View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How to support at-risk writers: Differential effects of formative feedback on argumentative writing and motivation.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How to support at-risk writers: Differential effects of formative feedback on argumentative writing and motivation.
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, Panadero, Ernesto4,5 (AUTHOR) ernesto.panadero@dcu.ie, Busse, Vera1 (AUTHOR) vbusse@uni-muenster.de
Source: Reading & Writing. Mar2026, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p965-1001. 37p.
Subject Terms: *Scoring rubrics, *Composition (Language arts), *Formative evaluation, *Limited English-proficient students, *Academic motivation, Self-efficacy, Essays
Abstract: Formative feedback fosters writing and student motivation, but differential effects on writers with varying achievement levels are under-researched. It remains unclear to what extent time-efficient methods such as rubric and exemplar feedback support less-proficient writers. Our study addresses this gap by comparing the effects of different formative feedback methods on deep-level features in writing, self-efficacy, enjoyment, and feedback perceptions in two groups of secondary school EFL students: students designated at-risk of writing failure (n = 101) and more proficient developing writers (n = 101). We conducted a randomized controlled intervention study with four conditions: EG1 (rubric + exemplar feedback), EG2 (in-text comments), EG3 (rubric + exemplar feedback and in-text comments), and CG1 (learning unit without additional feedback). Findings showed that rubric + exemplar feedback had a differential effect, particularly benefitting at-risk writers. In both achievement-level groups, in-text comments (EG2) led to comparable learning progress as in the control group without additional feedback (CG1). Importantly, more feedback (EG3) only had additional benefits for developing writers, while at-risk writers in EG3 made similar progress to at-risk writers in the control condition. At-risk writers had lower self-efficacy and writing enjoyment, with no significant changes over time, while developing writers experienced slight losses in enjoyment. Both at-risk and developing EFL writers had positive perceptions of all feedback types, though the motivational impact of the feedback was rated lower than its quality. In conclusion, although we did not observe motivational changes, rubric + exemplar feedback seems helpful for at-risk writers and is positively received by students. [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.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 192686536
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How to support at-risk writers: Differential effects of formative feedback on argumentative writing and motivation.
– 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="%22Panadero%2C+Ernesto%22">Panadero, Ernesto</searchLink><relatesTo>4,5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> ernesto.panadero@dcu.ie</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>. Mar2026, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p965-1001. 37p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Scoring+rubrics%22">Scoring rubrics</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Composition+%28Language+arts%29%22">Composition (Language arts)</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Formative+evaluation%22">Formative evaluation</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Limited+English-proficient+students%22">Limited English-proficient students</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+motivation%22">Academic motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self-efficacy%22">Self-efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Essays%22">Essays</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Formative feedback fosters writing and student motivation, but differential effects on writers with varying achievement levels are under-researched. It remains unclear to what extent time-efficient methods such as rubric and exemplar feedback support less-proficient writers. Our study addresses this gap by comparing the effects of different formative feedback methods on deep-level features in writing, self-efficacy, enjoyment, and feedback perceptions in two groups of secondary school EFL students: students designated at-risk of writing failure (n = 101) and more proficient developing writers (n = 101). We conducted a randomized controlled intervention study with four conditions: EG1 (rubric + exemplar feedback), EG2 (in-text comments), EG3 (rubric + exemplar feedback and in-text comments), and CG1 (learning unit without additional feedback). Findings showed that rubric + exemplar feedback had a differential effect, particularly benefitting at-risk writers. In both achievement-level groups, in-text comments (EG2) led to comparable learning progress as in the control group without additional feedback (CG1). Importantly, more feedback (EG3) only had additional benefits for developing writers, while at-risk writers in EG3 made similar progress to at-risk writers in the control condition. At-risk writers had lower self-efficacy and writing enjoyment, with no significant changes over time, while developing writers experienced slight losses in enjoyment. Both at-risk and developing EFL writers had positive perceptions of all feedback types, though the motivational impact of the feedback was rated lower than its quality. In conclusion, although we did not observe motivational changes, rubric + exemplar feedback seems helpful for at-risk writers and is positively received by students. [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=192686536
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-025-10652-w
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 37
        StartPage: 965
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Scoring rubrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Composition (Language arts)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Formative evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Limited English-proficient students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self-efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Essays
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How to support at-risk writers: Differential effects of formative feedback on argumentative writing and motivation.
        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: Panadero, Ernesto
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Busse, Vera
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Text: Mar2026
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09224777
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading & Writing
              Type: main
ResultId 1