Introduction

Writing is a fundamental skill for university students, essential for academic success and future professional communication. Despite its critical role, many students struggle with writing tasks, which can adversely affect their overall academic performance. Factors influencing writing ability include prior education, motivation, and familiarity with academic conventions. Among these, the role of assessment is particularly significant; well-designed evaluation methods are vital for developing students' writing competence and achieving desired learning outcomes. Assessment practices in writing are often situated within two distinct theoretical frameworks. On one hand, constructivist approaches emphasize process, creativity, and critical thinking, typically supported by essay-based assessments. On the other hand, psychometric or measurement-driven approaches prioritize reliability and efficiency, often associated with objective formats like multiple-choice questions (MCQs). While objective methods offer ease of scoring and are sometimes used for diagnostic purposes, they tend to focus on rote memorization and may fail to capture the nuanced, higher-order thinking required for effective writing. Conversely, essays better evaluate coherence, argumentation, and originality but can be resource-intensive to grade and are often accompanied by significant student stress, which may hinder performance and creativity. This tension creates a persistent gap in writing instruction: how to balance assessment efficiency with pedagogical depth to genuinely support writing development. Although universities are invested in empowering students through writing, many traditional or singular assessment approaches yield limited results, failing to adequately foster critical thinking, motivation, or continuous learning. Consequently, this study aims to investigate and compare the effects of essay-based and objective assessments on university students' writing skills. It will explore the respective roles, strengths, and weaknesses of each method in enhancing learning support, student motivation, and overall writing performance. By examining these two paradigms through the lens of a balanced assessment framework, this research seeks to provide insights that help bridge the gap between instruction, assessment, and the development of academically and professionally proficient writers.

Literature Review

This paper examines experts' perspectives on writing assessment, drawing on current research related to teaching approaches, evaluation standards, rater behavior, and assessment benchmarks. Writing is widely recognized as a complex skill that encompasses multiple competencies, including organization, critical thinking, language use, and discourse awareness. Masrur (2015) identified five key areas for assessing college-level writing, with particular emphasis on critical response and organization. Similarly, Natasha and Shqipe (2024) highlighted the importance of structured essays and clearly defined assessment criteria in their comparative analysis of writing assessment practices across different countries.

One of the most significant challenges in writing assessment is its inherently subjective nature. Kiasi (2017) noted that teachers often encounter difficulties in maintaining scoring consistency when applying the same assessment standards to different writing tasks. Rater bias further complicates this issue, as raters may be lenient or strict depending on personal interpretations of assessment criteria (Finsø et al., 2022). Such subjectivity can undermine the validity of writing assessments, as scores may not accurately reflect students' true writing proficiency. To address this concern, Finsø et al. (2022) proposed modern assessment approaches based on item response theory, which allow for more objective evaluations through statistical modeling and clustering of student proficiency levels.

Another important direction in writing assessment research involves aligning national assessment systems with international standards. Natasha and Shqipe (2024), for instance, examined assessment practices in Albania by comparing them with those used in the United Kingdom and Italy. Their findings revealed that the Albanian system relies heavily on general assessment criteria, whereas the UK and Italy employ more detailed, transparent, and standardized rubrics. This comparison is particularly relevant because it highlights systemic gaps in assessment practices and justifies the selection of the Albanian context as a case study for improvement and reform.

Traditional approaches to writing instruction and assessment, especially in English as a foreign language (EFL) settings, have also been widely criticized. These methods often prioritize isolated grammar instruction and surface-level accuracy, while neglecting essential elements such as discourse structure, coherence, and communicative purpose (Reichelt, 2009). Such practices can negatively affect writing assessments, as they fail to reflect authentic writing abilities. Kiasi (2017) argued that outdated teaching methods are incompatible with modern evaluation practices, while Schoonen et al. (2009) emphasized that the cognitive demands of writing in a foreign language may further hinder learners' skill development.

A lack of consensus among raters and persistent subjectivity in scoring remain major challenges in writing assessment (Rezaei & Lovorn, 2010). Additionally, assessment initiatives are often introduced by administrators without sufficient consideration of classroom realities, which may result in teacher resistance and inconsistent implementation (Hamp-Lyons, 2003; O'Neill et al., 2009). Compounding these challenges is the fact that many educators lack formal training in fundamental assessment concepts such as validity and reliability, leading to overreliance on generalized evaluation methods (Moss, 1994; Huot, 2002).

