Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-sssessment and peer feedback A language socialization perspective Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Singapore Institute of Technology | University of Auckland This paper draws on language socialization theory and uses narrative frames and interview to investigate an international student’s socialization into feedback literacy practices in an EAP classroom. The analysis of findings shows that using a narrative frame methodology is an effective assessment tool that helps students assess and reflect on their own learning because they help students develop an ability to: (1) learn to judge their own and their peers’ performance and develop evaluative judgment, (2) socialize themselves and be socialized into literacy norms of their academic context, and (3) follow up their own learning trajectories and learning to learn by reflecting on their current and possible future performance in familiar and unfamiliar work and life contexts. The study concludes that socialization into feedback practices becomes significant when the linguistic, literate, and cultural practices of students are recognized as resources and assets in their classroom community. Keywords: language socialization, feedback literacy practices, selfassessment, peer feedback, narrative frames 1. Introduction In recent years, education has witnessed a shift from what teachers do to what students need so that students have the means to perform well not only in their immediate environments but also in their future interactions (Yan & Boud, 2021). Part of this shift has been a focus on enhancing students’ learning through feedback literacy. Students develop their feedback literacy through appreciating feedback, processing it, making judgments in sophisticated ways, and acting in response to the feedback (Carless and Boud, 2018; Molloy et al., 2020; Zhang, Zhang, Parr, & Biebricher, 2022). Similarly, the educational outcomes and the https://doi.org/./aral..sol | Published online:  March  Australian Review of Applied Linguistics ISSN - | E‑ISSN - © John Benjamins Publishing Company [2] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang products have been questioned so much that they not only provide learners with capabilities to cope with the expectations in their here and now contexts but also account for their future familiar and unfamiliar engagements. Education comes increasingly to be judged on what addresses the needs of the present moment and what effective learning mechanisms are required for the changing world of the future. To equip students with knowledge, skills, and expertise to be better prepared for future life is a great undertaking. If the educational outcomes are to be future oriented, certainly a set of pre-determined questions which test the content of certain material discussed in courses would not equip students with their future study and work lives. Thus, this brings to the fore the question of what could be done in terms of assessment to address not only the needs of the learners in their immediate learning environments but also the one that encompasses the possible needs of the learners in their future. Using a narrative methodology, this study intends to capture students’ feedback literacy practices on their own learning process in the context of an EAP program while they mutually engage in interactions to self-assess their own learning through socialization in the local practices of the academic social space (Ishii & Soltani, 2021; Soltani & Tran, 2023). 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Language socialization Language socialization is a process wherein the newcomers (i.e., novices) to a community learn to use language and socialize themselves or to be socialized into the practices by the more expert members of the community and the local meaning associated with those practices (Anderson, 2021; Soltani, 2016, Kinginger, 2017). Socialization and becoming competent in practices of the dominant community occur in two modes one being through language and the other to use language (Kulick & Schieffelin, 2004, p. 350). Poole (1994, p. 594) contends that “the use of language to encode and create cultural meaning” is referred to as socialization to use language. Ochs (1988) points out that “understandings of the social organization of everyday life, cultural ideologies, moral values, beliefs and structures of knowledge and interpretation are to a large extent acquired through the medium of language” (p. 14). Caregivers’ giving children interactional sequences to say “thank you” is an example of how language socialization facilitates language development in children (Poole, 1994). Language socialization examines the significant role of peers as socializing agents, and the coordinated social activity in this process (Chaparro, 2023; Soltani & Zhang, 2021). Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback Prior research has studied language learning through a language socialization perspective (Friedman, 2023; Soltani et al., 2022). Language socialization is not a one way street whose goal is to “eradicate the linguistic, literate, and cultural practices many students of color brought from their homes and communities and to replace them with what were viewed as superior practices” (Paris, 2012, p. 93). But rather, it is a multi-faceted process (Soltani, 2021a; Soltani, 2021b; Soltani & Loret, 2018; Soltani & Tran, 2021) that is rooted in a culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2017), wherein the students’ linguistic and cultural dexterity and plurality are regarded as necessary for success and access in our changing world. Language socialization research has considered the role of feedback as essential. Reporting on the language socialization of an international student in EAP and mainstream courses, Soltani and Tran (2023) stressed that giving feedback is a social practice that is closely tied to the wider sociocultural norms that underpin the educational social spaces. Anderson (2021) stated that written feedback is a form of social practice that plays a formative role in students’ socialization and shapes their academic identities and (in)access to desired discourse practices in their relevant disciplines. In their process of language socialization, students’ enactment of feedback seeking is impacted not only by their goals (for example, academic writing goals) but also by the kinds of social and cultural resources in which they have invested before and during their studies (Sung, 2023). 2.2 Feedback literacy, self-assessment, and peer feedback Sutton (2012, p. 31) defined feedback literacy as “the ability to read, interpret and use written feedback”. Drawing on Sutton (2012), Carless and Boud (2018) defined student feedback literacy as the understandings, capacities and dispositions that students need in order to understand information and use it to improve their work or their learning strategies. They further reiterated that student feedback literacy consists of four aspects of (a) understanding feedback, (b) how feedback can be managed, (c) the dispositions and capacity to use feedback productively, and (d) understanding the roles of students and teachers in the feedback process. Students who develop feedback literacy look at feedback as an active process, analyze the information in feedback, make sophisticated judgments, and take appropriate action to respond to the feedback (Carless and Boud, 2018; Malecka et al., 2020; Molloy et al., 2020). Students’ abilities to do this effectively rely on their feedback literacy, the understandings, capacities and dispositions needed to make the most of feedback opportunities (Carless and Boud, 2018). Following these strands of thinking, we can define feedback for the purposes in this study as an interactive process in which students make sense of a variety of inputs and use them to enhance their [3] [4] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang work or feedback literacy. Students’ feedback literacy depends on teacher feedback literacy, i.e., the ability to design feedback processes in a dialogic manner where teachers and students interact to give and receive feedback in a trusting environment (Carless, 2012) so that students could relate to and use feedback, process and analyze the interpersonal aspects of giving and receiving feedback, and manage other pragmatic compromises, for example, the associated workload, and other constraints (Carless & Winstone, 2020; Tai et al., 2017; Tai et al., 2023). Student feedback literacy is closely connected to peer assessment and selfassessment. Peer assessment that is “activating students as instructional resources for one another” and self-assessment that is “activating students as the owners of their own learning” might be either formative or summative in nature (Bennett, 2011, p. 8). Self-assessment and peer-feedback are important in enhancing students’ academic socialization by raising the awareness and motivation of students, for example, through developing academic skills and language learning strategies (Belachew et al., 2015). Boud (1995) contends that self-assessment is the act of judging one’s abilities and making decisions accordingly about the next step. One could self-assess one’s abilities through asking questions like ‘How am I doing?’, ‘Is this enough?’, ‘Is this right?’, ‘How can I tell?’, ‘Should I go further?’ (Boud, 1995, p. 1). Answering the above questions enables the learners to go beyond meeting the requirements of the disciplinary knowledge, which could lead to sustainable assessment. Sustainable assessment focuses its attention on what the learners could do in real life situations with the capabilities thus learned through their learning journey. The goal of self-assessment is for the learners to self-regulate and take ownership of their own learning (Brown & Harris, 2013; Yan & Brown, 2017). Feedback plays an important role in students’ development of their academic literacies. What effective feedback means and the role it plays should be understood within the context it is given (Carless & Winstone, 2023; Zhang & Cheng, 2021). In traditional classrooms, the teacher is usually the person with the required institutional powers to offer feedback to students. The students, in turn, would receive that feedback and usually had no power to respond to the teacher or question the teacher as why they had thought about students’ performance in certain ways. Neither the teachers nor the students were in a position to appreciate each other’s position. The teachers of the course needed to play two different roles, both as a facilitator of the feedback and as an evaluator of that work (Carless, 2022; Chan & Luo, 2022). Thus, given this conflict of roles, the nature of feedback given to students would remain ambiguous, as would the students’ positionality towards that feedback. Students usually cannot relate to that feedback and often feel what is stated as feedback does not fully show the feedback giver’s Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback appreciation of the efforts they have put in the work or does not fully assess their abilities (Hyland & Hyland, 2019). Unlike teacher feedback, peer feedback, as a socially constructed activity, is believed to be a powerful source of information for the students. Previous research shows that peer feedback could help students to significantly improve the quality of their revised drafts (Yan & Carless, 2022).The giver and receiver of feedback both enjoy the same status as students. Students, through engaging in the act of feedback, create an audience for their work and hence making the whole activity an authentic experience, compared to when students receive feedback only from their teachers (Rollinson, 2005). Seror (2011) states that peer feedback enables writers to be exposed to various types of feedback (Chan & Luo, 2022) from their fellow peers. Peer feedback leads to different and yet closely related learning experiences that range from ‘negotiated interaction’ (Long, 1980; Soltani, 2018), through‘joint’ learning (Villamil & de Guerrero, 2006), to ‘collaborative’ learning (Liu & Carless, 2006; Schellekens, et al., 2021) and peer-feedback typically enacted in peer interaction affords learners the opportunity for more effective negotiation of meaning (e.g., Rassaei, 2021; Soltani & Zhang, 2021). Institutional dominance, as it may exist in the case of teacher feedback, is not an issue for peers. Peer feedback allows students to decide whether to accept or reject the other peer’s feedback or what aspect of the feedback to attend to (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994). The process of giving feedback has also been shown to be a positive experience for students, who during this time realize that other students also share the same difficulties and hence gain confidence and decrease apprehension (Chaudron, 1984). Both reviewers and the writers could learn from the feedback process (Seror, 2011), which results in less reliance on teacher feedback. Through having a set of criteria or evaluative questions, the learners are able to look for what is regarded as desired practice. Despite the above benefits of peer feedback, Connor and Asenavage (1994) questioned the value of the feedback received by peers. They observed that peer feedback by ESL writers contributes little to their final revised work and concluded that few revisions are connected to the peer feedback. Researchers have studied feedback practices of second language learners in university classes (Nelson & Schunn, 2009). However, none of the studies has taken a narrative frames methodology to study second language learners’ selfassessment and peer feedback literacy practices. This study then bridges this gap by examining the experience of the focal student, named Max, in this study by asking the following research questions. 1. How did Max self-assess himself throughout the program and how did others assess Max? [5] [6] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang 2. How did Max socialize himself and how was he socialized by others into feedback literacy practices, and how did he develop evaluative judgment? 3. Methodology Being an exploratory case study and situated in a language socialization framework, this study answers ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions about Max’s development of evaluative judgment through self-assessment and peer feedback as he socialized himself in the academic social space and was socialized by others. In addition, the study is descriptive, in that it seeks answers to ‘what’ questions; relational, in that it investigates the connection among various factors; evaluative, in that it connotes what elements are important; and confirmatory, in that it ascertains whether the findings of the study confirm what has already been found by other researchers (Yin, 2017). Bearing in mind the specifications of the case study, the lead researcher employed language socialization theory to design narrative frames that captured Max’s development of evaluative judgment throughout the program. The starters captured Max’s daily learning experiences. The subsequent interview aimed to dig deeper into clarifying points mentioned in the frames, such as feedback from peers and exploring Max’s future plans with the learned knowledge and skills. The interview also served as a reflective tool for the researcher and Max alike. Prior to the study, Max was provided an information sheet and consent form outlining the research processes, procedures, his rights, etc. The relevant tertiary institute’s Human Research Committee granted Human Ethics Approval to this study. For anonymity purposes, pseudonyms are used to refer to students and the data are presented verbatim. To understand the case better, we present more details about him next. 3.1 Case participant and the researcher Max, a pseudonym, came to New Zealand from Nepal to do a Graduate Diploma in Hotel Management in a tertiary institution. He had done a BA in Management in Nepal. His two parents worked for a Hydroelectric company in Nepal. Most of his classmates were from India. However, there were students from mainland China, Hong Kong, and Sri Lanka. The students aimed to do Graduate Diplomas in IT, Hotel Management, Applied Management, and/or Early Childhood Education. They had all taken the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) and were placed in a NZCEL (New Zealand Certificate in English Lan- Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback guage) program after which they were eligible to start their mainstream program. The NZCEL program lasted for 16 weeks. The NZCEL qualification was designed for those with English as an additional language and intended to increase their English Language proficiency for the purpose of general communication. The graduates of NZCEL would develop linguistic skills necessary to communicate in both familiar and not so familiar situations fluently and flexibly in different contexts in society. NZCEL qualification was equivalent to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) mid B2. Students