Scaffolded analytic rubric-based peer evaluation for fostering cohesion and coherence in argumentative essays

The present conceptual paper proposes scaffolding, and peer evaluation as key pedagogical approaches to address inherent challenges novice student-writers face when composing their argumentative essays, particularly in achieving cohesion and coherence. Drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in sociocultural theory, together with studies on cohesion and coherence, argumentative writing, empirical evidence on peer evaluation, scaffolded peer evaluation, and analytic rubric-based instruction, this paper advances a conceptual framework. Specifically, the framework conceptualises the synergy between two pedagogical constructs; derived from the approaches of scaffolding and peer evaluation, using an analytic rubric as a mediating tool as well as three learner constructs; feedback literacy, reflective awareness, and metacognitive awareness, among others, that can collectively foster the development of students’ argumentative essays. Through the internalisation and application of these practices, students are expected to demonstrate improved cohesion and coherence in their argumentative essays while simultaneously developing greater confidence in generating and providing constructive, effective feedback on peers’ essays of the same genre. The paper concludes by underscoring pedagogical implications for English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) tertiary education writing classrooms and recommending avenues for future empirical validation.