The debate between generic and task-specific rubrics further illustrates the complexity of writing assessment. While supporters of generic rubrics argue that they are efficient and promote consistency (Biggs, 2003), critics contend that such rubrics overlook contextual and task-specific features of writing, ultimately limiting students' preparation for real-world communication (Anson et al., 2012; Kiasi, 2017). Research indicates that raters often emphasize different aspects of writing depending on the assessment context. For example, De Haan and van Esch (2008) found that raters tend to focus more on language accuracy than discourse-level features, suggesting that a single generic framework may be insufficient to address diverse writing needs.

In response to these limitations, alternative assessment models have been proposed. Objective standard-setting approaches, such as Rasch measurement and item response theory, aim to reduce subjectivity by combining expert judgment with empirical test performance data to establish clearer cut-off scores (Finsø et al., 2022; Khatimin et al., 2013; Stone et al., 2011). These approaches have been applied beyond EFL contexts, demonstrating their potential for improving transparency and reliability in large-scale assessments.

Overall, the literature underscores the complexity of writing assessment and highlights persistent challenges related to subjectivity, rater variability, and insufficient alignment with international standards. Writing is acknowledged as a multifaceted skill requiring mastery of several competencies, which has significant implications for assessment design. Consequently, there is a growing demand for more valid, reliable, and context-sensitive methods to assess university students' writing skills. In response to these concerns, the present study investigates the effectiveness of essay-based and objective assessment methods in evaluating university-level writing proficiency.

Materials and Methods

This study employed a concurrent mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative data to triangulate findings and gain a comprehensive understanding of expert perceptions. A structured questionnaire was selected as the primary instrument, as it efficiently collects standardized data from a dispersed group of experts while allowing for the inclusion of open-ended questions to capture nuanced, explanatory insights that quantitative scales alone cannot reveal.

In terms of population and sampling, this study employed purposive expert sampling involving 27 participants drawn from the fields of applied linguistics. Participants were selected based on clearly defined criteria of demonstrated expertise, including current professional roles as university writing instructors, curriculum developers, or assessment specialists, and a minimum of five years of relevant academic or professional experience. Experts were recruited from diverse institutional contexts to capture a broad range of informed perspectives. While this sampling approach was appropriate for obtaining in-depth expert insights, the relatively small sample size is acknowledged as a limitation with respect to the generalizability of the findings.

A self-administered questionnaire was developed to explore experts' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of essay-based versus objective assessments in evaluating university students' writing skills. The instrument consisted of four domains:

Domain 1 Effectiveness of essay-based assessments

Domain 2 Effectiveness of objective assessments

Domain 3 Comparative analysis of both techniques across key criteria

Domain 4 Open ended questions seeking qualitative feedback

The first domain represented the effectiveness of essay-based assessments, and the second domain sought to explore the effectiveness of objective assessments. Whereas the third domain involved a comparative analysis of both techniques across key criteria, the fourth domain contained two open-ended questions soliciting qualitative feedback on strengths, weaknesses, and optimal use cases for each assessment type. The three domains of the close ended questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). Two independent assessment experts established the questionnaire's content validity through review, and its internal reliability was confirmed post-hoc with a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.87.

Data collection was conducted online. Quantitative data from the Likert-scale items were analyzed using descriptive statistics (Means and Standard Deviations) to identify central tendencies and inferential statistics (One-Way ANOVA). The ANOVA model was used to test for significant differences in expert ratings between the three core domains (Essay Effectiveness, Objective Assessment Effectiveness, and Comparative Analysis), treating the domain as the independent factor and the aggregated Likert scores within each domain as the dependent variable. The qualitative data from the open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. This involved an iterative process of familiarization, initial coding, and theme development to identify recurring patterns and insights. These themes were used to reinforce, contextualize, and elaborate upon the quantitative findings, providing depth to the statistical results.

Results Related to the Questions of the Study

Table 1: Experts' Perceptions Regarding Effectiveness of Essay-based Assessments

This table showed that the means of the first domain namely the experts' perceptions regarding the effectiveness essay-based assessments ranged from (4.78) to (4.30). The total mean of this domain was (4.41) and standard deviation was (Std. D. = 0.38) indicating to that essay-based assessments got consensus on agreement among the experts.

