Dear colleagues,
We’re seeking offers to undertake blind peer-review of the following submissions to the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (JLDHE).
If you would like to complete a review of one of the submissions, please email the designated editorial contact below.
If you haven’t reviewed for us before, please include a brief description of your interest in the topic, your relevant qualifications, expertise and/or experience in relation to the submission (up to 200 words). This might include your knowledge of the subject and/or your experience acting as a peer reviewer for academic papers or as an author or researcher in the field.
Please also join our register of reviewers and list your interests via http://journal.aldinhe.ac.uk/index.php/jldhe/user/register.
New reviewers are very welcome! We provide a developmental environment for those interested in this important community service. Why not try something new today?
| No. | Type | Title and abstract | Editorial contact |
| 1974 | Paper | The effects or peer correction in essay writing flipped classrooms: a case of selected universities in Vietnam This study investigates the effects of integrating peer correction into a flipped classroom on university students’ essay writing performance in Vietnam. Grounded in sociocultural and active learning theories, the study employed a mixed-methods design involving 150 English-major students and nine lecturers. Participants were divided into experimental and control groups, with pre- and post-tests, questionnaires, and interviews used for data collection. The findings indicate that students in the flipped classroom with peer correction significantly improved their writing performance compared to those in traditional instruction. Additionally, both students and lecturers reported positive attitudes toward the approach, highlighting increased engagement, autonomy, and confidence, particularly during the post-writing stage. The study suggests that combining flipped learning with structured peer correction is an effective strategy for enhancing writing instruction in higher education contexts. | Laura Dyer: L.V.Dyer@leeds.ac.uk |
| 1981 | Opinion piece | When the unexpected becomes curriculum: foresight, disruption, and the limits of pedagogy This opinion piece argues that higher education should treat disruption not as an episodic interruption to curriculum but as one of the conditions in which curriculum now operates. Drawing on work on black swans, creeping crises, anticipatory futures thinking, emergency remote teaching, and educational inequality, it contends that the language of surprise can obscure institutional responsibility. Recent shocks have shown both the adaptability of educators and the fragility of systems that depend on stable time, place, connectivity, and assessment regimes. The piece proposes an anticipatory approach to pedagogy built around optionality, relational infrastructure, assessment plasticity, and institutional memory, while insisting that pedagogy alone cannot compensate for structural inequity or weak support systems. For learning development, the implication is strategic rather than peripheral: it should be treated as part of higher education’s foresight capacity. | Laura Dyer: L.V.Dyer@leeds.ac.uk |
| 1983 | Opinion piece | AI, affective development, and the ‘third space’ of learning This article explores the emotional dimensions of how students engage with assessment feedback and considers how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), specifically Large Language Models (LLMs), may support learners’ affective development through the ways in which they interpret assessment feedback. While feedback is typically positioned as a cognitive tool for improvement, it is also experienced as an affective encounter, often shaped by emotions such as anxiety, uncertainty, and defensiveness. These emotional responses can influence how feedback is received, interpreted, and ultimately acted upon. Drawing on Homi Bhabha’s concept of the ‘third space’, this article conceptualises feedback as a site of negotiation between educator intent and learner interpretation, rather than a unidirectional transmission of meaning. Within this space, learners actively construct understanding, influenced by prior experiences, expectations, and emotional responses. This article argues that LLMs can operate as mediating tools within this third space, supporting learners in translating feedback into forms that are more accessible, actionable, and emotionally manageable. In doing so, such tools may enable learners to engage more effectively with feedback and develop greater feedback literacy. At the same time, this article examines the risks associated with this approach, including the potential for over-reliance on AI, the erosion of independent interpretive skills, and the possible dilution of academic precision. It argues that the value of LLMs lies not in replacing academic judgement, but in supporting more effective and equitable engagement with feedback. | Lee Fallin: Lee.Fallin@hull.ac.uk |
N.B. it is essential to be respectful of the writers of submissions to our journal, especially when they are at the draft stages. Please do not comment publicly on the list or elsewhere on any aspect of the paper titles or abstracts above.
We look forward to hearing from you!
With warm wishes on behalf of the Editorial Board,
Chad
Dr Chad McDonald
Managing Editor, Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education