Design and Development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module for English Argumentative Writing in a Chinese EFL Context

Design and Development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module for English Argumentative Writing in a Chinese EFL Context | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Design and Development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module for English Argumentative Writing in a Chinese EFL Context Weijing Zhang, Amelia Alias, Khairul Azhar Jamaludin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9249205/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Argumentative writing remains a persistent challenge for many undergraduate EFL learners, particularly in relation to argument structure, idea development, and strategic revision. Although research has highlighted the value of self-regulated learning (SRL), Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), Toulmin-based argument instruction, and automated writing evaluation (AWE), these strands have often been examined separately, with relatively limited attention to their integration within a systematically designed instructional module. To address this gap, the present study examined the design and development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module (SRLM) for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. Guided by Design and Development Research and the ADDIE framework, the study focused on the needs analysis, design, and development phases of the larger project. Data were drawn from needs analysis findings and two rounds of expert review. The findings showed that the SRLM was developed in response to students’ difficulties in argumentative writing, their uneven use of SRL strategies, and the need for more structured, scaffolded, and feedback-supported instruction. The module integrated SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE into a coherent pedagogical design that was operationalised through sequenced units, learner materials, SRL scaffolds, and AWE-supported revision procedures. The study contributes both a practical instructional prototype and a transparent design-and-development process that may inform future EFL writing pedagogy and module design. argumentative writing self-regulated learning SRSD Toulmin model automated writing evaluation module development Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction The ability to construct logically organized and persuasive arguments in second language (L2) writing is widely regarded as an important indicator of academic literacy. It is assessed in major international examinations such as TOEFL, IELTS, and the GRE, and it also occupies a prominent place in high-stakes English assessments in China, including the National College Entrance Examination, the College English Test (CET-4/6), and the Test for English Majors (TEM-4/8). Despite its importance, argumentative writing remains a persistent challenge for many EFL learners. Prior studies have shown that students often struggle to develop clear claims, organize supporting reasons and evidence, maintain coherence, and construct effective counterarguments and rebuttals, which frequently results in formulaic reasoning and limited argumentative depth (Ghanbari & Salari, 2022 ; Qin & Karabacak, 2010 ; Sundari & Febriyanti, 2021 ). These challenges suggest the need for more explicit and structured instructional support in argumentative writing. A growing body of research indicates that self-regulated learning (SRL) can play a meaningful role in improving writing performance (Umamah et al., 2022 ). In writing contexts, SRL involves learners’ ability to set goals, plan, monitor their progress, evaluate their drafts, and revise strategically (Bai & Wang, 2020 ; Graham & Harris, 2018 ). Studies conducted in both L1 and ESL/EFL settings have consistently suggested that when such regulatory processes are supported, students’ writing quality tends to improve. However, in many Chinese EFL classrooms, SRL in writing is still often treated as a general learner attribute rather than as a set of teachable and scaffolded classroom practices (Chen et al., 2025 ; Teng, 2022 ). As a result, undergraduate learners may receive instruction in writing products, but not sufficient support in how to manage the processes of planning, monitoring, revising, and reflecting during writing. This points to an important instructional gap in the teaching of English argumentative writing in the Chinese tertiary EFL context. Several instructional and technological approaches offer useful foundations for addressing this gap. First, strategy-based and SRL-oriented writing instruction has been shown to strengthen students’ writing quality and motivational beliefs when it is embedded within explicit and formative instructional processes (Teng, 2022 ). Second, Toulmin-based argument frameworks remain highly useful for making abstract argumentative structures more visible to learners by foregrounding elements such as claims, data, counterarguments, and rebuttals (Qin & Karabacak, 2010 ). Third, automated writing evaluation (AWE) has attracted increasing attention because it can provide timely formative feedback and support revision. Recent evidence suggests that AWE can be pedagogically valuable, especially when integrated with teacher feedback rather than used in isolation (Cheng & Zhang, 2024 ; Karatay & Karatay, 2024 ; Sari & Han, 2024 ). Together, these lines of inquiry suggest the potential value of a more coherent instructional design that combines self-regulation, explicit strategy instruction, argumentative structure, and feedback support. Nevertheless, existing research remains fragmented across these strands. Although studies have examined SRL, SRSD, Toulmin-based instruction, or AWE-supported feedback in writing education, these lines of inquiry have often developed separately. Consequently, there is still a lack of systematically designed instructional modules that integrate self-regulation, explicit strategy instruction, a coherent argumentative framework, and technology-supported formative feedback within one pedagogically aligned design, particularly for Chinese undergraduate EFL learners (Chen et al., 2025 ; Karatay & Karatay, 2024 ). In addition, design and development research remains relatively underrepresented in studies of EFL argumentative writing, meaning that more work is needed not only to test interventions, but also to document how such interventions are theoretically grounded, contextually adapted, and pedagogically developed. To address these gaps, the present study focuses on the design and development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module (SRLM) for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. Guided by an integrated framework that brings together SRL, SRSD, Toulmin’s model, and AWE, the study aims to develop a context-sensitive and pedagogically coherent module for undergraduate learners. More specifically, it documents how the module was conceptually designed, translated into instructional components and learning supports, and refined through expert review (Chen et al., 2025 ; Li et al., 2026 ). In doing so, the study seeks to contribute both a practical instructional model for English argumentative writing and a transparent account of the design-and-development process that may inform future work in EFL writing pedagogy. Accordingly, the study addressed the following questions: (1) What learner needs informed the design of the SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context? (2) How was the SRLM designed by integrating SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE? (3) How was the SRLM developed and refined through expert review? 2. Literature Review 2.1 SRL in Writing Self-regulated learning (SRL) refers to learners’ active regulation of their learning processes through goal setting, planning, strategy use, monitoring, and self-evaluation across metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural domains (Zimmerman, 2002 , 2013 ). Rather than relying solely on external instruction, self-regulated learners actively manage tasks, effort, and feedback, thereby transforming their abilities into purposeful academic action (Harris, 2024 ; Teng et al., 2022 ). In writing contexts, SRL is particularly important because writing is a recursive and cognitively demanding activity that requires learners to generate ideas, organize content, monitor progress, revise drafts, and evaluate outcomes (Umamah et al., 2022 ). These demands are especially salient in L2 argumentative writing, where students must not only express opinions clearly but also justify claims, develop evidence, and sustain logical reasoning throughout a text. Recent studies in EFL contexts have consistently shown that self-regulated writing strategies are associated with writing performance (Bai et al., 2020 ; Teng & Zhang, 2024 ), writing-related emotions (Habók et al., 2022 ; Shen et al., 2023 ; Zhou et al., 2022 ), and self-efficacy (Adiyono et al., 2025 ; An et al., 2021 ; Zhang & Zhang, 2024 ). These findings suggest that SRL contributes not only to the cognitive dimension of writing, but also to learners’ motivational and emotional engagement in writing tasks. However, despite this growing recognition, SRL is not always explicitly embedded in writing instruction. In many classrooms, students are assigned writing tasks and receive feedback, yet they are given limited support in how to set goals, monitor progress, regulate effort, or reflect on revision decisions (Teng, 2022 ; Yang, 2024 ). As a result, writing instruction may focus more on task completion than on the development of strategic and autonomous writing behaviour. For the present study, SRL therefore serves as the overarching theoretical foundation for module design. It provides the broader perspective through which argumentative writing is viewed not only as a linguistic outcome, but also as a strategic learning process requiring planning, monitoring, revision, and reflection. 2.2 SRSD as an Instructional Pathway While SRL provides a theoretical orientation, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) offers an instructional pathway for operationalizing self-regulation in writing classrooms. SRSD is an evidence-based framework for explicit writing strategy instruction that integrates cognitive strategy teaching with self-regulation procedures such as goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-evaluation (Camacho et al., 2023 ; Graham & Harris, 2018 ; Harris, 2024 ). Rather than emphasizing only the final written product, SRSD supports learners in understanding, practising, and gradually internalizing writing strategies through scaffolded instruction (Harris & Graham, 2009 ). It is commonly organized into six iterative instructional stages: Develop and Activate Background Knowledge, Discuss It, Model It, Memorize It, Support It, and Independent Performance (Peltier et al., 2021 ; Salas et al., 2021 ). Through these stages, responsibility is gradually shifted from teacher support to learner independence. Research has reported positive effects of SRSD on writing performance (Asomani-Adem, 2023 ; Chen et al., 2021 ; Graham et al., 2005 ), text quality (Fernandez & Guilbert, 2024a ; Salas et al., 2023 ), self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2021 ; Limpo & Alves, 2013 ; Nunes et al., 2024 ), motivation (Asomani-Adem, 2023 ; Graham & Harris, 2018 ; Nunes et al., 2024 ), and emotional engagement (FitzPatrick & McKeown, 2020 ; Werunga & Lo, 2024 ). However, most SRSD studies have been conducted in K–12 L1 contexts, while relatively fewer studies have explored its application in tertiary education or in L2/EFL writing settings (Camacho et al., 2023 ; FitzPatrick & McKeown, 2020 ; McKeown et al., 2023 ; Shen & Li, 2022 ). This suggests a need for more context-sensitive adaptation of SRSD principles in higher education EFL environments, particularly in complex genres such as argumentative writing. In the present study, SRSD is not treated as a stand-alone intervention, but as a pedagogical mechanism through which SRL can be made explicit and teachable. In other words, SRSD provides the scaffolded instructional structure through which students can learn to regulate their writing processes more effectively. 2.3 Toulmin Model as a Structural Scaffold for Argumentative Writing Argumentative writing is widely recognized as one of the most cognitively and rhetorically demanding genres because it requires writers to coordinate ideas, logic, evidence, and audience awareness in a coherent text (Ferretti et al., 2007 ; Flower & Hayes, 1981 ; Hyland, 2009 ). For EFL learners, these demands are often intensified by limited genre awareness and insufficient experience in constructing extended arguments in English. Previous research has shown that learners frequently struggle with weak claims, insufficient support, limited logical development, and underdeveloped counterarguments in argumentative writing (Liao & Liao, 2022 ; Liu & Stapleton, 2014 ). These difficulties indicate the need for more explicit structural guidance in argument instruction. The Toulmin model provides a useful framework for making the logic of argumentation more visible and teachable. Originally proposed by Toulmin ( 2003 ), the model conceptualizes argument in terms of elements such as claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. In L2 and EFL instructional contexts, however, the model is often pedagogically adapted to enhance classroom applicability. Qin and Karabacak ( 2010 ), for example, proposed a simplified framework consisting of claim, data, counterargument claim, counterargument data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data. This adaptation is particularly relevant to argumentative writing instruction because it translates abstract argumentative principles into clearer components that learners can identify, practise, and apply in their own writing. Empirical studies have shown that Toulmin-based instruction can improve learners’ argumentative structure, use of evidence, and treatment of counterarguments in L2/EFL writing contexts (Chen M., 2022 ; Liu D., 2020 ). In the present study, the Toulmin model is therefore adopted as an explicit structural scaffold within the broader module design. Its role is to help students construct clearer, better-supported, and more balanced arguments in English argumentative writing. 