At the level of each item in this domain, the results based on this table revealed as follows:
The experts strongly agreed that essay-based assessments were highly effective in (9 of 10) items indicating to consensus on agreement among the experts and slight agreement for (one of 10) items that it was effective, whereas there was no any ineffective item in this domain.

The highest rank went to the first item in this domain namely "Essay assessments are essential for developing critical thinking in writing." with mean of (M. = 4.78) and standard deviation of (Std. D. =0.42).

Whereas the seventh item namely (Essay-based assessments encourage students to visualize fictional and real images.) got the lowest rank with mean of (3.81) and standard deviation of (0.56).

Therefore, with reference to the table of the first domain, essay-based assessments, the experts strongly agreed that (9) out of (10) items were highly effective namely: "Essay assessments are essential for developing critical thinking in writing.", "Essay assessments enhance students' ability to construct logical arguments.", Essay-based assessments are Highly Effective for students' writing skills development.", "Essay-based assessments increase students' concentration and performance in comprehensive writing skills.", "Essay-based assessment provide useful feedback for developing students' writing"., "Essay-based assessments lead students incorporate vivid and unique ideas.", "Essay-based assessments lead students to practice writing process.", "Essay-based assessments can be better integrated into formative and summative writing exercises.", "Essay-based assessments are more required to enhance and evaluate students' writing skills at university level.". The numbers of these items were (3), (4), (8), (9), (10), (6), (5), (2), and (1). The means of these nine items received (4.30), (4. 33), (4.41), (4.44), (4.48), (4.52), (4.52), (4.52), and (4.78) respectively.

Generally, it was clear from the results of this domain that the experts strongly agreed that essay-based assessments were highly effective for evaluating students' writing skills. The overall mean score was (4.41) and the standard deviation was (S.D. = 0.38) indicating to the effectiveness of essay-based assessments at the university level. The highest-rated item was the essential role of essays-based assessments in developing critical thinking mean of (M. = 4.78). Essay-based assessments were also highly rated for their ability to enhance logical argument construction with mean of (M. = 4.52), which directly lead to writing skills development with mean of (M. = 4.52), and increase students concentration and performance with mean of (M. = 4.52). The ability to provide useful feedback with mean of (M. = 4.48) and to help students incorporate vivid ideas when writing with mean of (M. = 4.44) were also seen as major strengths. The lowest mean, though still effective, was for "Essay-based assessments encourage students to visualize fictional and real images." encouraging students to visualize images when writing with mean of (M. = 3.81).

Table 2: Experts' Perceptions Regarding Effectiveness of Objective Assessments

This table showed that the means of the second domain regarding the effectiveness of objective assessments ranged from (4.33) to (3.44). The total mean of this domain was (3.74) and standard deviation was (Std. D. = 0.61) indicating to that the experts had positive perceptions regarding the effectiveness of objective assessments.

The experts' perceptions regarding objective assessments were positive in which (9 of 11) items in this domain were effective, (one of 11) items was highly effective and (one of 11) items was moderately effective.

The highest rank went to the item "Objective assessments are effective tools for evaluating students' grammatical accuracy." with mean of (4.33) and standard deviation of (Std. D. =0.48).

The lowest rank went to the items "Students face no writing challenges when using objective assessment." with a mean of (3.33) and standard deviation of (1.39).

At the level of each item of this domain, table 2 revealed that the experts perceived objective assessments as effective in which the overall mean was (M. = 3.74) and standard deviation of the whole items was (S.D. = 0.61), but with significant limitations regarding their application for writing skills evaluation. The results also showed that objective assessments primary strength was seen in evaluating grammatical accuracy with mean of (M. = 4.33) and helping to develop students' vocabulary with mean of (M. = 4.19). However, the experts strongly indicated to limitations of objective assessments for comprehensive writing development with mean of (M. = 3.59), objective assessments were unable to develop students' writing self-assessment with mean of (M. = 3.44), and objective assessments failing to help students identify gaps in understanding writing techniques with mean of (M. = 3.85). A notable finding in the results of this domain was that the experts had positive perceptions on whether these assessments were more suitable for pre-university level with mean of (M. = 3.63), proposing a potential place for them in foundational learning.

