automated feedback and writing: a multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students’ performance // Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 2023. Vol. 6. Art. 1162454. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1162454
  13. Guo K., Zhang E. D., Li D., Yu S. Using AI-supported peer review to enhance feedback literacy: an investigation of students’ revision of feedback on peers’ essays // British Journal of Educational Technology. 2025. Vol. 56. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13540
  14. Hattie J., Timperley H. The power of feedback // Review of Educational Research. 2007. Vol. 77. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  15. Hoo H.-T., Deneen C., Boud D. Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2022. Vol. 47. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1925871
  16. Hyland K. Second Language Writing. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
  17. Hymes D. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.
  18. Nicol D. J., Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice // Studies in Higher Education. 2006. Vol. 31. No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
  19. Sadler D. R. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems // Instructional Science. 1989. Vol. 18. No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
  20. Swales J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  21. Topping K. J. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities // Review of Educational Research. 1998. Vol. 68. No. 3. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
All issues


© 2006-2025 GRAMOTA Publishing