were socialized into the academic literacies including understanding main ideas of moderately complex oral and written texts, participating effectively in sustained spoken discourse, and writing detailed, developed, and moderately complex texts (NZQA, 2021). At the end of each class, Max filled out narrative frames provided by the lead researcher, sharing his experiences and feedback interactions. Max was selected as the sole participant for this study due to his (1) consistent participation, (2) complete responses in the narrative frames, (3) willingness to be interviewed, and (4) strong interest in the research. Qualitative research acknowledges the researcher’s bias and subjectivity (Gall et al., 2003). Such an acknowledgment results in critically evaluating researchers’ own work, considering alternative interpretations of the data, enhancing trust and credibility within their relevant respective academic community, and transparency and honesty when they report their findings. For a study of international students’ developing of evaluative judgment via a language socialization lens, we believed that collecting narrative frames at the end of each session of class throughout the semester followed by an interview would render a richer analysis of the events and help guard against subjectivity. The lead researcher had 20 years of experience in teaching English as an additional language at the time of data collection in Iran and in New Zealand and was a lecturer in a tertiary institution in New Zealand. The researcher taught in the NZCEL program and he was known to the NZCEL students. At the start of the data collection, the lead researcher met with the focal student and explained the project to him. The focal student used the lead researcher as a resource (De Costa, 2015; Candlin & Sarangi, 2003) and asked if he could provide feedback on the focal student’s cover letter and CV, to which the lead researcher agreed. The lead researcher acted professionally and asked the focal student to suggest a time and a venue that worked for him best. During the interview process the lead researcher used non-technical language so that he would not present himself as “researcher as expert” (Candlin & Sarangi, 2003, p. 280). He also reassured the focal participant about the confidentiality and anonymity of the data and how the data were to be used. [7] [8] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang 3.2 Narrative frames To capture the everyday socialization of Max through feedback interactions in the classroom, a narrative frames methodology (Barkhuizen, 2011) was used. Narrative frames are useful tools particularly for those participants for whom English is an additional language because the frames provide an opportunity to the participants to reflect and think about their responses, hence a less intimidating tool for them. At the end of each session, Max spent 5–7 minutes reflecting on his learning, challenges he faced, strategies he used to overcome those challenges, his own assessment and that of his peers of his learning, and anything else which was interesting to him during that session of class. He filled out the narrative frames in English without the support of the researcher and if the narrative frames were unfinished, he would send them to the researcher in the afternoon of the same day. Narrative frames could also be disadvantageous because the choice of words in the sentence starters are already decided by the researcher and if participants are unwilling to provide information, misinterpretation might occur (Wette & Furneaux, 2018). Pavlenko (2007) argued that story frames from the participants could be depersonalized when the frames are used with a large number of participants. To avoid depersonalization of information by the participants, Barkhuizen (2014) recommended that narrative frames are best used together with interviews or other research tools. Our study used interviews as a supplementary method for data collection, which is described in some detail below. 3.3 Interview Max was interviewed when the program finished. The interview lasted 2.5 hours, was conducted by the researcher on the campus at an agreed time and in a convenient location. The researcher recorded the interview on a digital recorder. The interview was transcribed and coded by the researcher. The researcher did member checking with another colleague in the same tertiary institute where he was teaching, until 100 per cent inter rater agreement was established. In addition, to confirm the results, the analysis was double checked with Max. The interview questions were based on Max’s input in the narrative frames, which allowed the researcher to ask more in-depth questions. In addition, the interview itself was a qualitative in-depth one in which both the researcher and Max actively participated and the whole interview process was co-constructed (Talmy, 2010). This allowed for a more in-depth analysis of Max’s experience, development of evaluative judgment, and socialization in his new tertiary institution. Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback 3.4 Analysis of data The previous studies in language socialization research used an ethnographic methodology to understand the experiences of international students (Morita, 2004). This study, however, adopted a narrative frames and interview to capture the day-to-day experiences of one student during his entire program. Following Miles et al. (2018), the researcher read each frame 10 times. NVivo 11 was used to code the data. Each sentence starter became a sub theme. Probed further, all the coding regarding self-assessment and peer feedback was examined chronologically. The three main themes of “At the beginning: State of familiarity”, “In the middle: Focus on quality”, and “Transformations: Evaluative judgment” emerged from the data. In addition, the interview was transcribed and coded by the lead researcher, the process of which was one of triangulation and further confirmation of the narrative frames analysis. The researcher did member-checking with another colleague in the same tertiary institute where he was teaching. In addition, to confirm the results, the analysis was double checked with Max. The interview questions were based on Max’s input in the narrative frames, which allowed the researcher to ask more in-depth questions. In addition, the fact that both the researcher and Max actively participated in and co-constructed the interview process (Talmy, 2010), allowed for a more in-depth analysis of Max’s experience, his developing learning trajectory, and his socialization during the program. 4. Findings 4.1 At the beginning: State of familiarity The analysis of Max’s data suggests that the physical space of the classroom was influential in the creation of a learning space where students could feel comfortable to give and receive feedback as indicated below. What I was interested in was the set-up of the classroom and how it was designed to boost your confidence. Mr [teacher’s name] made me change my place so that we set up arguments and interact with each other to be comfortable in that environment. That helped me to be comfortable and forced me to talk and develop my fluency and interaction that was what I felt was really necessary. (Interview data) As shown above, Max found the physical environment of his class engaging. There were five round desks in the classroom and a big whiteboard. Students were not supposed to sit in the classroom all the time during the feedback time; whereas [9] [10] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang they were required to move from one desk to another and give and receive feedback. Unlike Allaei and Connor (1990, p. 24) who found that “conflict or at the very least, high levels of discomfort may occur in multicultural collaborative peer response groups”, Max found the multicultural space of the classroom ‘comfortable’. He reported that the layout of the classroom regulated his behavior and encouraged him to give feedback through sharing his thoughts with others and collaborating with other classmates in assessing each other’s performance. This, he thought, resulted in the enhancement of his proficiency and fluency in English. Max appreciated that there were things to learn to be able to study and live within the New Zealand context. What I find what there are lots of techniques to make your best strong. [Teacher’s name] has different designs to improve all aspects of learning. We do lots of writing every day, we discuss different topics and we need to respond to them by writing essays