Table 3: Experts' Perceptions Regarding Comparative Analysis of Both Assessments

It is also clear from table 3 that the means of domain 3, the comparative analysis for both assessments ranged from (4.33) to (3.33) in which the total mean of this domain was (3.91) and standard deviation was (Std. D. = 0.43). These results showed that the experts' had positive perceptions that essay-based assessments could develop students' creativity better than objective assessments, in which this item was effective. However, the results showed that the experts expressed highly effective perceptions that a combination of both assessment types (objective + essay) for holistic writing evaluation.

Table 3 showed that the experts' perceptions were highly effective in (4 of 10) items, effective in (4 of 10) items, and moderately effective in (2 of 10) items. Whereas the item, "Essay-based assessments can develop students' creativity better than objective assessments.", got highest rank in this domain with mean of (4.33) and standard deviation of (Std. D. = 0.73), the lowest rank went to the item, "Essay-based assessments reduce students' anxiety about writing tasks compared to objective assessments." with mean of (3.33) and standard deviation of (Std. D. = 1.18).

In a direct comparison, the results of domain 3 showed that the experts clearly had positive perceptions that essay-based assessments were highly effective for developing creativity with mean of (M. = 4.33), providing a better opportunity for comprehensive evaluation for students' writing skill and for helping students to visualize ideas when writing with means of (M. = 4.30). It is also clear from table 3 that the second highest-rated item overall in this domain asserted that "A combination of both assessment types is ideal of both assessment types (objective + essay) for holistic writing evaluation with mean of (M. = 4.33) indicating to the effectiveness of a balanced approach. Table 3 also showed that the experts had mixed opinions that essay-based assessments could reduce anxiety with mean of (M. = 3.33) indicating to essay-based assessments were moderately effective in reducing students' anxiety compared to objective assessments proposing that the challenges of essay writing were recognized. The results of domain 3 also revealed that the experts clearly had positive perceptions that essay-based assessments and objective assessments were effective with overall mean of (M. = 3.91) for holistic writing development.

Results

Related to Statistical Differences in the Scores of Experts' Perceptions

The second question in this study concerns statistical differences scores of the experts' responses, the results revealed no statistically significant differences in the scores of the experts' responses according to their academic titles, years of experience, and proficiencies. Hence, each one of these variables was discussed separately.

Table 4: Differences According to the Experts' Academic Titles

Tables 4, 5 and 6 employ ANOVA tests to determine if there were statistically significant difference in experts' perceptions according to their academic titles, years of experience and proficiencies.

To begin with, differences according to the experts' academic titles for essay-based assessments domain, table 4 revealed that a statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=3.34), and the significance level reached (P = 0.02). This indicated that the experts' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of essay-based assessments varied significantly across different academic titles (e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and master lecturer). When it comes to differences according to the experts' academic titles for objective assessments, no statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=1.46), and the significance level reached (P = 0.25). This indicated that the experts' perceptions of objective assessments were consistent across all academic titles. In terms of the third domain namely, comparative analysis, a statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=4.17), and the significance level reached (P = 0.01). The experts' perceptions on the comparative value of essays versus objective assessments differed significantly according to their academic title.

Table 5: Differences According to the Experts' Years of Experience

Concerning differences according to the experts' years of experience for essay-based assessments domain, a statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=2.65), and the significance level reached (P = 0.04). The experts' years of experience influenced their perceptions of how essay-based assessments were effective for writing development. When it comes to differences according to the experts' years of experience for objective assessments, no statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=1.40), and the significance level reached (P = 0.28). This indicated that the experts' perceptions regarding objective assessments were uniform regardless of experience level. In terms of the third domain namely, comparative analysis, a statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=3.44), and the significance level reached (P = 0.01). The preference for one assessment type over the other was significantly influenced by the number of years an expert had been in the field.

Table 6: Differences According to the Experts' Proficiencies

With regard to differences according to the experts' proficiencies for essay-based assessments, no statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=1.47), and the significance level reached (P = 0.24). The experts from different proficiencies largely agreed on the effectiveness of essay-based assessments. Regarding differences according to the experts' major for objective assessments, no statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=1.31), and the significance level reached (P = 0.32). The experts' perceptions of objective assessments were also consistent across the different proficiencies of the experts. In terms of differences according to the experts' major for a comparative analysis, the results also showed that no statistically significant difference was found. The value of F reached (F=0.95), and the significance level reached (P = 0.52). The experts' clearly had positive perceptions that essay-based assessments were highly effective more than objective assessments, or that a combination is ideal, was shared across experts from different proficiencies. These results indicated that the experts in the three variables (academic rank, years of experience, and major) had the same degree of agreement and disagreement throughout the whole variables of the questionnaire.

