Peer evaluation is widely recognized for its educational benefits; however, its reliability and validity, particularly among adolescent second-language (L2) writers at the early stages of English language and literacy development, remain insufficiently explored. This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study investigated the reliability and validity of peer evaluation in English argumentative writing among 35 Grade 10 and 37 Grade 12 students from a public high school in Beijing, China. Twelve of the participating students (six at each grade) were interviewed about the validity, reliability, and value of peer evaluation. The findings indicated that peer evaluations demonstrated high levels of reliability and validity, with peer-assessed writing scores closely aligning with inter-teacher assessments. Notably, variations were observed among Grade 10 students, particularly in the evaluation of lower-order writing skills, such as grammar and vocabulary, which exhibited reduced validity. These results underscore the potential of peer evaluation in assessing higher-order content-level writing across varying levels of L2 English writing proficiency. The study also highlights areas where adolescent L2 writers may require additional support to enhance the effectiveness of peer evaluation practices in English argumentative writing. Implications for improving English argumentative writing instruction and refining peer evaluation strategies in high school L2 English classrooms are discussed. • Peer evaluation shows high reliability, similar to inter-teacher rating. • Peer evaluation works well for higher-order skills in L2 argumentative writing. • 10th graders struggled with evaluating lower-order skills like grammar. • 12th graders evaluate lower- and higher-order skills with greater validity than 10th graders.

There is an assumption in education that allowing students to choose their writing topics and positions is beneficial; however, there is little research to support this belief, particularly from the students’ perspectives. In the present study, we conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with students at a large university in the Southwest of the United States after they completed two in-class argumentative writing assignments in a course on exceptional children, one where they chose their writing position and one where they were assigned their writing position. As a group, these 20 students (13 female, 7 male) were above average writers in their first to third year of study, and the majority of them were education majors (70%), followed by arts and sciences (25%), and design and the arts (5%). The interview protocol focused upon their shifting perspectives on the underlying motivational construct of choice related to this and other writing assignments. Taking a grounded theory approach to thematic analysis, findings indicated that having choice in writing was important because it allowed students to write about topics that they find easier, more interesting, and possess greater knowledge. Choice also allowed students to demonstrate their autonomy, which they believed, influenced their motivation and writing quality/grades. While the university students in this study generally preferred choice, a majority of them identified benefits of not choosing, including opportunities to improve writing tenacity, enhance their writing skills, and achieve new perspectives.

This article presents the design principles underlying the instruction provided in a Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) study that resulted in substantial improvements in the opinion writing of second and third grade students. The analysis focused on the SRSD instruction students received in the classroom as well as the practice-based professional development (PBPD) teachers received on how to implement SRSD for opinion writing. A newly developed model of writing that draws on both social/contextual and cognitive conceptualizations was used to identify the theoretical aims, instructional focuses, and corresponding instructional activities for (1) creating a PBPD community where teachers learned to apply SRSD for opinion writing, (2) reshaping teachers’ classrooms so that these writing communities were conducive to SRSD instruction, (3) strengthening the capabilities and motivations of teachers to provide SRSD instruction for opinion writing, and (4) improving the capabilities and motivations of students to compose more convincing opinion essays. This analysis is the most comprehensive examination of SRSD instruction presently available, providing greater clarity for researchers and practitioners on how this instructional approach operates and achieves its aims. Our analyses also demonstrated that there is a high degree of interconnectivity among the instructional activities underlying SRSD, as many of them are designed to meet multiple aims, cutting across professional development, classroom instruction, and student and teacher development.

Studies on writing development have grown in diversity and depth in recent decades, but remain fragmented along lines of theory, method, and age ranges or populations studied. Meaningful, competent writing performances that meet the demands of the moment rely on many kinds of well-practiced and deeply understood capacities working together; however, these capacities’ realization and developmental trajectories can vary from one individual to another. Without an integrated framework to understand lifespan development of writing abilities in its variation, high-stakes decisions about curriculum, instruction, and assessment are often made in unsystematic ways that may fail to support the development they are intended to facilitate; further, research may not consider the range of issues at stake in studying writing in any particular moment.To address this need and synthesize what is known about the various dimensions of writing development at different ages, the coauthors of this essay have engaged in sustained discussion, drawing on a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives. Drawing on research from different disciplinary perspectives, they propose eight principles upon which an account of writing development consistent with research findings could be founded. These principles are proposed as a basis for further lines of inquiry into how writing develops across the lifespan.

Writing intervention research can enhance our knowledge about writing, its development, and how to teach it effectively. Despite the importance of such research, many of the writing intervention studies conducted previously were of poor quality, as documented by Graham and colleagues in a series of meta-analyses (Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012; Graham & Perin, 2007; Rogers & Graham, 2008). In this article, we offer 12 recommendations for conducting high quality intervention research, recommendations that draw on those meta-analyses as well as previous work on improving the quality of intervention research (Pressley & Harris, 1994a, 1994b) and our experiences as writing intervention researchers and editors of journals that publish intervention research (including the Journal of Writing Research) . The recommendations address issues and actions involved in designing, conducting, and reporting such research.