and sharing what we like about topics. I was able to understand that but was difficult for me to write them and express some of the words. (Narrative frames data) At the start of his studies, Max appreciated that he needed to employ strategies to be able to meet the program expectations. He found out that although he could understand things well, he did not have the means to translate his thoughts into words when writing. As seen above, Max was socialized into the oral presentation norms and expectations in his new academic social space. Evidently, he had to focus on one topic and narrow it down, and he chose to focus on global warming and its impacts on Maldives. Max was unable to present his thoughts and ideas within the allowed timeframe as a result. Max at this stage of his socialization through his reflection on his own performance in the classroom was trying to make sense of the expectations as seen below. [Teacher’s name] talked about what we should do for oral presentation and showed us a few models… In my oral presentation, I needed to focus on complete the task within the time and it is necessary that you express your feelings and what you feel about different situations. It is very difficult to survive in this country. (Narrative frames data) Evidence is discernible in Max’s report that his teacher socialized him and his classmates into the literacy practices around oral presentation using exemplars. Although Max found it challenging to socialize himself into the literacy practices in the new education context and in the wider social space (Soltani, 2018), he found that oral forms of feedback enhanced his social wellbeing and promoted a sense of care (McArthur, 2023) impacting his subsequent follow-up actions Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback (Wood, 2023). He not only had to learn the norms of the classroom but also the rules around time management and finishing the oral presentation within the expected time. Moreover, he needed to demonstrate that he had to influence his audience by displaying the right feelings while presenting. It can be highlighted from examining the episode of data that Max was developing a clear understanding of the program outcomes and expectations required in writing but at the same time he admitted that he had not yet mastered those expectations. He mentioned that he struggled particularly around referencing which indicated that he was facing challenges and was struggling to master the new norms of his academic social space. In what follows, Max demonstrated that he continued to learn the norms of academic reading and writing but at the same time, he was not contented with the feedback he received from other peers. We went through the topic of critical writing- how you represent the article that you read and how to justify that particular topic that you read. When I went through all my writing, I felt the feedback was annoying at first. Then I made a little bit of improvement. It was not drastic improvement. (Narrative frames data) As shown above, the students engaged in interaction together in the act of giving feedback where they socialized themselves into the program outcomes and expectations such as how to synthesize, summarize, reference, and use proper grammar and punctuation. Max at the start of his class found the feedback he received from his peers annoying but at the same time appreciated it and managed his emotions (Carless & Boud, 2018; Pitt and Norton, 2017; Robinson et al. 2013) when he noticed that it would help him to improve further. Max in the above extract also appreciated that he needed to further develop his writing skills and that his writing was not up to the standard. Sadler (2009, p. 48) argued that learners should develop a concept of quality and what was required from them in relation to a task that was “broadly consonant with that held by the teacher”. In addition, the “what next” (Boud, 1995), for Max in the above stage of socialization was to improve his capability to express his feelings more clearly in his writing, which was aligned with the program expectation and learning outcomes of his program. 4.2 In the middle: Focus on quality As Max familiarized himself with the literacy norms, program outcomes, and learning goals of his classroom, he compared his writing quality with the one desired in his narratives of self-assessments mentioned below. [11] [12] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Writing like filling up the paper was not an issue for me but [Teacher’s name] told us these are the things that you need to improve – analyze and critical thinking. The tenses- grammar, what you can do which helped me very much. (Narrative frames data) In his narrative above, Max demonstrated that he began to think about the quality of his writing rather than the quantity through applying a higher-level thinking to analyse the structure of writing in addition to other features including tenses and grammar. In this process, he could relate to the feedback he received from the teacher. As he put it, “I was able to write the correct words. I am able to give citations we are writing every day in our classes”. (Interview data) Max stated that he could see improvements in his writing particularly in the way he expressed his feelings and the use of academic writing principles. He appreciated that the teacher’s use of exemplars (Carless & Boud, 2018) and explanations were influential in helping him to develop a better mastery of grammatical structures. He also found the feedback he received from classmates useful. Mittan (1989) highlighted that peer response could be more honest and authentic than teacher feedback. Furthermore, Carless and Boud (2018) stated that peer feedback carries a lot of weight in facilitating the development of student feedback literacy. Max in the extract above iterated that his problem of repeating the same statement in different ways was criticized by his peer classmate, a piece of feedback which he found useful. I learned from her how to start your sentences and use different words like I used to write finally, finally, my friend told me to use other words like put everything in a nutshell, etc. In the small group discussions as mentioned by Max here, Isabel drew upon what she had learned in the lecture and used her own thinking and experience to give feedback to Max. Isabel also mentioned to Max that he needed to follow an argument instead of repeating his idea in multiple ways and had to use the appropriate vocabulary to state things. This finding also showed that Max acted on the feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018; Tai et al., 2017) he received from his classmates and applied that feedback to his writing. This finding was in line with Morita and Kobayashi (2008) where the learners in their study used theories and key concepts and referred to their experience to discuss those points. In addition, they were the ‘animators of their own teaching and learning processes’ and not the ‘objects of their teacher’s behavior’ (James & Pedder, 2006, p. 28). Along the same lines, he also mentioned, Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback Jasbir like he was like really struggling with his pronunciation, he was really struggling with his presentation and I told him, his writing was ok and I told him, when you are talking you are talking Punjabi English. And I told him brother you need to concentrate on these features. The improvement that he did was not drastic but manageable. (Interview data) Max in the extract above showcased that he socialized his peers through feedback on their writing. He positioned himself as more experienced and constructed himself an identity of a more capable and knowledgeable user of English language (Soltani, 2016). Max in the example above stressed that through feedback he received from Isabel, a more experienced member of his classroom, he was socialized into the literacy practices of the program and he not only focused on the form of language but also he understood how to persuade an audience of readers. In other words, through extending and applying his learning to a new context, Max was demonstrating that he learned to learn through feedback as he was then able to take ownership of his own learning (Hawe & Dixon, 2017) and consider all that he needed for an essay writing and how to express his intentions. The collaborative approach showcased above, alongside the enhancement and generation of oral feedback, could shift the perspectives of pupils away from a competitive ego-involvement towards task-involvement (Dweck, 2000) and thereby to focus on their learning – an expression of the intentionality discussed earlier. 