The Open-ended Questions in the Questionnaire

In terms of the qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses, a thematic analysis reinforced the quantitative data as follows:

The first open-ended question asked, "Which writing skill dimensions were not adequately covered by either assessment type?" the experts provided a range of responses, but several clear themes points regarding underemphasized skills and the balance of assessment methods. Generally, writing skill dimensions identified as demanding more attention, and the experts pointed to the following dimensions that were often not adequately assessed:

1.    Coherence and cohesion were explicitly mentioned as a key area should focus on highlighting the importance of how ideas were logically connected and structured.

2.    Multiple experts mentioned dimensions related to the process of writing not just the final product. These process-oriented skills included planning and ideation such as getting the main idea, brainstorming, and outlining. Process collaboration or peer review skills was also included as another process-oriented skill.

3.    The third dimension was higher-order thinking skills such as critical thinking and problem solving indicating that such specific skills should be addressed in many assessments.

4.    The fourth dimension, practical genre application, concerned the ability to write effectively in different real-world genres. Practical genre application was identified as an important skill to be incorporated in many assessments as well. Foundational mechanics was one of those dimensions in which some experts highlighted ongoing requirements in areas like spelling and the mechanics of the actual writing process.

In addition, the experts highlighted a consensus on balancing assessment methods, and a mixed, eclectic approach was superior with strong, clear agreement on it as the best approach to assessment. The overwhelming consensus was that neither purely objective nor purely essay-based assessments were sufficient independently. Experts repeatedly used expressions or statements such as "using both the strategies was much better than using only one.", "It should include both.", "There should be a balanced use of essay-based and objective assessments.", and "It was prefer to use them as a mixed approach."

With regard to strengths and weaknesses acknowledged, one expert concisely captured a key reason for this balance: "Objective assessment doesn't account for learner individuality," implying that essay-based assessments were necessary to capture a student's unique voice and thought process. On the contrary, objective assessments could effectively evaluate key foundational knowledge. However, the concept of multidimensional assessment was explicitly recommended as a valid and effective method for capturing a full range of writing skills. In conclusion, focusing on all dimensions were valued, so several experts stated that a variety of all writing skills must be incorporated in many assessments.

In terms of the second open-ended question, "Additional comments on balancing assessments in university curricula", some additional key insights were considered. Some experts emphasized the foundational link between reading skill and writing indicating to the more students read, the better they write. Some experts stated that certain skills, like expository writing, were particularly suitable for advanced learners indicating to the necessity to be aware of the target audience. Considering the need for practice, a simple but crucial point was made that more practice was essential for writing development. A thematic analysis also reinforced the quantitative data as follows:

Lack of objective assessments respondents consistently pointed out that objective tests failed to measure critical thinking, creativity, coherence, cohesion, lexical development, fluency, and the writing process. The "ideal blend" was the most common theme, directly supporting the highest-rated statement, which was the need for a mixed or balanced approach or multidimensional assessment were very important. Regarding process over product, several experts commented on the need for assessment to focus on the writing process (drafting, revising) rather than just focusing on the final product. When it comes to level-specific application, a nuanced view emerged that objective assessments might be suitable for elementary or level one students in terms of grammar and vocabulary drills, for example, while essay-based assessments could be essential for advanced university-level writing.

Findings

The findings are presented in three parts: first, a descriptive summary of the experts' key perceptions; second, a structured comparison of the core similarities and differences between assessment types based on the data and literature; and third, an interpretive commentary on the major themes.

First, expert consensus highlighted distinct strengths and weaknesses for each assessment format. The strongest perceived advantage of essay-based assessments was their superior capacity to promote critical thinking and logical argumentation—skills deemed essential for advanced academic writing. Experts further noted that essays excel in developing holistic writing skills by focusing on both the final product and the writing process, while also encouraging unique ideas and facilitating valuable, personalized feedback.

Second, in contrast, objective assessments were primarily recognized for their utility in evaluating foundational, lower-order skills such as grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. However, experts agreed they fall short in assessing higher-level writing competencies. Major cited shortcomings included a lack of capacity to gauge deep comprehension, a tendency toward repetitiveness, and an inability to support the development of student self-assessment. A significant conclusion was the strong expert endorsement of a blended assessment model. While essays provide necessary depth, a strategic mix of formats was deemed essential for a well-rounded evaluation of writing proficiency. The analysis further suggested that neither format alone was perceived to consistently reduce student assessment anxiety.

