Effects of feedback on deep-level features of argumentative writing over multiple drafts: Insights from an intervention study with secondary EFL students.
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of feedback on deep-level features of argumentative writing over multiple drafts: Insights from an intervention study with secondary EFL students. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Peltzer, Katrin1 (AUTHOR) katrin.peltzer@uni-muenster.de, Lira Lorca, Alina2 (AUTHOR) alina.lira.lorca@uni-oldenburg.de, Krause, Ulrike-Marie2 (AUTHOR) ulrike.krause@uni-oldenburg.de, Graham, Steve3 (AUTHOR) steve.graham@asu.edu, Busse, Vera1 (AUTHOR) vbusse@uni-muenster.de |
| Source: | Reading & Writing. Jan2026, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p333-364. 32p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Formative evaluation, *Revision (Writing process), *Secondary education, *Limited English-proficient students, *Evaluation methodology, Essays |
| Abstract: | Providing feedback on writing is a vital task in language education, yet its time-consuming nature may lead to limited feedback in large language classes at secondary schools. Rubric and exemplar feedback is more time-efficient than traditional in-text comments, yet its effect on written argumentation requires further investigation. Our experimental study (N = 202 EFL students) addressed this research lacuna and examined the effects of a learning unit with three types of written formative feedback (EG1: rubric + exemplar, EG2: in-text comments, EG3: rubric + exemplar and in-text comments) on written argumentation. EGs were compared to a control group, which received the learning unit without additional feedback. We used an analytic rating to assess the development of deep-level features (structure and coherence) in 808 argumentative essays (across four measurement points comprising writing and revision phases). Results revealed progress for all groups, with EG1 (rubric + exemplar) outperforming the control group at measurement point three and outperforming EG2 and the control group at measurement point four. Progress regarding rebuttals was largest in EG1. Our findings indicate that rubric + exemplar feedback benefits written argumentation, in particular the inclusion of rebuttals, and that more feedback does not necessarily result in more writing improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Reading & Writing is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 191377948 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Effects of feedback on deep-level features of argumentative writing over multiple drafts: Insights from an intervention study with secondary EFL students. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Peltzer%2C+Katrin%22">Peltzer, Katrin</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> katrin.peltzer@uni-muenster.de</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lira+Lorca%2C+Alina%22">Lira Lorca, Alina</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> alina.lira.lorca@uni-oldenburg.de</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Krause%2C+Ulrike-Marie%22">Krause, Ulrike-Marie</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> ulrike.krause@uni-oldenburg.de</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Graham%2C+Steve%22">Graham, Steve</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> steve.graham@asu.edu</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Busse%2C+Vera%22">Busse, Vera</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> vbusse@uni-muenster.de</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Reading+%26+Writing%22">Reading & Writing</searchLink>. Jan2026, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p333-364. 32p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Formative+evaluation%22">Formative evaluation</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Revision+%28Writing+process%29%22">Revision (Writing process)</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+education%22">Secondary education</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Limited+English-proficient+students%22">Limited English-proficient students</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+methodology%22">Evaluation methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Essays%22">Essays</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Providing feedback on writing is a vital task in language education, yet its time-consuming nature may lead to limited feedback in large language classes at secondary schools. Rubric and exemplar feedback is more time-efficient than traditional in-text comments, yet its effect on written argumentation requires further investigation. Our experimental study (N = 202 EFL students) addressed this research lacuna and examined the effects of a learning unit with three types of written formative feedback (EG1: rubric + exemplar, EG2: in-text comments, EG3: rubric + exemplar and in-text comments) on written argumentation. EGs were compared to a control group, which received the learning unit without additional feedback. We used an analytic rating to assess the development of deep-level features (structure and coherence) in 808 argumentative essays (across four measurement points comprising writing and revision phases). Results revealed progress for all groups, with EG1 (rubric + exemplar) outperforming the control group at measurement point three and outperforming EG2 and the control group at measurement point four. Progress regarding rebuttals was largest in EG1. Our findings indicate that rubric + exemplar feedback benefits written argumentation, in particular the inclusion of rebuttals, and that more feedback does not necessarily result in more writing improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Reading & Writing is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=191377948 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11145-025-10638-8 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 32 StartPage: 333 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Formative evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Revision (Writing process) Type: general – SubjectFull: Secondary education Type: general – SubjectFull: Limited English-proficient students Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation methodology Type: general – SubjectFull: Essays Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Effects of feedback on deep-level features of argumentative writing over multiple drafts: Insights from an intervention study with secondary EFL students. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Peltzer, Katrin – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lira Lorca, Alina – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Krause, Ulrike-Marie – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Graham, Steve – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Busse, Vera IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Text: Jan2026 Type: published Y: 2026 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 09224777 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 39 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading & Writing Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
