writing-feedback
Filtering by topic writing-feedback(3)Clear all filters
- PaperAssessing Writing14 Jul 2026
Development and evaluation of a student feedback agency scale
Jiaxian Ye, Lawrence Jun Zhang, Helen R. Dixon
A Student Feedback Agency Scale (SFAS) was developed and validated in two phases using Chinese international postgraduate students. Principal Component Analysis yielded six components (Action Taking, Goal Setting, Processing, Generating, Self-efficacy, Seeking), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis confirmed good model fit and structural invariance across gender, academic level, and discipline. The instrument provides a psychometrically sound tool for measuring student agency in writing feedback processes.
Original abstract
Feedback agency is a key concept in enhancing student writing performance. While growing attention has been paid to student feedback agency, existing research remains largely theoretical and qualitative. As a result, there is a lack of psychometrically supported instruments to measure this construct. To address this gap, the present two-phase study aimed to develop and evaluate a Student Feedback Agency Scale (SFAS), drawing on social cognitive theory. In the development stage, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted on a sample of 235 Chinese international postgraduate students. The results yielded a 23-item SFAS comprising six components: Action Taking, Goal Setting, Processing, Generating, Self-efficacy, and Seeking. Using an independent sample of 349 participants from the same population, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted in the evaluation stage. The results supported a good model fit (RMSEA = .055, IFI = .923, TLI = .908, and CFI = .922). Multi-group CFAs further confirmed the structural invariance across gender, academic level, and discipline. Overall, the findings provide psychometric evidence to support the interpretation and use of the SFAS scores to measure student agency in writing feedback processes. Based on these results, the factor structure and subscales of the SFAS are discussed, and implications are outlined.
- PaperAssessing Writing30 Jun 2026
Navigating the emotional journey of writing feedback: A scoping review of empirical studies (2005–2025)
Wenlei Zhu, Yao Zheng
This scoping review synthesizes empirical studies from 2005 to 2025 on the emotional dimensions of writing feedback, exploring how emotions influence the feedback process and outcomes. It maps key themes, theories, and gaps in research on both givers' and receivers' emotional experiences.
- PaperLanguage Learning & Technology29 Jun 2026
Generative AI, visual scaffolds, and metacognition in EFL writing
Mei-Rong Alice Chen
This study proposed a Generative AI-assisted Visually Guided Progressive (GAI-VGP) writing approach combining visual scaffolds with AI feedback to enhance metacognitive awareness in EFL writing. A quasi-experiment with 58 university students showed significant gains in writing performance, planning, and evaluation strategies, but no improvement in monitoring and limited critical reflection. The findings suggest AI can augment planning and evaluation but may lead to learners outsourcing self-regulation.
Original abstract
Fostering metacognitive awareness and reflective thinking remains a challenge in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing instruction. These cognitive processes are essential for enabling learners to monitor, evaluate, and engage in meaningful self-reflection throughout the writing cycle. Using Flower and Hayes’s cognitive process model and Jasper’s Experience-Reflection-Action framework, this study proposes a Generative AI-assisted Visually Guided Progressive (GAI-VGP) writing approach. This pedagogical design integrates step-by-step visual scaffolds with interactive AI feedback to foreground learner agency and promote reflective engagement. To evaluate this approach, a semester-long quasi-experimental study was conducted with 58 EFL university students. Data sources included pre- and post-writing tests, metacognitive awareness questionnaires, reflective thinking scales, AI chat logs, and reflection notes. The results showed that the GAI-VGP group significantly outperformed the conventional VGP group in writing performance, planning and evaluation strategies, and reflective awareness. Qualitative analyses indicated increased engagement in understanding and reflectively evaluating writing strategies, although critical reflection remained limited across both groups. Although AI significantly enhanced planning and evaluation, monitoring showed no significant gains, with prompt-log evidence revealing a displacement pattern in which learners outsourced real-time regulation to AI validation.