Both assessment types, aim to measure core components of writing competency, including grammar, vocabulary, organization, and critical thinking (Masrul, 2015; Natasha & Shqipe, 2024). Essay-based assessments emphasize holistic, constructed responses to evaluate higher-order skills such as creativity, coherence, and argumentation. Objective assessments rely on discrete, selected-response items to measure specific knowledge, linguistic conventions, and rule-based aspects of writing.

Both approaches face challenges related to reliability and subjectivity in their implementation. In essay-based assessments, subjectivity primarily arises from rater bias and inconsistencies in scoring, particularly when rubrics are interpreted differently across evaluators (Kiasi, 2017; Rezaei & Lovorn, 2010). In objective assessments, subjectivity is embedded earlier in the assessment process, specifically in item design and standard-setting, where expert judgment is required to define correct responses and establish cut scores (Davis-Becker et al., 2011; Fisne et al., 2022). Both approaches seek to produce valid measurement outcomes but differ in their priorities. Essay-based assessments prioritize construct validity and authentic representation of writing tasks, even if this comes at the expense of scoring (Moss, 1994).

Third, in contrast, objective assessments prioritize scoring reliability and measurement precision, often through psychometric models, which can restrict the breadth and depth of the writing construct being assessed (Fisne et al., 2022; Khatimin et al., 2013).

The experts' strong recommendation for a blended model directly responds to the fundamental tensions between the reliability offered by objective methods and the ecological validity offered by essays. The call to focus on often-overlooked skills like coherence and the writing process indicates a pedagogical shift from a purely product-based assessment to one that also values the process-based development of writing. Furthermore, the neutral findings on anxiety suggest that assessment-related stress may be less linked to format type and more to factors like task clarity, preparation, and perceived fairness, which are relevant to both; essay-based and objective assessments.

Discussion

The findings reaffirm widely held views regarding the role of essay-based assessments in higher education, particularly their alignment with universities' core objectives of fostering critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and effective written communication. While such conclusions may appear self-evident especially within established U.S. academic contexts where writing-intensive assessment is already commonplace the significance of these results lies in their empirical confirmation and nuanced differentiation between assessment purposes across all educational levels.

The data suggest that essays function not only as evaluative tools but also as integral learning experiences that support higher-order cognitive development in ways that objective assessments cannot fully replicate. Objective tests, however, should not be dismissed entirely. Instead, their value appears most pronounced in diagnosing discrete, lower-order skills such as grammar, vocabulary, and basic content knowledge, particularly at pre-university or early instructional stages. This distinction supports a deliberately balanced assessment framework in which objective measures are used strategically to support foundational learning, while essay-based assessments are prioritized for evaluating complex reasoning, synthesis, and argumentation.

Importantly, the results underscore that writing proficiency is multidimensional and therefore resistant to assessment through a single method. A combination of assessment formats better reflects the complexity of academic writing and allows instructors to evaluate both technical accuracy and intellectual depth. In terms of student affect, the neutral ratings on anxiety suggest that the perceived stress associated with essay writing may be offset by the ambiguity and guessing often involved in objective testing. This finding highlights the critical role of assessment transparency: clearly articulated expectations, effective prompts, and structured preparation can mitigate anxiety across assessment types.

For university-level writing instruction, these findings reinforce the need for curricula centered on authentic, writing-intensive tasks rather than reliance on decontextualized testing formats. Therefore, writing tutors and instructors should emphasize sustained practice, explicit guidance, and familiarity with varied assessment forms. Moreover, the study highlights the importance of well-designed essay prompts and grading rubrics, which not only enhance assessment validity but also address practical concerns related to grading workload and consistency.

The ANOVA results further revealed a strong consensus among experts regarding the limited effectiveness of objective assessments for holistic evaluation of writing, regardless of faculty academic rank or years of experience. However, perceptions of essay-based assessment varied meaningfully according to academic seniority. Senior academics tended to emphasize essays' long-term intellectual benefits and their role in cultivating critical engagement, whereas junior lecturers were more attuned to pragmatic challenges such as grading demands and ensuring reliable feedback.