2.4 AWE for Feedback and Revision Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) refers to the use of digital systems to generate immediate feedback on student writing, often focusing on language accuracy, mechanics, organization, and in some cases broader discourse features (Chen et al., 2022 ; Cheng & Zhang, 2024 ). In writing instruction, AWE has attracted growing attention because it can provide timely formative feedback, increase opportunities for revision, and extend feedback support beyond what teachers alone can realistically provide, especially in large classes and process-oriented writing contexts (Karatay & Karatay, 2024 ; Stevenson, 2016 ). Recent research suggests that AWE may contribute to improvements in writing quality (Huang & Wilson, 2021 ; Link et al., 2022 ; Sun & Fan, 2022 ), revision behaviour (Fu et al., 2024 ; Zhang, 2020 ; Zhu et al., 2020 ), and certain learner-related variables such as self-efficacy (Li et al., 2019 ; Sari & Han, 2024 ; Wei, 2023 ) and anxiety (Sari & Han, 2024 ; Sun & Fan, 2022 ; Y. Wang et al., 2022 ). At the same time, these benefits are not automatic. The effectiveness of AWE depends heavily on how learners interpret, evaluate, and act on the feedback they receive, which means that engagement with automated feedback may vary considerably across learners and tasks (Huang et al., 2024 ). Moreover, AWE is generally more effective at identifying surface-level issues than at addressing deeper rhetorical concerns such as audience awareness, argument strength, or the quality of evidence and rebuttal. Accordingly, the present study positions AWE as a supportive feedback mechanism rather than the instructional core of the module. Its value lies in providing timely feedback that can promote noticing, monitoring, and revision, while teacher guidance and peer interaction remain essential for helping students interpret feedback and make meaningful argumentative choices. In this sense, AWE is integrated into the module as part of a broader feedback ecology rather than as a replacement for human support. 2.5 Synthesis of Theoretical Foundations and Research Gap Taken together, the four perspectives reviewed above are complementary rather than parallel. SRL provides the overarching perspective on the learner capacities needed for successful writing, particularly goal setting, monitoring, revision, and reflection. SRSD offers a scaffolded instructional pathway through which these capacities can be explicitly taught and gradually internalized. The Toulmin model adds a structural dimension by making key components of argumentation more visible and teachable. AWE strengthens the feedback dimension by creating additional opportunities for noticing, self-monitoring, and revision, especially when combined with teacher support and reflective engagement. This integrated perspective is especially important in the Chinese EFL context, where argumentative writing requires students to manage linguistic, cognitive, and rhetorical demands simultaneously. A single theoretical or instructional approach is unlikely to address all of these needs adequately. However, previous studies have often examined SRL, SRSD, Toulmin-based instruction, or AWE separately, while fewer studies have translated these strands into a coherent instructional module for tertiary EFL argumentative writing. Thus, there remains a need for research that not only draws on these perspectives conceptually, but also integrates them into a systematic and context-sensitive pedagogical design. The present study addresses this need by designing and developing an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. Guided by this integrated perspective, the present study adopted a design-and-development approach to construct an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Design This study adopted Design and Development Research (DDR) to guide the systematic creation of an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. DDR was appropriate because the study aimed to design, develop, and refine an instructional product in a theoretically informed and context-sensitive manner, rather than merely to test instructional outcomes (Richey & Klein, 2007 ). Within this broader DDR orientation, the study employed the ADDIE instructional design framework to organize the development process. ADDIE was selected because it provides a clear structure for moving from needs analysis to instructional design and material development (Branch, 2009 ). In this study, DDR informed the overall research purpose and logic, whereas ADDIE guided the step-by-step development of the module. The present article focuses specifically on the stages that directly contributed to the creation and refinement of the SRLM, namely needs analysis, design, and development. More specifically, it reports how learner needs and theoretical foundations informed the module design, how the module was translated into concrete instructional components, and how expert review supported its refinement. Accordingly, this article reports only the needs analysis, design, and development stages of the larger doctoral study, rather than the implementation and evaluation phases. 3.2 Context and Data Sources The study was situated in a Chinese tertiary EFL context and focused on undergraduate English-major students in Sichuan Province, China. This article draws on three sources of evidence: needs analysis data, expert review data, and design artefacts. The needs analysis included 364 valid questionnaire responses and five focus group discussions with 28 students. These data were used to identify students’ difficulties in argumentative writing, their use of SRL strategies, and their instructional and feedback needs. Expert review was conducted in two stages to evaluate and refine the emerging module. The design phase involved eight experts, while the development phase involved ten experts. In both rounds, rating-scale items and open-ended comments were used to collect quantitative and qualitative feedback on the relevance, clarity, appropriateness, and pedagogical value of the module. In addition, the development process was documented through design artefacts, including the module blueprint, learning objectives, activity plans, scaffolding tools, and draft instructional materials. These artefacts served as evidence of how the theoretical foundations of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE were translated into concrete module components. 3.3 Procedure The development of the SRLM was carried out through three closely related processes: needs analysis, design, and development with expert-informed refinement. First, the needs analysis served as the foundation for module design. In this process, students’ difficulties in argumentative writing, their use of SRL strategies, and their instructional and feedback needs were identified (Richey & Klein, 2007 ). The purpose of this stage was not only to describe learner problems, but also to generate design requirements for the module. In line with ADDIE, the analysis stage helped clarify the target learners, instructional challenges, and pedagogical priorities that the module needed to address (Branch, 2009 ; Hanis et al., 2025 ). Second, the design process focused on constructing the conceptual framework and instructional blueprint of the SRLM. Based on the needs analysis findings and the theoretical foundations of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE, design principles were formulated and translated into learning objectives, module components, instructional activities, scaffolds, and feedback mechanisms. The initial design was then reviewed by experts, and their feedback informed subsequent revisions to the module blueprint. Third, the development process translated the revised design blueprint into a more concrete module prototype. During this process, instructional materials, learner supports, and draft learning activities were developed. The resulting prototype was then reviewed by experts in the development phase, and their feedback was used formatively to refine the module, strengthen its pedagogical coherence, and improve its appropriateness for the target learners. 3.4 Data Analysis Questionnaire data were analysed using descriptive statistics to identify major learner needs and challenges in English argumentative writing, self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use, and feedback-related preferences. Focus group data were examined interpretively to identify recurring themes related to students’ writing difficulties, regulatory practices, perceptions of AWE, and expectations for instructional support. For the expert reviews, rating-scale responses were summarised descriptively to indicate overall expert judgments of the module at the design and development stages, while qualitative comments were analysed to identify areas for revision and refinement. Taken together, these forms of analysis supported the systematic and evidence-informed design, development, and improvement of the SRLM. 4. Findings 4.1 Needs Analysis as the Basis for Module Design The needs analysis provided the empirical foundation for the design of the SRLM. The integrated questionnaire and focus group findings indicated that undergraduate EFL students experienced persistent difficulties in English argumentative writing, particularly in structural organisation, content development, and academic language use. More specifically, the findings suggested that students often struggled with constructing arguable claims, organising evidence logically, addressing counterarguments and rebuttals, and maintaining coherence across the whole text. These findings indicated that the module needed to provide explicit and scaffolded support for the core demands of argumentative writing rather than focusing only on language accuracy. The needs analysis also showed that students demonstrated partial but uneven use of SRL strategies across the writing process. While some students reported using planning and feedback-related strategies, the overall pattern suggested more limited use of sustained monitoring, self-evaluation, and peer-supported learning. In addition, students expressed generally positive attitudes toward AWE tools, but also recognised that such tools were more useful for surface-level issues than for deeper concerns such as argument quality, logic, and evidence use. These findings suggested that the SRLM should combine explicit argumentative writing instruction, systematic SRL scaffolding, and AWE-supported feedback with teacher and peer support. Overall, the triangulated needs analysis highlighted three major design implications: the need for clearer instructional support for argumentative structure, more systematic scaffolding of SRL across the writing process, and a balanced, sequenced feedback system integrating AWE with teacher and peer support. 