Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: