Pedagogical translanguaging in focused written feedback: Feature-specific uptake, longitudinal accuracy, and learner perceptions

IF 7.6 1区文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-10-16 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2026.101127

Bakheet S. Almatrafi

{"title":"Pedagogical translanguaging in focused written feedback: Feature-specific uptake, longitudinal accuracy, and learner perceptions","authors":"Bakheet S. Almatrafi","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2026.101127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The formative value of written feedback (WF) depends partly on whether learners can interpret and apply metalinguistic information, yet feedback language remains underexamined in EFL contexts. This quantitative-priority mixed-methods quasi-experimental study compared revision uptake, subsequent target-feature accuracy, and learner perceptions across English-only WF and pedagogical translanguaging written feedback (PT-WF). Seventy Saudi EFL university students at CEFR B1 completed the pre-test and post-test, and 55 completed the four-week delayed post-test. Sixty-two participants provided questionnaire ratings, and eight joined two focus groups. Both conditions received focused WF on subject–verb agreement, articles, and cohesive markers. Every PT-WF marginal comment combined Arabic and English, whereas English-only WF provided the same feedback types entirely in English. Revision uptake did not differ between conditions for subject–verb agreement or articles. However, cohesive-marker uptake under PT-WF (M = 0.86) was more than double that under English-only WF (M = 0.41). Longitudinally, total errors declined under PT-WF and remained lower at the delayed post-test, whereas they increased under English-only WF. Participants rated PT-WF as easier to understand and apply, although some preferred English-only WF. The findings position feedback language as a formative-assessment design variable whose value may depend on the linguistic and interpretive demands of the target feature.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"70 ","pages":"Article 101127"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293526001157","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The formative value of written feedback (WF) depends partly on whether learners can interpret and apply metalinguistic information, yet feedback language remains underexamined in EFL contexts. This quantitative-priority mixed-methods quasi-experimental study compared revision uptake, subsequent target-feature accuracy, and learner perceptions across English-only WF and pedagogical translanguaging written feedback (PT-WF). Seventy Saudi EFL university students at CEFR B1 completed the pre-test and post-test, and 55 completed the four-week delayed post-test. Sixty-two participants provided questionnaire ratings, and eight joined two focus groups. Both conditions received focused WF on subject–verb agreement, articles, and cohesive markers. Every PT-WF marginal comment combined Arabic and English, whereas English-only WF provided the same feedback types entirely in English. Revision uptake did not differ between conditions for subject–verb agreement or articles. However, cohesive-marker uptake under PT-WF (M = 0.86) was more than double that under English-only WF (M = 0.41). Longitudinally, total errors declined under PT-WF and remained lower at the delayed post-test, whereas they increased under English-only WF. Participants rated PT-WF as easier to understand and apply, although some preferred English-only WF. The findings position feedback language as a formative-assessment design variable whose value may depend on the linguistic and interpretive demands of the target feature.

查看原文本刊更多论文

集中书面反馈中的教学译语：特征特定摄取，纵向准确性和学习者感知

书面反馈的形成价值部分取决于学习者是否能够解释和应用元语言信息，然而反馈语言在英语语境中的研究仍然不足。这项定量优先混合方法准实验研究比较了纯英语书面反馈和教学性翻译语言书面反馈（PT-WF）的复习吸收、后续目标特征准确性和学习者感知。70名沙特英语大学学生在CEFR B1完成了前测和后测，55名完成了延迟四周的后测。62名参与者提供了问卷评分，8人加入了两个焦点小组。两种情况下，WF都集中在主谓一致、冠词和衔接标记上。PT-WF的每条边缘评论都结合了阿拉伯语和英语，而纯英语的WF则完全用英语提供相同的反馈类型。在主谓一致的条件和冠词的条件下，对修订的吸收没有差异。然而，PT-WF组内聚物标记物摄取（M = 0.86）是纯英语WF组（M = 0.41）的两倍多。纵向上，PT-WF组总错误率下降，延迟后测时仍保持较低水平，而纯英语WF组总错误率上升。参与者认为PT-WF更容易理解和应用，尽管有些人更喜欢英语版本的WF。研究结果将反馈语言定位为形成性评估设计变量，其价值可能取决于目标特征的语言和解释需求。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Assessing Writing Multiple-

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

17.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.