4.2 Design of the SRLM A major outcome of the design phase was the development of a coherent conceptual and pedagogical architecture for the SRLM. Rather than treating SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE as separate components, the design phase aligned them as complementary elements within a single instructional system. Within this framework, SRL functioned as the overarching learning orientation, SRSD provided the scaffolded instructional pathway, the Toulmin model supplied the structural framework for argumentation, and AWE was incorporated as a feedback support mechanism. Figure 1 presents the theoretical and conceptual framework that guided the design of the SRLM. A second design outcome was the formulation of a structured learning objectives and content framework. The module translated the needs analysis findings into explicit instructional targets related to cognition, metacognition, social behaviour, and motivational regulation. These objectives were then organised into a ten-unit structure covering foundational orientation, argument structure, argument development and reasoning, and language accuracy and rhetorical enhancement. This progression reflected a sequenced design logic in which students were gradually supported from basic understanding of argumentative writing toward more complex work on counterargument, rebuttal, revision, and rhetorical refinement. Table 1 presents the alignment between the main learning focuses identified in the needs analysis and their corresponding realisation in the SRLM. Table 1 Alignment of Learning Objectives, SRL Dimensions, and Argumentative Writing Components in the SRLM SRL Dimension Learning Focus Writing / Argumentative Focus Corresponding Module Design Features Cognition Develop argumentative writing knowledge and skills organisation, claims, data, counterarguments, rebuttals, language accuracy, rhetorical effectiveness explicit instruction, Toulmin-based tasks, unit progression Metacognition Plan, monitor, evaluate, and revise writing pre-writing, drafting, revising, feedback-based revision goal-setting forms, checklists, reflection sheets Social Behaviour Engage in peer interaction and collaborative meaning-making discussion, peer review, oral debate, feedback exchange group tasks, whole-class discussion, peer feedback Motivational Regulation Sustain confidence, effort, and engagement persistence in revision, confidence building, constructive response to feedback scaffolded participation, meaningful tasks, oral debate, sequenced support Table 2 outlines the overall thematic and unit structure of the module. Table 2 Overview of Content Themes and Instructional Units in the SRLM Themes Units Theme 1: Foundational Orientation Unit 1: Understanding the SRLM and the Structure of Argumentative Writing Theme 2: Global Argument Structure Unit 2: Building Strong Introductions and Conclusions Unit 3: Crafting Effective Claims Theme 3: Argument Development and Reasoning Unit 4: Supporting Claims with Data Unit 5: Using Core Argumentation Methods Unit 6: Developing Counterargument Claims and Data Unit 7: Constructing Rebuttal Claims and Data Theme 4: Language Accuracy and Rhetorical Enhancement Unit 8: Avoiding Logical Fallacies Unit 9: Writing Effective and Academic Sentences Unit 10: Enhancing Writing through Figures of Speech The design phase also identified the core instructional activities and strategies used to operationalise the module. These included explicit knowledge explanation, teacher guidance and modelling, guided practice, varied writing tasks, visual and procedural scaffolds, goal-setting and reflection tools, and AWE-supported revision. Together, these elements formed the practical blueprint for the later development of the module prototype. Table 3 summarises the core instructional activities and strategies designed for the SRLM. Table 3 Core Instructional Activities and Strategies Designed for the SRLM Instructional Component Description Intended SRL Support Intended Writing Support Explicit knowledge explanation Direct explanation of concepts, structures, and writing procedures Builds awareness of strategies and process Clarifies argumentative concepts and writing expectations Teacher guidance and modelling Demonstration of writing moves and strategy use Supports observation and guided uptake Shows practical application of Toulmin elements and writing procedures Guided practice Scaffolded tasks during pre-writing, drafting, and revising Supports planning, monitoring, and adjustment Develops step-by-step writing competence Varied writing tasks Individual, group-based, and whole-class activities Encourages active engagement and socially mediated regulation Repeated practice in argumentative writing Visual and procedural scaffolds Graphic organisers, templates, checklists Supports planning, monitoring, and reflection Helps structure ideas and improve coherence Goal-setting and reflection tools Forms for goal setting and self-reflection Makes SRL more explicit Strengthens revision and self-evaluation AWE-supported revision Use of automated feedback with teacher/peer support Supports feedback processing and prioritisation Improves revision quality and language accuracy 4.3 Development of the SRLM Based on the design blueprint, the development phase focused on transforming the SRLM into a more concrete and usable instructional prototype. This phase did not merely extend the earlier design; rather, it operationalised the conceptual framework, learning objectives, and instructional strategies into materials and support tools that could be used in classroom practice. The major developed components included ten sequenced instructional units, learner-facing materials, SRL scaffolding tools, and AWE-integrated revision support. The instructional units translated the thematic structure of the module into teachable learning sequences, while the learner materials made the procedures, activities, and task expectations more explicit and manageable for students. These materials included guided worksheets, task instructions, classroom activities, and revision-related support aligned with the progression of the module. In this way, the development phase strengthened the practical usability of the SRLM by making its pedagogical intentions more visible and actionable for learners. In addition, specific SRL scaffolding tools were developed to support planning, monitoring, and reflection throughout the writing process. These included a whole-module goal-setting form, unit-level checklists, and reflection forms. The purpose of these tools was to make SRL processes more explicit within the module and to support students in engaging more systematically in goal setting, self-monitoring, and reflective revision. Table 4 summarises the SRL scaffolding tools developed for the SRLM. Table 4 SRL Scaffolding Tools Developed for the SRLM SRL Tool Level Main Function Intended Support for Students Whole-module goal-setting form Whole-module level To help students set broader learning goals across the module Supports long-term direction and goal awareness Unit-level writing process checklist Unit level To guide students through key stages of task completion Supports planning, monitoring, and task management Goal-setting and self-reflection form Unit level To encourage reflection after each learning task or unit Supports self-evaluation and strategy adjustment AWE support was also integrated into the module as part of revision guidance. Rather than encouraging uncritical reliance on automated feedback, this component was designed to help students interpret automated feedback selectively and use it as part of a broader revision process supported by teacher and peer input. Taken together, the development phase transformed the SRLM from a conceptual design into a more usable instructional prototype for subsequent implementation. 4.4 Expert Review and Refinement 4.4.1 Expert Review of the Design Phase Following the formulation of the design blueprint, the proposed SRLM was subjected to expert review before entering the development phase. Eight experts from relevant fields evaluated the design. Although the design phase generated multiple specific components, these were reviewed through four broader dimensions: completeness, appropriateness and necessity, alignment and coherence, and feasibility. Overall, the design-phase findings indicated strong support for the proposed SRLM, suggesting that the module blueprint was generally viewed as pedagogically meaningful, contextually appropriate, and sufficiently coherent to proceed to the development stage. The qualitative feedback from the experts also provided clear directions for refinement. Their comments focused on improving time allocation and instructional focus, strengthening the modelling of more complex writing skills, revising learning objectives to make them more observable and measurable, making formative assessment more systematic, and clarifying the expected output of each instructional unit. These suggestions were used to revise the module blueprint before the development phase, thereby improving the manageability, clarity, and pedagogical alignment of the SRLM. 4.4.2 Expert Review of the Development Phase After the module prototype had been developed, a second round of expert review was conducted in the development phase. Ten experts examined the developed module components, including the instructional units, learner materials, SRL scaffolding tools, and AWE integration procedures, in terms of their quality, clarity, practicality, and pedagogical appropriateness. This review provided product-level feedback on how effectively the earlier design intentions had been translated into usable classroom materials and learning supports. These suggestions informed further modification of the module prototype before implementation. Overall, the development-phase review suggested that the module prototype was pedagogically promising, while also requiring refinement in the clarity of instructions, the usability of scaffolding tools, and the practical integration of AWE-supported revision procedures. Taken together, the two rounds of expert review functioned as a systematic refinement mechanism that strengthened the relevance, coherence, and practical usability of the SRLM. 5. Discussion 5.1 The SRLM as a Needs-Informed Instructional Response The findings suggest that the SRLM was developed as a direct response to the actual needs of undergraduate EFL learners in English argumentative writing. The needs analysis showed that students’ difficulties were not confined to language accuracy, but extended to argument structure, idea development, revision, and the strategic regulation of writing processes. This interpretation is consistent with recent research showing that EFL writing performance is closely associated with learners’ self-regulated strategy use, self-efficacy, and access to explicit writing support (Abdelaty et al., 2025 ; Adiyono et al., 2025 ; Teng, 2022 ; Wang et al., 2025 ). In this sense, the present study supports the view that instructional design for argumentative writing should be grounded in learners’ actual difficulties and support needs, rather than organized only around general writing content or isolated classroom techniques. This demand-oriented approach is crucial because it helps explain why SRLM was designed as a comprehensive rather than a single-focused intervention. Recent studies suggest that EFL learners often require simultaneous support in strategic regulation, motivation, revision, and feedback use, especially in cognitively demanding writing tasks (Abdelaty et al., 2025 ; Bai et al., 2025 ; Shen & Bai, 2025 ). The present findings therefore indicate that the value of the SRLM lies partly in its responsiveness to this multidimensional profile of learner need. The module was designed to address writing as both a linguistic and a self-regulatory activity. 5.2 The Value of Integrating SRL, SRSD, Toulmin, and AWE A central contribution of the study is the integration of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE into one coherent instructional framework. This integration is pedagogically meaningful because each element addresses a different dimension of argumentative writing. Recent work on self-regulated writing has shown that explicit strategy-based instruction can improve learners’ writing quality and motivational beliefs when SRL is embedded in formative and process-oriented pedagogy (Anggraeni et al., 2025 ). Related research has also shown that SRSD remains a strong framework for making self-regulation teachable through explicit and scaffolded instruction, although recent reviews note that more evidence is still needed in higher education and L2/EFL contexts (Fernandez & Guilbert, 2024b ). The integration of the Toulmin model further strengthened the design because argumentative writing requires more than general strategy support; learners also need explicit guidance on how arguments are structured. Recent research using Toulmin-based analysis continues to show that EFL learners often display uneven control of claims, data, counterarguments, and rebuttals, which supports the pedagogical value of making argumentative components more visible and teachable (Turós et al., 2025 ). At the same time, AWE contributed a feedback dimension to the module. Recent studies suggest that automated feedback can support revision, self-efficacy, and self-regulation, but that its value is greater when it is pedagogically embedded and complemented by teacher guidance rather than used in isolation (Karatay & Karatay, 2024 ; Sari & Han, 2024 ; Tran, 2025 ). Taken together, the present findings support a multi-layered approach to argumentative writing instruction in which strategic regulation, structural knowledge, scaffolded teaching, and feedback support work together rather than separately. 5.3 Development and Expert-Informed Refinement Another important implication of the findings is that the study moved beyond conceptual design to produce a usable instructional prototype. In writing pedagogy, there is often a gap between theoretical recommendations and classroom-ready instructional resources. Recent design-oriented work in language education has highlighted the importance of making pedagogical logic visible through concrete artefacts, iterative refinement, and context-sensitive design decisions (Li et al., 2026 ; Yang & Lee, 2025 ). In the present study, the development of sequenced units, learner-facing materials, SRL scaffolding tools, and AWE-supported revision procedures suggests that the SRLM was not merely a theoretical proposal, but a structured prototype intended for practical use. The two rounds of expert review also strengthen the significance of the study. Rather than postponing quality judgment until implementation, the module was refined at both the design and prototype levels. This is consistent with recent module-development research emphasizing expert validation and iterative revision as key mechanisms for improving pedagogical coherence, clarity, and usability before classroom enactment (T. Li et al., 2026 ). The present findings therefore suggest that expert review functioned not only as evaluation, but as a formative design mechanism that improved the alignment between objectives, activities, supports, and intended learning outcomes. 