4.3 Transformations: Evaluative judgment Toward the end of the program, Max reflected on his learning experience as shown below. Doing English course was fun even though you had lots of topics to learn but it was a personality development course … at the end of it I was interacting with a lot of people from other countries. I work as night reception and need to write reports. I can easily express what I did to improve that situation- [Teacher] went through every aspect of the course and language which will help us to enhance our English speaking, learning and writing abilities. The feedback helped me to improve my language but also my personality. (Narrative frames data) Max, reflecting on his experience during the program, regarded his learning experience as a development process which involved fun but at the same time a process of identity formation. The process, which transformed his abilities and enabled him to communicate with people from other socio-cultural backgrounds in the wider New Zealand society and his workplace. This finding of research speaks to Boud’s concept of sustainable assessment (Boud, 2015). In his words, [13] [14] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Max is demonstrating that he could not only address the expectations of his classroom, but he also had the transferable capabilities which empowered him to act effectively in his workplace context, an unfamiliar context in which Max had no prior experience. Max at the end of the program shared his understanding about feedback and regarded that as enlightenment. The above finding from Max’s data spoke to the fact that feedback acted like a catalyst for him to learn about the areas which required more work and it was an eye opener for him to evaluate his own performance. Max at the end of the program shared his transformation with regards to his acceptance of feedback. Max’s view towards feedback changed at the start and towards the end of the program. I used to feel ‘oh Gosh’ I did that mistake and from a personal point of view I was not accepting at the beginning but now that I am thinking about that I think ‘yeah that’s important’. At the time you may not feel good but now that you think about those teachers all the things that they did were for us, now you say thank God they have that for us. (Narrative frames data) Max experienced a shift away from not being comfortable or even blaming himself for the mistake he made to appreciating the feedback at the end by demonstrating that feedback was an essential aspect of socialization and students came to realize its importance and how to react to that as they became more mature in academia. However, as he experienced the process, he now had a better appreciation of the teachers who gave him feedback. Giving feedback to us was like you were part of that society and you were part of that place. (Narrative frames data) Max showed that through feedback he felt he belonged to his classroom and wider society and the place he lived in. He regarded himself as a legitimate member of his classroom community of practice since as a valued member he was given access to the literacy practices of his academic social space (Kinginger, 2017; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and wider society. After meeting the expectations of the program, Max entered mainstream courses to do a Master’s in Applied Management. He found out that compared to other classmates, he could outperform them in his literacy practices. Given that Max was already socialized into the literacy practices and expectations of the academic writing, he found himself in a position of power compared to the rest of his classmates (Norton, 2013) who had come from international backgrounds and spoke English as an additional language. Max explained his feelings during his socialization as follows. Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback You did not need to pressure yourself. It was a natural environment it was easy learning. This is what you should do, what you should follow, there was a pressure but not hard pressure, easy learning – focusing on your development – your mistakes and improving it. (Interview data) Max reflecting on his own experience appreciates that he did face pressures at times but the pressures were not to the extent that they hindered his well-being. Instead, he described the pressure as ‘easy pressure’ that facilitated his learning and led to his development. At the end of the program, Max referred to the frequency of feedback and students’ awareness of instructions as key to his learning and improvement of writing literacy norms. It helped me to understand my own mistakes and experience like all the feedback assessments that we did in the class we used to give feedback every session and that really helped me, we were aware of what the lecturer wanted from us. (Interview data) The narrative above showcases that Max and his classmates were offered an opportunity to develop self-assessment skills on a daily basis and were made aware of the expectations and significance of these skills throughout their program. Klenowski (2009) argues that assessment for learning is students, peers, and teachers’ everyday practice that responds to, reflects on, or seeks information from observation, demonstration, and dialog that are geared to increasing ongoing learning. The above extract also shows that Max has found what Biggs (2016) refers to as constructive alignment between learning outcomes, program content, program sessions, and his (writing) assignments and Max did his best to minimize the gap between what was expected and what he was performing. Max’s narratives showed that feedback changed his attitude toward other people’s perspectives. The collective process of giving and receiving feedback to and from students was a self-regulation exercise, which made him learn things about his own ways of being and doing. Cassidy (2007) discusses that the aim of activities in class should be to enhance skills which help the students’ ability to judge their own thinking, learning, and performance so that they regulate their behavior. Max stated that feedback was instrumental in shaping his identity and social relationships as noted below. At the end of my session I was full of confidence and I was like I am quite a shy guy but the feedback helped me to become a social person now. Now I can interact with the people better and it made me confident and the things like cultural shock does not worry me at all. (Interview data) [15] [16] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Max’s socialization into the literacy norms of the classroom not only helped him to learn about the expectations of his academic context but also boosted his confidence so that he could better relate to others in society. He found the reasons behind his learning were due to the class having a focus on students, it being interactive, problem based, and practical which pivoted around problem solving in all classroom modes. It seems that the classroom was governed by students and was designed based upon real problems that they needed to overcome by collaboratively interacting with each other in an ongoing manner (Lave & Wenger, 1991). This interactive participation allowed Max to feel he belonged to and included in the local practices of his classroom’s community of practice. The class also recognized students’ language and culture as a learning asset which Max found it of great significance. Max refers to the notion that his linguistic and cultural values were admired and recognized as valuable assets (Paris & Alim, 2017).This understanding was central to a culturally sustaining pedagogy to teaching and learning. Irizarry (2017) argued that if there was practical application to what students learn, then they would be more inclined to improve themselves and the community to which they belonged. In this regard Bucholtz et al. (2017) argued, When young people themselves are respected as linguistic and cultural experts, then educators and students become partners in learning and in using their collective knowledge to bring about social change.