Assessing Writing

Calls for greater learner involvement in assessment have highlighted a need for rating scales that are not only technically sound but also pedagogically meaningful. However, in second language (L2) writing, students are largely absent from scale design, with most instruments being developed by teachers or test developers. Previous co-construction studies have often positioned students as the primary agents, with comparative underuse of teacher expertise and limited curricular alignment. This study addresses this gap by investigating how collaborative agency between teachers and students can inform the development of a rating scale for academic writing in a Saudi higher education context. Drawing on a multi-source framework, four meshed teacher–student focus groups and a follow-up focus group were conducted to negotiate the scale criteria, properties, and level descriptors. Qualitative content analysis revealed both convergence and divergence: while grammar, organization, and development were prioritized, students argued for a stronger recognition of ideas and discourse-level features, whereas teachers emphasized accuracy and feasibility. Through cycles of debate and compromise, the process yielded a five-level analytic rating scale with six criteria grounded in curricular objectives and stakeholder perspectives. This study shows how collaborative agency was enacted through a dialogic process of negotiating and integrating teacher and student perspectives in rating scale development. It extends participatory assessment research in L2 writing by illustrating a context-sensitive, theoretically informed, and curriculum-aligned approach to analytic rating scale co-construction for classroom use.

Second language (L2) writers’ capacity to reason about language choices during revision is theoretically central to advanced writing development, yet few studies trace how this linguistic reasoning emerges in repeated feedback-revision cycles that integrate teacher and AI suggestions. This multi-case, longitudinal mixed-methods study examined how ten L2 learners enacted metalinguistic strategies and developed linguistic reasoning across a 12-week online Academic English program. Triangulated data sources included 1246 feedback revision episodes, pre-post reasoning-task responses, and semi-structured exit interviews. We operationalized linguistic reasoning as the processual construct of interest and treated metalinguistic strategies as observable indicators; reasoning responses were scored with a three-dimensional analytic rubric while revisions and interaction logs were coded thematically and by strategy. Results show a systematic shift from early, correctness-focused edits toward later revisions characterized by coordinated structural comparison, more explicit self-explanation, and integrative argumentation; composite reasoning scores increased, with the largest gains observed on depth of explanation. Process analyses identified recurrent patterns in which alternative-rich feedback coincided with comparison moves, partially divergent suggestions often coincided with more explicit self-explanation, and integrative argumentation involving discourse-level revision became more visible over time. Pedagogical implications are also discussed.

As a key attribute of effective writing, coherence remains challenging to teach in language classrooms, with traditional writing instruction frequently overlooking coherence in favor of discrete, rule-based features. This mixed-methods study investigates the effectiveness of explicit coherence instruction on English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) students’ performance on integrated writing tasks. The study employed a controlled experimental design with 64 upper-intermediate-level undergraduate students at a Chinese university, drawing on Hasan’s Cohesive Harmony theory as the theoretical framework. Half of the participants (n = 32) in the experimental group received explicit instruction on coherence with a focus on cohesive chains and cohesive devices in integrated writing, while the control group (n = 32) received standard paraphrasing instruction. Quantitative analysis revealed that the experimental group showed significant improvements in coherence scores and multiple cohesive chain measures. Qualitative discourse analysis of six students’ writing samples from the experimental group demonstrated varying levels of improvement in writing coherence, with high-performing students showing better use of identity chains and pronoun references. The findings revealed that explicit instruction on coherence significantly improved students’ performance in creating coherent integrated writing, particularly through the development of cohesive chains and appropriate use of cohesive devices. This study underscores the pedagogical value of teaching coherence to enhance writing quality and provides concrete strategies for developing more effective teaching approaches for integrated writing tasks in EFL contexts. • The study examined 64 Chinese EFL students using mixed-methods experimental design. • Cohesive Harmony theory served as the framework for assessing writing coherence. • Explicit instruction significantly improved coherence in integrated writing tasks. • High-performing students demonstrated superior identity chain development.

This research methods article introduces the open source PERSUADE 2.0 corpus. The PERSUADE 2.0 corpus comprises over 25,000 argumentative essays produced by 6th-12th grade students in the United States for 15 prompts on two writing tasks: independent and source-based writing. The PERSUADE 2.0 corpus also provides detailed individual and demographic information for each writer. The goal of the PERSUADE 2.0 corpus is to advance research into relationships between discourse elements, their effectiveness, writing quality, writing tasks and prompts, and demographic and individual differences.

Learning how to write occluded genres is an elusive task (Swales, 1996) – even more so in the case of students writing in a second or additional language. To achieve discourse competence in the use of one of these genres, in this case the ‘statement of purpose’ typical of post-graduate programme admission forms, it is first necessary to fully understand its features at both the macrotextual and microlinguistic levels (Gillaerts, 2003; Bhatia, 2004). This qualitative study focuses on the writing of learners of Spanish as an additional language to analyse whether feedback provided by peers impacts the quality of the statements of purpose they write. Through a dual discourse analysis of their written work and in-class interactions during peer- feedback sessions, our study finds that, when properly trained and using tailored assessment tools, students can use peer-assessment profitably to improve the quality of their statements of purpose, as well as to acquire appropriate metalanguage to guide others. Our results thus reconfirm the beneficial effects of helping students to achieve feedback literacy.

This paper introduces the Persuasive Essays for Rating, Selecting, and Understanding Argumentative and Discourse Elements (PERSUADE) corpus.The PERSUADE corpus is large-scale corpus of writing with annotated discourse elements. The goal of the corpus is to spur the development of new, open-source scoring algorithms that identify discourse elements in argumentative writing to open new avenues for the development of automatic writing evaluation systems that focus more specifically on the semantic and organizational elements of student writing.

Written assessment feedback in higher education has been examined from different perspectives. However, there is limited empirical evidence of how tutors use language to provide assessment feedback on students’ assessed academic writing. By deploying the rarely used Appraisal framework in Systemic Functional Linguistics, this innovative study examined the use of evaluative language by tutors in feedback on undergraduate business students’ academic writing in two assignments at a distance university. The data consisted of 16 tutor assessment feedback summaries on eight students’ written assignments and interviews with those students. The Appraisal system of Attitude (Judgement, Appreciation and Affect) was used to analyse the evaluative language of the summaries. The analysis of student interviews provided insights into their perceptions of tutor feedback, complementing the linguistic analysis. The findings suggest that tutors’ evaluative language was primarily used to judge students rather than to appreciate the assignment, and show their emotional reactions, potentially owing to the distance learning context. Additionally, while most of the feedback was perceived positively, students found certain types of tutor feedback less helpful. The paper has implications for moving assessment feedback research forward through applying the Appraisal framework, improving assessment strategies and tutor formative feedback practices in writing assessment.