Skip to main content Skip to journal navigation menu Skip to site footer
contact@ukscip.com
Article

Developing a Blended Digital Feedback Module for Literature-Based EFL Writing: A CEFR-Aligned Design and Development Study

Ting Li ORCID ,  Azlina Abdul Aziz ORCID ,  Nur Ainil Sulaiman ORCID
    Received: 8 May 2026; Revised: 1 June 2026; Accepted: 22 June 2026; Published: 12 November 2026

    Abstract

    This study reports the design and development of a blended digital writing feedback module for literature-based English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. Guided by a Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) aligned design and development orientation, the study responded to the need for structured support in helping undergraduate EFL learners produce, revise, and reflect on personal responses to literary texts. The module was developed within a British Literature and Appreciation course at a public university in China, where learners were expected to engage with literary texts, construct personal interpretations, and improve written responses through feedback. Adopting a Design and Development Research Type I orientation, the module integrated Reader-Response Theory, Sociocultural Theory, CEFR-oriented writing descriptors, automated writing feedback, teacher-supplied feedback, and a Presentation–Practice–Production–Reproduction (PPPR) instructional sequence. During development, learner needs, literature-based writing requirements, CEFR-informed expectations, and blended feedback functions were translated into staged instructional procedures. The module was further refined through expert review and examined through implementation-informed evidence from 32 post-module learner reflective journals. Findings suggest that the module supported learners’ perceived engagement with literary interpretation, revision awareness, and feedback-informed writing development. Automated feedback was useful for immediate language-level revision, while teacher feedback remained important for interpretation, organization, and reflective response quality. The study contributes a design and development account of how blended digital writing feedback may be organized as part of a teacher-mediated feedback ecology for literature-based EFL writing instruction.

    Keywords

    References

    1. 1. Hyland, K.; Hyland, F.; Ware, P.D.; et al. Electronic feedback and second language writing. In Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 105–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.008
    2. 2. Ngo, T.T.N.; Chen, H.H.J.; Lai, K.K.W. The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation in EFL/ESL writing: A three-level meta-analysis. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2024, 32, s727–744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2096642
    3. 3. Fleckenstein, J.; Liebenow, L.W.; Meyer, J. Automated feedback and writing: A multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students’ performance. Front. Artif. Intell. 2023, 6, 1162454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1162454
    4. 4. Barrot, J.S. Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2023, 36, 584–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
    5. 5. Wei, P.; Wang, X.; Dong, H. The impact of automated writing evaluation on second language writing skills of Chinese EFL learners: A randomized controlled trial. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1249991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1249991
    6. 6. Rahimi, M.; Fathi, J.; Zou, D. Exploring the impact of automated written corrective feedback on the academic writing skills of EFL learners: An activity theory perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025, 30, 2691–2735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12896-5
    7. 7. Council of Europe. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment—Companion Volume; Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, France, 2020.
    8. 8. Deygers, B.; Zeidler, B.; Vilcu, D.; et al. One framework to unite them all? Use of the CEFR in European university entrance policies. Lang. Assess. Q. 2018, 15, 3–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1261350
    9. 9. Figueras, N.; Little, D.; O’Sullivan, B. Aligning Language Education with the CEFR: A Handbook. CEFR J. Res. Pract. 2022, 5, 5–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.CEFR5-1
    10. 10. Rosenblatt, L.M. Writing and Reading: The Transactional Theory; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Urbana, IL, USA, 1988.
    11. 11. Vygotsky, L.S.; Cole, M. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
    12. 12. Prior, P. A sociocultural theory of writing. In Handbook of Writing Research; MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., Fitzgerald, J., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 54–66.
    13. 13. Zou, D.; Xie, H.; Wang, F.L. Effects of technology enhanced peer, teacher and self-feedback on students’ collaborative writing, critical thinking tendency and engagement in learning. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2023, 35, 166–185. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09337-y
    14. 14. Richey, R.C.; Klein, J.D. Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007.
    15. 15. McKenney, S.; Reeves, T.C. Conducting Educational Design Research, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
    16. 16. Branch, R.M. Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
    17. 17. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    18. 18. Hyland, F.; Hyland, K. Feedback on second language students’ writing. Lang. Teach. 2006, 39, 83–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
    19. 19. Zhang, T.; Mao, Z. Exploring the development of student feedback literacy in the second language writing classroom. Assess. Writ. 2023, 55, 100697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100697
    20. 20. Zhang, Z.; Aubrey, S.; Huang, X.; et al. The role of generative AI and hybrid feedback in improving L2 writing skills: A comparative study. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 2025, 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2503890
    21. 21. Weidlich, J.; Gotsch, F.; Schudel, K.; et al. Teacher, peer, or AI? Comparing effects of feedback sources in higher education. Comput. Educ. Open 2025, 9, 100300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2025.100300
    22. 22. Ranalli, J. Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2018, 31, 653–674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
    23. 23. Cavalcanti, A.P.; Barbosa, A.; Carvalho, R.; et al. Automatic feedback in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2021, 2, 100027. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100027
    24. 24. Wang, Z.; Han, F. The effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on cognitive and psychological aspects of foreign language writing: A mixed-methods research. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 909802. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.909802
    25. 25. Meyer, J.; Jansen, T.; Schiller, R.; et al. Using LLMs to bring evidence-based feedback into the classroom: AI-generated feedback increases secondary students’ text revision, motivation, and positive emotions. Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell. 2024, 6, 100199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100199
    26. 26. Sperber, L.; MacArthur, M.; Minnillo, S.; et al. Peer and AI Review + Reflection (PAIRR): A human-centered approach to formative assessment. Comput. Compos. 2025, 76, 102921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2025.102921
    27. 27. Pozdniakov, S.; Brazil, J.; Banihashem, S.K.; et al. AI assistance in peer feedback provision: Pedagogically sound, but minimally adopted. Comput. Educ. 2026, 248, 105591. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2026.105591
    28. 28. Carless, D.; Boud, D. The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2018, 43, 1315–1325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
    29. 29. Dawson, P.; Carless, D.; Lee, P.P.W. Authentic feedback: Supporting learners to engage in disciplinary feedback practices. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 286–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1769022
    ×