[…] To sustain culture is to sustain the lives of those who enact it…. It is in this fundamental sense that language and culture are resources to be sustained as well as sources of sustenance for identity. (p. 55) Max’s experience in his classroom social space indicates that he was comfortable to give and receive feedback because he thought that his culture and language were an asset on which he could rely to express his thoughts and feelings about the everyday learning practices (Klenowski, 2009) in the classroom. Since students were able to discuss their experience and show who they were through an appreciation of each other’s identities as social beings, he felt in control of his learning and could take ownership of his own learning in his classroom’s communities of practice. 5. Discussion and conclusion The findings of this study show that feedback should be understood as a language socialization process, wherein all the interactants in the feedback event work together, negotiate ideas, learn feedback discourses, and construct identities. In Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback this process the interactants strive to become more proficient members as they engage further in the practices of their community (Garrett, 2020). Furthermore, language socialization could facilitate the uptake of feedback literacy practices (Carless & Boud, 2018), e.g., evaluative judgement (Tai et al. 2017) through creating a space where, those students such as Max could engage with their more experienced peers such as Isabel, and scaffold one another through negotiation and engagement to develop not only the required literacy norms and expectations but also the various ways of being, knowing, and acting within their new second language academic social space (Soltani, 2018; Tai et al., 2023). Feedback literacy is part and parcel of the everyday classroom multiculture that contributes to students’ socialization process. During this process, learners, their peers and teachers interact while they look for, reflect on, and react to information they obtain from different sources of learning be it a dialog, observation, or demonstration that enhances learning (Klenowski, 2009, p. 264). Feedback literacy mediated Max’s transformation in writing, development of evaluative judgment, that, in turn, led to his developing academic discourse socialization. The findings of the study showed that narrative frames created a space of reflection for Max that brought to the fore his social, cognitive, and linguistic needs (Matsuda, 2006), increased his evaluative judgment, and helped him develop his writing abilities (Hyland & Hyland, 2019). The findings suggest that providing a learning environment for students where they could navigate around and talk to their peers is influential in their participation and in the very act of giving and receiving feedback. The findings of the study further suggest that the teacher socialized students into the literacy expectations of the program (Sadler, 1989) by going through exemplars and encouraging them to obtain necessary evaluation knowledge and experience to compare their own work with the one intended in the exemplar. The teacher also socialized students into the goals of the program and program outcomes and what they could do with the capabilities thus learned in their future interactions (Boud, 2015). The findings of the study also showed that the students underwent challenges to master the socio-academic norms and what constituted successful learning (Friedman, 2023). In the initial stages, the students faced challenges e.g., Max found it hard to express his feelings and thoughts into words in writing. He found that learning was completely different in his new academic context. For instance, he had to learn to master the literacy practices (e.g., citations, coherence, and referencing) when writing. Max found the feedback annoying at the start since he was not used to the other peers giving him feedback but appreciated, managed, and acted upon the teacher’s feedback (Tai et al., 2023) as an authority to familiarize him with the dominant literacy practices. Long and Porter (1985) argued that through feedback learners were better inclined to use the language since feedback [17] [18] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang required them to negotiate meaning in their respective groups which resulted in the more effective acquisition of language. Hyland and Hyland (2006) argued that constructive peer response enabled inexperienced writers to see how the readers saw their work. They further argued that providing feedback through peer interactions resulted in making input comprehensible for the learners which further allowed learners to have opportunities to practice, test their hypotheses with regard to language use against their cohorts’ responses, and make the relevant adjustments in relation to peer feedback (see also Hyland & Hyland, 2019). With the passage of time, Max was socialized by a peer whose feedback he found useful and important which he thought could help him improve his literacy skills. Likewise, Max socialized another peer learner into the literacy practices by bringing to the fore what was essential for that peer to follow if he wanted to produce a good piece of academic writing. Hence, he constructed himself as a more capable old timer. As time passed, Max’s attitude towards feedback changed again, appreciated it more, managed his feelings (Carless & Boud, 2018), regarded feedback as ‘enlightenment’, and found that it was impossible to go ahead without feedback. He appreciated that teacher’s feedback was important as he socialized students with the dominant values, norms and practices, which he thought enhanced his sense of care and social wellbeing and follow-up action (McArthur, 2023; Wood, 2023). The outcome of Max’s socialization through feedback literacy practices was a transformation for him because he was able to communicate with people from diverse backgrounds at work and in wider society and could write reports well where he could express his intentions with ease. Through feedback, the students attached value and worth to themselves and felt belonged to their classroom’s community of practice. Methodologically, narrative frames proved to be a useful tool to strengthen the assessment skills in students. The frames deliberately gave students a purposeful activity, which engaged them in the process of self-assessing their thinking, learning, feelings, and performance. Pedagogically, the findings of the study showcased the significance of cultural practices in the learning process both as the target and at the same time the source of learning itself (Bucholtz et al., 2017). Developing evaluative judgement is, in fact, facilitated through the inclusion of learners’ cultural practices. Narrative frames in this study also enhanced Max’s self-regulation by regulating the learning environment so it could make explicit the learning process via metacognitive training and through creating situations to exercise self-regulation (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). One implication of this study is that self-assessment and peer feedback not only contributed to the writing development of the learner and their development of evaluative judgement (Carless, 2022; Carless & Boud, 2018; Zhang, Zhang, Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback Parr, & Biebricher, 2022) but also placed the learner at the center of learning as an important agent of their socialization process. Using a narrative frames methodology, as used in this study, would bring to the fore the significance of an interactive, developmental, and participatory process that allows teachers and institutions to follow the learning trajectory of students through time and identify strategies that students could use to better socialize themselves in literacy norms and practices. Another implication of this study is that learners learn best through reflection and assessment of their own learning and engagement with their peers through thinking on their practices in a dialogic manner centering around trust (Carless, 2012), and in a relaxed environment where the focus is on assessment for learning rather than of learning (Wu et al., 2021). Allowing students to provide feedback on their own work and that of their peers would create a more inclusive academic social space (Soltani & Zhang, 2021), where their voice would be regarded as important in their academic socialization process. Self-assessment and peer feedback are complex processes that require the collaboration of teacher, students, and their peers so that effective implementation of the process becomes possible. This study is not without limitations. The exploratory and qualitative design of this study does not allow the findings to be generalizable to a wider population. In the future, it is best to use a larger group of students. Another limitation of the study is that no data is collected from the role of self-assessment and peer feedback from the local students. This study contributes to the debates in the field of second language writing by examining feedback literacy through self-assessment and peer feedback by (1) drawing on a language socialization framework and (2) taking an innovative approach of recurring narrative frames throughout the duration of the course and its impact on the evaluative judgment of the students. The previous studies in feedback literacy had not taken this framework together with a narrative frames methodology. Thus, this study offers a unique perspective on the research in second language writing development. Its contribution to research on feedback literacy lies in it taking into account qualitative in-depth interviews and narrative inquiry approaches to fully understand the second language writers’ experience from their own perspective. Such findings point to a need that educators’ support is essential to their students’ success throughout their learning journey. References Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10(1), 19–28. Anderson, T. (2021). The socialization of L2 doctoral students through written feedback. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20(2), 134–149. [19] [20] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391–414. Barkhuizen, G. (2014). Revisiting narrative frames: An instrument for investigating language teaching and learning. System, 47, 12–27. Belachew, M., Getinet, M., & Gashaye, A. (2015). Perception and practice of self-assessment in EFL writing classrooms. Journal of Languages and Culture, 6(1), 1–8. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 18(1), 5–25. Biggs, J. (2016). Constructive alignment. Assessment@ Bond, 1, 25. Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: Contradictory or complementary. In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in higher education (pp. 35–48). Routledge. Boud, D. (2015). Feedback: ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning. Clinical Teacher, 12(1), 3–7. Brown, G.; Harris, Lois. (2013). Student self-assessment. CQUniversity. Chapter. https://hdl .handle.net/10018/1024938 Bucholtz, M., Casillas, D. I., & Lee, J. S. (2017). Language and culture as sustenance. In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 43–60). Teachers College Press. Candlin, C. N., & Sarangi, S. (2003). Introduction: Trading between reflexivity and relevance: New challenges for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 271–285. Carless, D. (2012). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud and E. Molly’s Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 90–103). New York, Routledge. Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143–153. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. Cassidy, S. (2007). Assessing ‘inexperienced’students’ ability to self-assess: exploring links with learning style and academic personal control. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 313–330. Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2022). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of ‘feedback practices’ in higher education: implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 61–76. Chaparro, S. E. (2023). Martín and the pink crayon: peer language socialization in a kindergarten bilingual classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26(1), 50–68. Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15(2), 1–14. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276. De Costa, P. I. (2015). Ethics in applied linguistics research: Language researcher narratives. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback Friedman, D. A. (2023). Language socialization and academic discourse in English as a Foreign Language contexts: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(2), 261–275. Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (2003). Educational research: An introduction. Pearson. Garrett, P. B. (2020). Language socialization. The International Encyclopaedia of Linguistic Anthropology, 1–12. Hawe, E., & Dixon, H. (2017). Assessment for learning: a catalyst for student self-regulation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1181–1192. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206–224). Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press. Irizarry, J. G. (2017). For us, by us. In D. Paris & H. S. Alim (Eds), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 83–95). Teachers College Press. Ishii, D. N. & Soltani, B. (2021). Digital spaces of engagement: Perspectives on using Zoom and virtual spaces in online classrooms, in I. Fayed & J. Cummings (eds.), Teaching in the post COVID-19 era, (pp. 3–11), Springer, Cham. James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond method: Assessment and learning practices and values. The Curriculum Journal, 17(2), 109–138. Kinginger, C. (2017). Language socialization in study abroad. In P. Duff & S. May (Eds.), Language Socialization (pp. 1–12). Springer. Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: An Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 16(2), 263–268. Kulick, D., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2004). Language socialization. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 349–368). Blackwell. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Liu, F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. Long, M. (1980). Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL quarterly, 19(2), 207–228. Malecka, B., Boud, D., & Carless, D. (2020). Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–15. Matsuda, P. K. (2006). The myth of linguistic homogeneity in US college composition. College English, 68(6), 637–651. McArthur, J. (2023). Rethinking authentic assessment: work, well-being, and society. Higher education, 85(1), 85–101. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–769. [21] [22] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage. Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207–219). Longman Group. Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527–540. Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573–603. Morita, N., & Kobayashi, M. (2008). Academic discourse socialization in a second language. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 243–255). Springer. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Multilingual Matters. NZQA. (2021). New Zealand Certificates in English Language (Levels 1–5). https://www.nzqa .govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/english-language-qualifications/ Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge University Press. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (Eds.) (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. Teachers College Press. Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163–188. Pitt, E., & Norton, L. (2017). Now That’s the Feedback I Want! Students’ Reactions to Feedback on Graded Work and What They Do with It. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 42 (4), 499–516. Poole, F. J. P. (1994). Socialization, enculturation and the development of personal identity. In T. Ingold (Ed.), Companion encyclopedia of anthropology (pp. 831–890). Routledge. Rassaei, E. (2021). Effects of dynamic and non-dynamic corrective feedback on EFL writing accuracy during dyadic and small group interactions. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59(2), 233–265. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. (2013). Can We Meet Their Expectations? Experiences and Perceptions of Feedback in First Year Undergraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260–272. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. Sadler, D. R. (2009). Are we short changing our students? The use of preset criteria in assessment. TLA Interchange, 3, 1–8. Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback Schellekens, L. H., Bok, H. G., de Jong, L. H., van der Schaaf, M. F., Kremer, W. D., & van der Vleuten, C. P. (2021). A scoping review on the notions of Assessment as Learning (AaL), Assessment for Learning (AfL), and Assessment of Learning (AoL). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 71, 101094. Seror, J. (2011). Alternative sources of feedback and second language writing development in university content courses. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 118–143. Soltani, B. (2016). International students’ language socialization in New Zealand Tertiary institutions: A spatial analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Soltani, B. (2018). Academic socialization as the production and negotiation of social space. Linguistics and Education, 45, 20–30. Soltani, B. (2021a). International students’ socialization and transition experinces in high school. In T. Pham & B. Soltani (Eds.), Enhancing student education transitions and employability: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Soltani, B. (2021b). Transitioning to vocational education. In T. Pham & B. Soltani (Eds.), Enhancing student education transitions and employability: From theory to practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Soltani, B., & Loret, J. P. (2018). Developing capabilities at a New Zealand tertiary institution: From foreign learners to socialised international students. Scope, 5 1, 47–51. Soltani, B., & Tran, L. T. (2021). From imagined community to imagined social space: The case of three international students. Transitions: Journal of Transient Migration, 5(2), 123–143. Soltani, B., & Tran, L. (2023). Examining space, silence, and agency in language socialization of an international student in the EAP and mainstream courses. TESOL Quarterly, 57(2), 480–510. Soltani, B., Tran, L., & Reza, A. (2022). Being and becoming an international student: the inter-relation between language socialization and identities. Educational Linguistics, 1(2), 238–266. Soltani, B., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). International students’ language socialization in an Englishmedium university: A socio-spatial lens. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 46 (3), 316 – 338. Sung, C. C. M. (2023). Agency and feedback-seeking: Academic English socialization of L2 students in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 37(3), 364–382. Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31–40. Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics, 30, 128 – 148. Tai, J., Bearman, M., Gravett, K., & Molloy, E. (2023). Exploring the notion of teacher feedback literacies through the theory of practice architectures. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(2), 201–213. Tai, J. H. M., Canny, B. J., Haines, T. P., & Molloy, E. K. (2017). Implementing peer learning in clinical education: a framework to address challenges in the “real world”. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 29(2), 162–172. [23] [24] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23–41). Cambridge University Press. Wette, R., & Furneaux, C. (2018). The academic discourse socialisation challenges and coping strategies of international graduate students entering English-medium universities. System, 78, 186–200. Winstone, N. E., Balloo, K., & Carless, D. (2022). Discipline-specific feedback literacies: A framework for curriculum design. Higher Education, 83(1), 57–77. Wood, J. (2023). Enabling feedback seeking, agency and uptake through dialogic screencast feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(4), 464–484. Wu, X. M., Zhang, L. J., & Dixon, H. R. (2021). EFL teachers’ understanding of assessment for learning (AfL) and the potential challenges for its implementation in Chinese university EFL classes. System, 101, 102589, 1–14. Yan, Z., & Boud, D. (2021). Conceptualising assessment-as-learning in Z. Yan & L. Lyan (ed). Assessment as Learning: Maximising Opportunities for Student Learning and Achievement. Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2017). A cyclical self-assessment process: Towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1247–1262. Yan, Z., & Carless, D. (2022). Self-assessment is about more than self: the enabling role of feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1116–1128. Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage. Zhang, L. J., & Cheng, X. L. (2021). Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54, 101043, 1–15. Zhang, X. S., Zhang, L. J., Parr, J. M., & Biebricher, C. (2022). Exploring teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs for implementing student self-assessment of EFL writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 956160, 1–14. Appendix My learning today In our class today, (write about what was covered in class today and what you learned. Cite examples and be specific) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… One challenge I faced in class was (Mention the challenge, explain what it was, and why it was challenging. Provide examples). ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Implementing feedback literacy practices through self-assessment and peer feedback One thing I did to overcome that challenge was (Explain what you did to overcome that challenge. Be specific) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Reflecting on and assessing my own learning, I could say that (How do you assess your own learning? How do others e.g. your peers assess your learning?). ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Something else, I want to say is (Mention anything else, e.g. about your own learning, assessments, classroom activities, your classmates, or the class environment/set-up, how you think you will use your learning in future, etc) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… End of your story. Example of a frame Max In our class today, we discussed about APA references style in the class. APA Referencing style has the own method of giving references. Each of the referencing has it’s own way. These references will give you an idea where that the references came from. For an example, if we want to give a references to the book or a websites. There are a different patterns of giving references to the books and websites. This pattern helps the readers to identify where the references came from and find where the source that is given from the writer is authentic or not. One challenge I faced in class was I did not know about APA and how to cite. For example, I was unable to give the credit. One thing I did to overcome that challenge was I got help from Isabel. She was very helpful. She told me a few things. I should have different words to say what the author said. I learned to use synonyms and paraphrase. Reflecting on and assessing my own learning, I could say that I am developing and know more. For example, to give a good presentation there should be good mixture of words, photos videos and diolouge. For example, if the presentation has a good attractive slides but does not has the evidence to prove his slide. That may affect his marking and might be boring as well. Therefore while giving good presentation the presentations should be able to balance all the points that they want to present. Gary told me he liked my confidence level, gestures and eye contact. Something else, I want to say is referencing allows you to give an evidence while writing an assignment or essay. It also give the reader that you have done enough research within the topic. [25] [26] Behnam Soltani and Lawrence Jun Zhang Address for correspondence Behnam Soltani behnam.soltani@singaporetech.edu.sg Biographical notes Dr. Behnam Soltani is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Center for Professional Communication, Singapore Institute of Technology. He received his PhD in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He has published articles in Q1 journals including TESOL Quarterly (Wiley), Linguistics and Education (Elsevier), Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (John Benjamins), and Personality and Individual Differences (Elsevier). His co-authored book, Enhancing Student Education Transitions and Employability: From Theory to Practice was published by Routledge. https://orcid.org/---X Lawrence Jun Zhang, PhD, is Professor of Linguistics-in-Education and Associate Dean for the Faculty of Education & Social Work, University of Auckland, New Zealand. His major interests and 100-plus publications are on learner metacognition and reading-writing connections. He is Co-Chief-editor for System, and an editorial board member for Applied Linguistics Review, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Journal of Second Language Writing, Metacognition & Learning, Writing & Pedagogy, Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, and RELC Journal. He was honoured by the TESOL International Association (USA) in 2016 with the award of “50 at 50”, acknowledging “50 Outstanding Leaders” and was officially installed as a newly elected member of the Board of Directors of the Association in 2017. Publication history Date received: 1 August 2023 Date accepted: 1 January 2024 Published online: 4 March 2024