Taken together, these findings point to the value of sustained mentorship and collegial dialogue around assessment practices. Supporting early-career educators in navigating the practical complexities of essay-based assessment may help bridge the gap between pedagogical ideals and instructional realities, ultimately strengthening assessment literacy and teaching effectiveness across academic contexts.

Conclusion

This study affirms that a balanced, multi-faceted approach is paramount for effectively assessing and developing writing proficiency at the university level. The findings demonstrate a strong, field-wide consensus on the defined, limited role of objective assessments as diagnostic tools for foundational skills, while revealing that perceptions of essay-based assessments are nuanced and shaped by pedagogical experience. Senior academics particularly value essays for their irreplaceable role in cultivating critical thinking and long-term intellectual development. Ultimately, the optimal paradigm integrates objective methods sparingly to support learning, while centering the curriculum on authentic, writing-intensive tasks. To mitigate anxiety and maximize effectiveness, the focus should shift from debating format superiority between multiple choice and essays to ensuring clarity, support, and transparent evaluation criteria for all assessment types. Such conclusion opens a new line of inquiry that future research should use qualitative methods such as interviews among university students to explore their perceptions regarding essay-based and objective assessments comparing both techniques in developing and evaluating their writing skills.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express his sincere gratitude to his colleagues and all participants who contributed to this study through their valuable cooperation and participation. The author also acknowledges the support and encouragement received from his academic peers throughout the research process.

Funding Sources

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) do not have any conflict of interest

Data Availability Statement

The manuscript incorporates all datasets produced or examined throughout this research study.

Ethics Statement

This research did not involve human participants, animal subjects, or any material that requires ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

This study did not involve human participants, and therefore, informed consent was not required.

Clinical Trial Registration

This research does not involve any clinical trials.

Permission to reproduce material from other sources

Not Applicable

Author Contributions

The sole author was responsible for the conceptualization, methodology, data collection, analysis, writing, and final approval of the manuscript.

References

1. Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Flash, P., & Housley Gaffney, A. L. (2012). Big rubrics and weird genres: The futility of using generic assessment tools across diverse instructional contexts. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1). http://journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article=57
2. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
3. Davis-Becker, S. L., Buckendahl, C. W., & Gerrow, J. (2011). A Comparison of the Results from Two Standard-Setting Methods. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2011.532417
   CrossRef
4. De Haan, P., & van Esch, K. (2008). The assessment of writing in Spanish as a foreign language: The case of the C van C. Language Testing, 25(4), 545–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208094276
   CrossRef
5. Fisne, F. N., Sata, M., & Karakaya, ?. (2022). Standard Setting in Academic Writing Assessment through Objective Standard Setting Method. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1059304
   CrossRef
6. Fisne, F. T., Güngör, M. N., & Guerra, L. (2022). Objective Standard Setting in Language Testing: Using a New Method to Set Cut-off Scores for an L2 Academic Writing Test. Language Testing, 39(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211022918
7. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 162-189). Cambridge University Press.
   CrossRef
8. Huot, B. (2002). (Re)Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Utah State University Press.
   CrossRef
9. Khatimin, N., Aziz, A. A., Zahar, T. N. A. T., & Rashid, K. A. (2013). Development of a Standard Setting Method for a University Competency Test. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.091
   CrossRef
10. Kiasi, M. A. (2017). Academic Writing Assessment: A Generic Encounter. Porta Linguarum, 27, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.54033
    CrossRef
11. Masrul, M. (2015). An Analysis of Students' Ability and Problem in Writing Argumentative Essay. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1–10.
12. Moss, P. A. (1994). Can There Be Validity Without Reliability? Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023002005
    CrossRef
13. Natasha, P., & Shqipe, H. (2024). The Essay Assessment Criteria in the Maturity Exam: A Comparative Study - Albania, United Kingdom, Italy. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.36941/jesr-2024-0135
    CrossRef
14. O'Neill, P., Moore, C., & Huot, B. (2009). A guide to college writing assessment. Utah State University Press.
    CrossRef
15. Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 183-206).
    CrossRef
16. Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.003
    CrossRef
17. Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101).
    CrossRef
18. Stone, G.E., Koskey, K.L., & Sondergeld, T.A. (2011). Comparing construct definition in the Angoff and objective standard setting models: Playing in a house of cards without a full deck. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(6), 942-962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410394338
    CrossRef