5.4 Contribution to Chinese Tertiary EFL Writing Pedagogy Taken together, the findings suggest that the SRLM contributes to Chinese tertiary EFL writing pedagogy in two main ways. First, it offers a context-sensitive instructional model for argumentative writing that addresses not only language form, but also strategic regulation, argument structure, and revision practices. This is particularly relevant in higher education EFL settings, where recent reviews continue to report persistent challenges in academic writing and a need for better-aligned instructional support (Anggraeni et al., 2025 ). Second, the study contributes a transparent design-and-development process that may inform future instructional innovation in EFL writing. In this sense, the contribution lies not only in the SRLM as a product, but also in the way it was generated through needs analysis, theoretical integration, prototype development, and expert-informed refinement. More broadly, the study responds to the continuing need for integrated and pedagogically grounded models in EFL writing instruction. Recent literature on AI-supported writing, strategy instruction, and self-regulated learning suggests that isolated interventions are often less useful than designs that connect strategy, structure, feedback, and context in a coherent way (Sari & Han, 2024 ; Tran, 2025 ). The present study therefore implies that future work in tertiary EFL writing may benefit from moving beyond single-method interventions toward more integrated instructional systems that are theoretically grounded, empirically informed, and developmentally refined. 6. Conclusion This study examined the design and development of an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. Grounded in learner needs and informed by the integration of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE, the module was developed as a structured and context-sensitive response to students’ difficulties in argumentative writing and uneven use of self-regulated learning strategies. The study contributes not only a practical module prototype, but also a transparent design-and-development process shaped by needs analysis and expert-informed refinement. As this article focused only on the analysis, design, and development phases of the larger study, future research may further examine the implementation and effectiveness of the SRLM in classroom practice. Abbreviations Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) Design and Development Research (DDR) Self-Regulated Learning Module (SRLM) Second Language (L2) English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Declarations 8. Availability of data and materials The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions involving student participants and expert reviewers, but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. 9. Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests 10. Funding This research received no external funding. 11. Author Contributions This journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration. Name of Author C M So Va Fo I R D O E Vi Su P Fu Zhang Weijing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Amelia Alias ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Khairul Azhar Jamaludin ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ C : C onceptualization M : M ethodology So : So ftware Va : Va lidation Fo : Fo rmal analysis I : I nvestigation R : R esources D : D ata Curation O : Writing - O riginal Draft E : Writing - Review & E diting Vi : Vi sualization Su : Su pervision P : P roject administration Fu : Fu nding acquisition 12. Acknowledgements The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to the students who participated in this study for their time and cooperation. The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT in improving the language and readability of this manuscript. The author reviewed and revised the output carefully and takes full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript. Data Availability The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions involving student participants and expert reviewers, but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Abdelaty, Y., Alghamdi, E., & Alamer, A. (2025). The effects of self-regulation on L2 writing achievement: Examining the mediating roles of feedback quality and task complexity. System , 132 , 103715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103715 Adiyono, A., Nurhayati, S., Muti’ah, N., Abdurrohim, A., Rienovita, E., & Arianti, S. (2025). Self-Efficacy as a Mediator: How Self-Regulated Learning and Family Support Reduce Academic Procrastination Among Indonesian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Students. International Journal of TESOL Studies , 7 (1), 148. An, Z., Wang, C., Li, S., Gan, Z., & Li, H. (2021). Technology-Assisted Self-Regulated English Language Learning: Associations With English Language Self-Efficacy, English Enjoyment, and Learning Outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology , 11 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.558466 Anggraeni, C. W., Mujiyanto, J., Rustipa, K., & Widhiyanto (2025). Effects of utilizing self-regulated learning-based instruction on EFL students’ academic writing skills: A mixed-method investigation. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education , 10 (1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00317-6 Asomani-Adem, A. A. (2023). Enhancing Writing Motivation Using Creative Writing Instruction: A Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention [Ph.D., Indiana University]. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/enhancing-writing-motivation-using-creative/docview/2852249647/se-2 Bai, B., Shen, B., & Mei, H. (2020). Hong Kong primary students’ self-regulated writing strategy use: Influences of gender, writing proficiency, and grade level. Studies in Educational Evaluation , 65 , 100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100839 Bai, B., & Wang, J. (2020). Conceptualizing self-regulated reading-to-write in ESL/EFL writing and investigating its relationships to motivation and writing competence. Language Teaching Research , 27 (5), 1193–1216. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820971740 Bai, B., Zang, X., Song, H., & Nie, Y. (2025). The relationship between teachers’ support and students’ self-regulation in ESL collaborative learning in Hong Kong primary schools: The mediating role of students’ motivation. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching , 0 (0), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2533973 Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. Springer US . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6 Camacho, A., Alves, R. A., Silva, M., Ferreira, P., Correia, N., & Daniel, J. R. (2023). The impact of combining SRSD instruction with a brief growth mindset intervention on sixth graders’ writing motivation and performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 72 , 102127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102127 Chen, J., Zhang, L. J., Wang, X., & Zhang, T. (2021). Impacts of Self-Regulated Strategy Development-Based Revision Instruction on English-as-a-Foreign-Language Students’ Self-Efficacy for Text Revision: A Mixed-Methods Study. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670100 Chen, M. (2022). Skillful Use of the Tulmin Model to Promote the Development of Critical Thinking: A Case Study of High School English Argumentative Reading and Writing Teaching. Student Growth Guidance , 13–15. Chen, R., Wang, X., & Zhu, K. (2025). A bibliometric and content analysis of strategy-based instruction and self-regulated learning in second or foreign language teaching from 1994 to 2024. Frontiers in Psychology , 16 , 1474689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1474689 Chen, Z., Chen, W., Jia, J., & Le, H. (2022). Exploring AWE-supported writing process: An activity theory perspective . https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73482 Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2024). Examining Second Language (L2) Learners’ Engagement with AWE-Teacher Integrated Feedback in a Technology-Empowered Context. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 33 (4). Fernandez, J., & Guilbert, J. (2024a). Self-regulated strategy development’s effectiveness: Underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms. METACOGNITION AND LEARNING , 19 (3), 1091–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09398-7 Fernandez, J., & Guilbert, J. (2024b). Self-regulated strategy development’s effectiveness: Underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms. Metacognition and Learning , 19 (3), 1091–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09398-7 Ferretti, R. P., Andrews-Weckerly, S., & Lewis, W. E. (2007). Improving the Argumentative Writing of Students with Learning Disabilities: Descriptive and Normative Considerations. Reading & Writing Quarterly , 23 (3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701277740 FitzPatrick, E. R., & McKeown, D. (2020). Meeting the Needs of Middle School Writers in a Special Education Classroom: SRSD for the Informational Genre Citing Text-Based Evidence. Education and Treatment of Children , 43 (1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00006-2 Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College Composition and Communication , 32 (4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198115885 Fu, Q. K., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Cheng, G. (2024). A review of AWE feedback: Types, learning outcomes, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 37 (1–2), 179–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2033787 Ghanbari, N., & Salari, M. (2022). Problematizing Argumentative Writing in an Iranian EFL Undergraduate Context. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY , 13 , 862400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862400 Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2018). An examination of the design principles underlying a self-regulated strategy development study. Journal of Writing Research , 10 (2), 139–187. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.02.02 Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 30 (2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001 Habók, A., Magyar, A., & Molnár, G. (2022). English as a foreign language learners’ strategy awareness across proficiency levels from the perspective of self-regulated learning metafactors. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1019561 Hanis, N. M., Jamil, M., Yulu, M. R., Md Zalli, J., M. M., & Othman, M. S. (2025). Design and Development Research (DDR) Approach in Development of Value-Based Pedagogy Model in the Context of a Multiracial Country. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching , 14 (1), 248. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v14n1p248 Harris, K. R. (2024). The Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instructional Model: Efficacious Theoretical Integration, Scaling Up, Challenges, and Future Research. Educational Psychology Review , 36 (3), 104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09921-x Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. In V. Connelly, A. L. Barnett, J. E. Dockrell, & A. Tolmie (Eds.), BJEP Monograph Series II: Part 6 Teaching and Learning Writing . British Psychological Society. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185409X422542 Huang, X., Xu, W., Li, F., & Yu, Z. (2024). A Meta-analysis of Effects of Automated Writing Evaluation on Anxiety, Motivation, and Second Language Writing Skills. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher , 33 (4), 957–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00865-y Huang, Y., & Wilson, J. (2021). Using automated feedback to develop writing proficiency. Computers and Composition , 62 , 102675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102675 Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and researching writing. 2nd edition (K. Hyland, Ed.). Longman. http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/catalog/academic/product?ISBN=140820505X Karatay, Y., & Karatay, L. (2024). Automated writing evaluation use in second language classrooms: A research synthesis. System , 123 , 103332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103332 Li, R., Meng, Z., Tian, M., Zhang, Z., Ni, C., & Xiao, W. (2019). Examining EFL learners’ individual antecedents on the adoption of automated writing evaluation in China. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 32 (7), 784–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1540433 Li, T., Borhan, M. T., & Judge, S. K. (2026). Development and Validation of a Reading-Writing Module to Enhance Students’ Critical Thinking and EFL Writing. World Journal of English Language , 16 (3), 351. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n3p351 Liao, M., & Liao, Y. (2022). Improving Chinese College Students’ Argumentative Writing: A Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Approach. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY , 13 , 874531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874531 Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2013). Teaching planning or sentence-combining strategies: Effective SRSD interventions at different levels of written composition. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 38 (4), 328–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.004 Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 35 (4), 605–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 Liu, D. (2020). The Changes in Argumentation Schemas of Chinese English Learners: A Longitudinal Study Based on Toulmin Model. Modern Foreign Languages (Bimonthly) , 43 (6), 793–805. Liu, F., & Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. System , 45 , 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005 McKeown, D., Wijekumar, K., Owens, J., Harris, K., Graham, S., Lei, P., & FitzPatrick, E. (2023). Professional development for evidence-based SRSD writing instruction: Elevating fourth grade outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 73 , 102152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102152 Nunes, A., Cordeiro, C., Rocha, R., Limpo, T., & Castro, S. L. (2024). Breathe, Plan, Write, and Evaluate: The effects of an SRSD intervention and instructional feedback on 4th graders’ writing and motivation. Frontiers In Education , 9 , 1305771. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1305771 Peltier, C., Garwood, J. D., McKenna, J., Peltier, T., & Sendra, J. (2021). Using the SRSD Instructional Approach for Argumentative Writing: A Look across the Content Areas. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 36 (3), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12255 Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System , 38 (3), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012 Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826034 Salas, N., Birello, M., & Ribas, T. (2021). Effectiveness of an SRSD writing intervention for low- and high-SES children. Reading and Writing , 34 (7), 1653–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10103-8 Salas, N., Pascual, M., Birello, M., & Cross, A. (2023). Embedding Explicit Linguistic Instruction in an SRSD Writing Intervention. Written Communication , 40 (3), 857–891. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883231169516 Sari, E., & Han, T. (2024). The impact of automated writing evaluation on English as a foreign language learners’ writing self-efficacy, self-regulation, anxiety, and performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , 40 (5), 2065–2080. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13004 Shen, B., & Bai, B. (2025). Explorations into EFL learners’ self-regulated writing strategy use in writing for scholarly publications: A case study of Chinese PhD students. Language Awareness , 0 (0), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2585007 Shen, B., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., & Yu, X. (2023). Relationships between Chinese university EFL learners’ academic emotions and self-regulated learning strategies: A structural equation model. Language Teaching Research , 30 (1), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221144832 Shen, H., & Li, L. (2022). Influence of Self-Regulated Strategy Development on the Performance of Virtual Reality-Based Teaching in Online Learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) , 17 (11), 312–324. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i11.31759 Stevenson, M. (2016). A Critical Interpretative Synthesis: The Integration of Automated Writing Evaluation into Classroom Writing Instruction. Computers and Composition , 42 , 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.05.001 Sun, B., & Fan, T. (2022). The effects of an AWE-aided assessment approach on business English writing performance and writing anxiety: A contextual consideration. Studies in Educational Evaluation , 72 , 101123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101123 Sundari, H., & Febriyanti, R. (2021). The Analysis of Indonesian EFL Argumentative Writing Using Toulmin’s Model: The Structure and Struggles from the Learners. Scope: Journal of English Language Teaching , 5 , 67. https://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v5i2.8544 Teng, L. S. (2022). Explicit strategy-based instruction in L2 writing contexts: A perspective of self-regulated learning and formative assessment. Assessing Writing , 53 , 100645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100645 Teng, M. F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing , 51 , 100573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573 Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J. (2024). Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, working memory, L2 proficiency level, and multimedia writing performance. Language Awareness , 33 (3), 570–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269 Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument, Updated Edition . Tran, T. T. T. (2025). Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences. Education Sciences , 15 (2), 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020232 Turós, M., Kenyeres, A. Z., Balla, G., Gazdag, E., Szabó, E., & Szűts, Z. (2025). A Toulmin Model Analysis of Student Argumentation on Artificial Intelligence. Education Sciences , 15 (9), 1226. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091226 Umamah, A., El Khoiri, N., Widiati, U., & Nunuk Wulyani, A. (2022). EFL University Students’ Self-Regulated Writing Strategies: The Role of Individual Differences. Journal of Language and Education , 8 (4), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.13339 Wang, X., Hussin, S., & Abdul Aziz, A. (2025). Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Regulated Writing Strategies and Academic Writing Performance (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 5714142). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5714142 Wang, Y., Luo, X., Liu, C. C., Tu, Y. F., & Wang, N. (2022). An Integrated Automatic Writing Evaluation and SVVR Approach to Improve Students’ EFL Writing Performance. Sustainability , 14 (18), 11586. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811586 Wei, L. (2023). Artificial intelligence in language instruction: Impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 , 1261955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955 Werunga, R. N., & Lo, Y. (2024). Effects of SRSD With Social Skills Prompts on the Writing Skills and Problem Behaviors of Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. JOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS , 32 (4), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266231206749 Yang, M. (2024). Fostering EFL university students’ motivation and self-regulated learning in writing: A socio-constructivist approach. System , 124 , 103386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103386 Yang, Z., & Lee, Y. Y. (2025). Challenges and opportunities of design-based research in applied linguistics: Insights from a scoping review. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics , 4 (1), 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100178 Zhang, J., & Zhang, L. J. (2024). The effect of feedback on metacognitive strategy use in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 37 (5–6), 1198–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2069822 Zhang, Z. (2020). (Victor). Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions. Assessing Writing , 43 , 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439 Zhou, J., Wang, S., & Wang, J. (2022). Investigating high schoolers’ L2 writing anxiety, L2 writing self-efficacy, L2 writing self-regulated strategies, and L2 writing engagement: Relationships and mediator. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 , 1012407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1012407 Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education , 143 , 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668 Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice , 41 (2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path. Educational Psychologist , 48 (3), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 01 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 30 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 30 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 27 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9249205","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":617846037,"identity":"6dd8779b-486f-4651-86f2-96e82c12005f","order_by":0,"name":"Weijing Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National University of Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Weijing","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":617846038,"identity":"f228d3de-f27b-4a7c-aad4-a52ed51ccd28","order_by":1,"name":"Amelia Alias","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National University of Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amelia","middleName":"","lastName":"Alias","suffix":""},{"id":617846039,"identity":"257094c6-909e-418d-92d5-ae15c645dc6c","order_by":2,"name":"Khairul Azhar Jamaludin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National University of Malaysia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Khairul","middleName":"Azhar","lastName":"Jamaludin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-28 02:53:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9249205/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9249205/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106346631,"identity":"cb5efb84-0469-48bf-a03f-d8f64f7a2cc3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-07 16:33:10","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":57713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTheoretical and Conceptual Framework of the SRLM\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9249205/v1/76a2106fb56287d1d92c8a12.png"},{"id":106404790,"identity":"9efe3242-cebe-4dbc-a243-d0900d08daec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-08 09:17:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1148642,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9249205/v1/360e916e-7e8f-459a-8187-f7e7d8408ff6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Design and Development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module for English Argumentative Writing in a Chinese EFL Context","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe ability to construct logically organized and persuasive arguments in second language (L2) writing is widely regarded as an important indicator of academic literacy. It is assessed in major international examinations such as TOEFL, IELTS, and the GRE, and it also occupies a prominent place in high-stakes English assessments in China, including the National College Entrance Examination, the College English Test (CET-4/6), and the Test for English Majors (TEM-4/8). Despite its importance, argumentative writing remains a persistent challenge for many EFL learners. Prior studies have shown that students often struggle to develop clear claims, organize supporting reasons and evidence, maintain coherence, and construct effective counterarguments and rebuttals, which frequently results in formulaic reasoning and limited argumentative depth (Ghanbari \u0026amp; Salari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Qin \u0026amp; Karabacak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Sundari \u0026amp; Febriyanti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These challenges suggest the need for more explicit and structured instructional support in argumentative writing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA growing body of research indicates that self-regulated learning (SRL) can play a meaningful role in improving writing performance (Umamah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In writing contexts, SRL involves learners\u0026rsquo; ability to set goals, plan, monitor their progress, evaluate their drafts, and revise strategically (Bai \u0026amp; Wang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Graham \u0026amp; Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Studies conducted in both L1 and ESL/EFL settings have consistently suggested that when such regulatory processes are supported, students\u0026rsquo; writing quality tends to improve. However, in many Chinese EFL classrooms, SRL in writing is still often treated as a general learner attribute rather than as a set of teachable and scaffolded classroom practices (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Teng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, undergraduate learners may receive instruction in writing products, but not sufficient support in how to manage the processes of planning, monitoring, revising, and reflecting during writing. This points to an important instructional gap in the teaching of English argumentative writing in the Chinese tertiary EFL context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral instructional and technological approaches offer useful foundations for addressing this gap. First, strategy-based and SRL-oriented writing instruction has been shown to strengthen students\u0026rsquo; writing quality and motivational beliefs when it is embedded within explicit and formative instructional processes (Teng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Second, Toulmin-based argument frameworks remain highly useful for making abstract argumentative structures more visible to learners by foregrounding elements such as claims, data, counterarguments, and rebuttals (Qin \u0026amp; Karabacak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Third, automated writing evaluation (AWE) has attracted increasing attention because it can provide timely formative feedback and support revision. Recent evidence suggests that AWE can be pedagogically valuable, especially when integrated with teacher feedback rather than used in isolation (Cheng \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Karatay \u0026amp; Karatay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sari \u0026amp; Han, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Together, these lines of inquiry suggest the potential value of a more coherent instructional design that combines self-regulation, explicit strategy instruction, argumentative structure, and feedback support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, existing research remains fragmented across these strands. Although studies have examined SRL, SRSD, Toulmin-based instruction, or AWE-supported feedback in writing education, these lines of inquiry have often developed separately. Consequently, there is still a lack of systematically designed instructional modules that integrate self-regulation, explicit strategy instruction, a coherent argumentative framework, and technology-supported formative feedback within one pedagogically aligned design, particularly for Chinese undergraduate EFL learners (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Karatay \u0026amp; Karatay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, design and development research remains relatively underrepresented in studies of EFL argumentative writing, meaning that more work is needed not only to test interventions, but also to document how such interventions are theoretically grounded, contextually adapted, and pedagogically developed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, the present study focuses on the design and development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module (SRLM) for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. Guided by an integrated framework that brings together SRL, SRSD, Toulmin\u0026rsquo;s model, and AWE, the study aims to develop a context-sensitive and pedagogically coherent module for undergraduate learners. More specifically, it documents how the module was conceptually designed, translated into instructional components and learning supports, and refined through expert review (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). In doing so, the study seeks to contribute both a practical instructional model for English argumentative writing and a transparent account of the design-and-development process that may inform future work in EFL writing pedagogy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, the study addressed the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1) What learner needs informed the design of the SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2) How was the SRLM designed by integrating SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3) How was the SRLM developed and refined through expert review?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Review","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 SRL in Writing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelf-regulated learning (SRL) refers to learners\u0026rsquo; active regulation of their learning processes through goal setting, planning, strategy use, monitoring, and self-evaluation across metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural domains (Zimmerman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than relying solely on external instruction, self-regulated learners actively manage tasks, effort, and feedback, thereby transforming their abilities into purposeful academic action (Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Teng et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In writing contexts, SRL is particularly important because writing is a recursive and cognitively demanding activity that requires learners to generate ideas, organize content, monitor progress, revise drafts, and evaluate outcomes (Umamah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These demands are especially salient in L2 argumentative writing, where students must not only express opinions clearly but also justify claims, develop evidence, and sustain logical reasoning throughout a text.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent studies in EFL contexts have consistently shown that self-regulated writing strategies are associated with writing performance (Bai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Teng \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), writing-related emotions (Hab\u0026oacute;k et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Shen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and self-efficacy (Adiyono et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; An et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These findings suggest that SRL contributes not only to the cognitive dimension of writing, but also to learners\u0026rsquo; motivational and emotional engagement in writing tasks. However, despite this growing recognition, SRL is not always explicitly embedded in writing instruction. In many classrooms, students are assigned writing tasks and receive feedback, yet they are given limited support in how to set goals, monitor progress, regulate effort, or reflect on revision decisions (Teng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Yang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, writing instruction may focus more on task completion than on the development of strategic and autonomous writing behaviour.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the present study, SRL therefore serves as the overarching theoretical foundation for module design. It provides the broader perspective through which argumentative writing is viewed not only as a linguistic outcome, but also as a strategic learning process requiring planning, monitoring, revision, and reflection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 SRSD as an Instructional Pathway\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile SRL provides a theoretical orientation, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) offers an instructional pathway for operationalizing self-regulation in writing classrooms. SRSD is an evidence-based framework for explicit writing strategy instruction that integrates cognitive strategy teaching with self-regulation procedures such as goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-evaluation (Camacho et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Graham \u0026amp; Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than emphasizing only the final written product, SRSD supports learners in understanding, practising, and gradually internalizing writing strategies through scaffolded instruction (Harris \u0026amp; Graham, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). It is commonly organized into six iterative instructional stages: Develop and Activate Background Knowledge, Discuss It, Model It, Memorize It, Support It, and Independent Performance (Peltier et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Salas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Through these stages, responsibility is gradually shifted from teacher support to learner independence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch has reported positive effects of SRSD on writing performance (Asomani-Adem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Graham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), text quality (Fernandez \u0026amp; Guilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e; Salas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), self-efficacy (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Limpo \u0026amp; Alves, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Nunes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), motivation (Asomani-Adem, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Graham \u0026amp; Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Nunes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), and emotional engagement (FitzPatrick \u0026amp; McKeown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Werunga \u0026amp; Lo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, most SRSD studies have been conducted in K\u0026ndash;12 L1 contexts, while relatively fewer studies have explored its application in tertiary education or in L2/EFL writing settings (Camacho et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; FitzPatrick \u0026amp; McKeown, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; McKeown et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Shen \u0026amp; Li, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This suggests a need for more context-sensitive adaptation of SRSD principles in higher education EFL environments, particularly in complex genres such as argumentative writing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the present study, SRSD is not treated as a stand-alone intervention, but as a pedagogical mechanism through which SRL can be made explicit and teachable. In other words, SRSD provides the scaffolded instructional structure through which students can learn to regulate their writing processes more effectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Toulmin Model as a Structural Scaffold for Argumentative Writing\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eArgumentative writing is widely recognized as one of the most cognitively and rhetorically demanding genres because it requires writers to coordinate ideas, logic, evidence, and audience awareness in a coherent text (Ferretti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Flower \u0026amp; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e; Hyland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). For EFL learners, these demands are often intensified by limited genre awareness and insufficient experience in constructing extended arguments in English. Previous research has shown that learners frequently struggle with weak claims, insufficient support, limited logical development, and underdeveloped counterarguments in argumentative writing (Liao \u0026amp; Liao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Liu \u0026amp; Stapleton, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These difficulties indicate the need for more explicit structural guidance in argument instruction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Toulmin model provides a useful framework for making the logic of argumentation more visible and teachable. Originally proposed by Toulmin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), the model conceptualizes argument in terms of elements such as claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. In L2 and EFL instructional contexts, however, the model is often pedagogically adapted to enhance classroom applicability. Qin and Karabacak (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), for example, proposed a simplified framework consisting of claim, data, counterargument claim, counterargument data, rebuttal claim, and rebuttal data. This adaptation is particularly relevant to argumentative writing instruction because it translates abstract argumentative principles into clearer components that learners can identify, practise, and apply in their own writing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies have shown that Toulmin-based instruction can improve learners\u0026rsquo; argumentative structure, use of evidence, and treatment of counterarguments in L2/EFL writing contexts (Chen M., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Liu D., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the Toulmin model is therefore adopted as an explicit structural scaffold within the broader module design. Its role is to help students construct clearer, better-supported, and more balanced arguments in English argumentative writing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 AWE for Feedback and Revision\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAutomated Writing Evaluation (AWE) refers to the use of digital systems to generate immediate feedback on student writing, often focusing on language accuracy, mechanics, organization, and in some cases broader discourse features (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Cheng \u0026amp; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In writing instruction, AWE has attracted growing attention because it can provide timely formative feedback, increase opportunities for revision, and extend feedback support beyond what teachers alone can realistically provide, especially in large classes and process-oriented writing contexts (Karatay \u0026amp; Karatay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Stevenson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent research suggests that AWE may contribute to improvements in writing quality (Huang \u0026amp; Wilson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Link et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Sun \u0026amp; Fan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), revision behaviour (Fu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Zhu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), and certain learner-related variables such as self-efficacy (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Sari \u0026amp; Han, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wei, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and anxiety (Sari \u0026amp; Han, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sun \u0026amp; Fan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Y. Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, these benefits are not automatic. The effectiveness of AWE depends heavily on how learners interpret, evaluate, and act on the feedback they receive, which means that engagement with automated feedback may vary considerably across learners and tasks (Huang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, AWE is generally more effective at identifying surface-level issues than at addressing deeper rhetorical concerns such as audience awareness, argument strength, or the quality of evidence and rebuttal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, the present study positions AWE as a supportive feedback mechanism rather than the instructional core of the module. Its value lies in providing timely feedback that can promote noticing, monitoring, and revision, while teacher guidance and peer interaction remain essential for helping students interpret feedback and make meaningful argumentative choices. In this sense, AWE is integrated into the module as part of a broader feedback ecology rather than as a replacement for human support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Synthesis of Theoretical Foundations and Research Gap\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the four perspectives reviewed above are complementary rather than parallel. SRL provides the overarching perspective on the learner capacities needed for successful writing, particularly goal setting, monitoring, revision, and reflection. SRSD offers a scaffolded instructional pathway through which these capacities can be explicitly taught and gradually internalized. The Toulmin model adds a structural dimension by making key components of argumentation more visible and teachable. AWE strengthens the feedback dimension by creating additional opportunities for noticing, self-monitoring, and revision, especially when combined with teacher support and reflective engagement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis integrated perspective is especially important in the Chinese EFL context, where argumentative writing requires students to manage linguistic, cognitive, and rhetorical demands simultaneously. A single theoretical or instructional approach is unlikely to address all of these needs adequately. However, previous studies have often examined SRL, SRSD, Toulmin-based instruction, or AWE separately, while fewer studies have translated these strands into a coherent instructional module for tertiary EFL argumentative writing. Thus, there remains a need for research that not only draws on these perspectives conceptually, but also integrates them into a systematic and context-sensitive pedagogical design. The present study addresses this need by designing and developing an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuided by this integrated perspective, the present study adopted a design-and-development approach to construct an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Research Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study adopted Design and Development Research (DDR) to guide the systematic creation of an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. DDR was appropriate because the study aimed to design, develop, and refine an instructional product in a theoretically informed and context-sensitive manner, rather than merely to test instructional outcomes (Richey \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Within this broader DDR orientation, the study employed the ADDIE instructional design framework to organize the development process. ADDIE was selected because it provides a clear structure for moving from needs analysis to instructional design and material development (Branch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, DDR informed the overall research purpose and logic, whereas ADDIE guided the step-by-step development of the module.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present article focuses specifically on the stages that directly contributed to the creation and refinement of the SRLM, namely needs analysis, design, and development. More specifically, it reports how learner needs and theoretical foundations informed the module design, how the module was translated into concrete instructional components, and how expert review supported its refinement. Accordingly, this article reports only the needs analysis, design, and development stages of the larger doctoral study, rather than the implementation and evaluation phases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Context and Data Sources\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was situated in a Chinese tertiary EFL context and focused on undergraduate English-major students in Sichuan Province, China. This article draws on three sources of evidence: needs analysis data, expert review data, and design artefacts. The needs analysis included 364 valid questionnaire responses and five focus group discussions with 28 students. These data were used to identify students\u0026rsquo; difficulties in argumentative writing, their use of SRL strategies, and their instructional and feedback needs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpert review was conducted in two stages to evaluate and refine the emerging module. The design phase involved eight experts, while the development phase involved ten experts. In both rounds, rating-scale items and open-ended comments were used to collect quantitative and qualitative feedback on the relevance, clarity, appropriateness, and pedagogical value of the module.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, the development process was documented through design artefacts, including the module blueprint, learning objectives, activity plans, scaffolding tools, and draft instructional materials. These artefacts served as evidence of how the theoretical foundations of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE were translated into concrete module components.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe development of the SRLM was carried out through three closely related processes: needs analysis, design, and development with expert-informed refinement. First, the needs analysis served as the foundation for module design. In this process, students\u0026rsquo; difficulties in argumentative writing, their use of SRL strategies, and their instructional and feedback needs were identified (Richey \u0026amp; Klein, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The purpose of this stage was not only to describe learner problems, but also to generate design requirements for the module. In line with ADDIE, the analysis stage helped clarify the target learners, instructional challenges, and pedagogical priorities that the module needed to address (Branch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Hanis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, the design process focused on constructing the conceptual framework and instructional blueprint of the SRLM. Based on the needs analysis findings and the theoretical foundations of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE, design principles were formulated and translated into learning objectives, module components, instructional activities, scaffolds, and feedback mechanisms. The initial design was then reviewed by experts, and their feedback informed subsequent revisions to the module blueprint.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, the development process translated the revised design blueprint into a more concrete module prototype. During this process, instructional materials, learner supports, and draft learning activities were developed. The resulting prototype was then reviewed by experts in the development phase, and their feedback was used formatively to refine the module, strengthen its pedagogical coherence, and improve its appropriateness for the target learners.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuestionnaire data were analysed using descriptive statistics to identify major learner needs and challenges in English argumentative writing, self-regulated learning (SRL) strategy use, and feedback-related preferences. Focus group data were examined interpretively to identify recurring themes related to students\u0026rsquo; writing difficulties, regulatory practices, perceptions of AWE, and expectations for instructional support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the expert reviews, rating-scale responses were summarised descriptively to indicate overall expert judgments of the module at the design and development stages, while qualitative comments were analysed to identify areas for revision and refinement. Taken together, these forms of analysis supported the systematic and evidence-informed design, development, and improvement of the SRLM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Needs Analysis as the Basis for Module Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe needs analysis provided the empirical foundation for the design of the SRLM. The integrated questionnaire and focus group findings indicated that undergraduate EFL students experienced persistent difficulties in English argumentative writing, particularly in structural organisation, content development, and academic language use. More specifically, the findings suggested that students often struggled with constructing arguable claims, organising evidence logically, addressing counterarguments and rebuttals, and maintaining coherence across the whole text. These findings indicated that the module needed to provide explicit and scaffolded support for the core demands of argumentative writing rather than focusing only on language accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe needs analysis also showed that students demonstrated partial but uneven use of SRL strategies across the writing process. While some students reported using planning and feedback-related strategies, the overall pattern suggested more limited use of sustained monitoring, self-evaluation, and peer-supported learning. In addition, students expressed generally positive attitudes toward AWE tools, but also recognised that such tools were more useful for surface-level issues than for deeper concerns such as argument quality, logic, and evidence use. These findings suggested that the SRLM should combine explicit argumentative writing instruction, systematic SRL scaffolding, and AWE-supported feedback with teacher and peer support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the triangulated needs analysis highlighted three major design implications: the need for clearer instructional support for argumentative structure, more systematic scaffolding of SRL across the writing process, and a balanced, sequenced feedback system integrating AWE with teacher and peer support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Design of the SRLM\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA major outcome of the design phase was the development of a coherent conceptual and pedagogical architecture for the SRLM. Rather than treating SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE as separate components, the design phase aligned them as complementary elements within a single instructional system. Within this framework, SRL functioned as the overarching learning orientation, SRSD provided the scaffolded instructional pathway, the Toulmin model supplied the structural framework for argumentation, and AWE was incorporated as a feedback support mechanism. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the theoretical and conceptual framework that guided the design of the SRLM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA second design outcome was the formulation of a structured learning objectives and content framework. The module translated the needs analysis findings into explicit instructional targets related to cognition, metacognition, social behaviour, and motivational regulation. These objectives were then organised into a ten-unit structure covering foundational orientation, argument structure, argument development and reasoning, and language accuracy and rhetorical enhancement. This progression reflected a sequenced design logic in which students were gradually supported from basic understanding of argumentative writing toward more complex work on counterargument, rebuttal, revision, and rhetorical refinement. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the alignment between the main learning focuses identified in the needs analysis and their corresponding realisation in the SRLM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlignment of Learning Objectives, SRL Dimensions, and Argumentative Writing Components in the SRLM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRL Dimension\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLearning Focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWriting / Argumentative Focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorresponding Module Design Features\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelop argumentative writing knowledge and skills\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eorganisation, claims, data, counterarguments, rebuttals, language accuracy, rhetorical effectiveness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eexplicit instruction, Toulmin-based tasks, unit progression\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMetacognition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlan, monitor, evaluate, and revise writing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epre-writing, drafting, revising, feedback-based revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003egoal-setting forms, checklists, reflection sheets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial Behaviour\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEngage in peer interaction and collaborative meaning-making\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ediscussion, peer review, oral debate, feedback exchange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003egroup tasks, whole-class discussion, peer feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMotivational Regulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustain confidence, effort, and engagement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epersistence in revision, confidence building, constructive response to feedback\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003escaffolded participation, meaningful tasks, oral debate, sequenced support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e outlines the overall thematic and unit structure of the module.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverview of Content Themes and Instructional Units in the SRLM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnits\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme 1: Foundational Orientation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 1: Understanding the SRLM and the Structure of Argumentative Writing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme 2: Global Argument Structure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 2: Building Strong Introductions and Conclusions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 3: Crafting Effective Claims\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme 3: Argument Development and Reasoning\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 4: Supporting Claims with Data\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 5: Using Core Argumentation Methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 6: Developing Counterargument Claims and Data\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 7: Constructing Rebuttal Claims and Data\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheme 4: Language Accuracy and Rhetorical Enhancement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 8: Avoiding Logical Fallacies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 9: Writing Effective and Academic Sentences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit 10: Enhancing Writing through Figures of Speech\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe design phase also identified the core instructional activities and strategies used to operationalise the module. These included explicit knowledge explanation, teacher guidance and modelling, guided practice, varied writing tasks, visual and procedural scaffolds, goal-setting and reflection tools, and AWE-supported revision. Together, these elements formed the practical blueprint for the later development of the module prototype. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e summarises the core instructional activities and strategies designed for the SRLM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCore Instructional Activities and Strategies Designed for the SRLM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstructional Component\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntended SRL Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntended Writing Support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplicit knowledge explanation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDirect explanation of concepts, structures, and writing procedures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilds awareness of strategies and process\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClarifies argumentative concepts and writing expectations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeacher guidance and modelling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemonstration of writing moves and strategy use\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupports observation and guided uptake\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eShows practical application of Toulmin elements and writing procedures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuided practice\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScaffolded tasks during pre-writing, drafting, and revising\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupports planning, monitoring, and adjustment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelops step-by-step writing competence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVaried writing tasks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual, group-based, and whole-class activities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEncourages active engagement and socially mediated regulation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRepeated practice in argumentative writing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisual and procedural scaffolds\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGraphic organisers, templates, checklists\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupports planning, monitoring, and reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHelps structure ideas and improve coherence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoal-setting and reflection tools\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eForms for goal setting and self-reflection\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMakes SRL more explicit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthens revision and self-evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAWE-supported revision\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUse of automated feedback with teacher/peer support\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupports feedback processing and prioritisation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproves revision quality and language accuracy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Development of the SRLM\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the design blueprint, the development phase focused on transforming the SRLM into a more concrete and usable instructional prototype. This phase did not merely extend the earlier design; rather, it operationalised the conceptual framework, learning objectives, and instructional strategies into materials and support tools that could be used in classroom practice. The major developed components included ten sequenced instructional units, learner-facing materials, SRL scaffolding tools, and AWE-integrated revision support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe instructional units translated the thematic structure of the module into teachable learning sequences, while the learner materials made the procedures, activities, and task expectations more explicit and manageable for students. These materials included guided worksheets, task instructions, classroom activities, and revision-related support aligned with the progression of the module. In this way, the development phase strengthened the practical usability of the SRLM by making its pedagogical intentions more visible and actionable for learners.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, specific SRL scaffolding tools were developed to support planning, monitoring, and reflection throughout the writing process. These included a whole-module goal-setting form, unit-level checklists, and reflection forms. The purpose of these tools was to make SRL processes more explicit within the module and to support students in engaging more systematically in goal setting, self-monitoring, and reflective revision. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e summarises the SRL scaffolding tools developed for the SRLM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRL Scaffolding Tools Developed for the SRLM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRL Tool\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLevel\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMain Function\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntended Support for Students\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhole-module goal-setting form\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhole-module level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo help students set broader learning goals across the module\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupports long-term direction and goal awareness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit-level writing process checklist\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo guide students through key stages of task completion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupports planning, monitoring, and task management\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGoal-setting and self-reflection form\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnit level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo encourage reflection after each learning task or unit\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupports self-evaluation and strategy adjustment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAWE support was also integrated into the module as part of revision guidance. Rather than encouraging uncritical reliance on automated feedback, this component was designed to help students interpret automated feedback selectively and use it as part of a broader revision process supported by teacher and peer input. Taken together, the development phase transformed the SRLM from a conceptual design into a more usable instructional prototype for subsequent implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Expert Review and Refinement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.1 Expert Review of the Design Phase\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing the formulation of the design blueprint, the proposed SRLM was subjected to expert review before entering the development phase. Eight experts from relevant fields evaluated the design. Although the design phase generated multiple specific components, these were reviewed through four broader dimensions: completeness, appropriateness and necessity, alignment and coherence, and feasibility. Overall, the design-phase findings indicated strong support for the proposed SRLM, suggesting that the module blueprint was generally viewed as pedagogically meaningful, contextually appropriate, and sufficiently coherent to proceed to the development stage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe qualitative feedback from the experts also provided clear directions for refinement. Their comments focused on improving time allocation and instructional focus, strengthening the modelling of more complex writing skills, revising learning objectives to make them more observable and measurable, making formative assessment more systematic, and clarifying the expected output of each instructional unit. These suggestions were used to revise the module blueprint before the development phase, thereby improving the manageability, clarity, and pedagogical alignment of the SRLM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4.2 Expert Review of the Development Phase\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter the module prototype had been developed, a second round of expert review was conducted in the development phase. Ten experts examined the developed module components, including the instructional units, learner materials, SRL scaffolding tools, and AWE integration procedures, in terms of their quality, clarity, practicality, and pedagogical appropriateness. This review provided product-level feedback on how effectively the earlier design intentions had been translated into usable classroom materials and learning supports. These suggestions informed further modification of the module prototype before implementation. Overall, the development-phase review suggested that the module prototype was pedagogically promising, while also requiring refinement in the clarity of instructions, the usability of scaffolding tools, and the practical integration of AWE-supported revision procedures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the two rounds of expert review functioned as a systematic refinement mechanism that strengthened the relevance, coherence, and practical usability of the SRLM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 The SRLM as a Needs-Informed Instructional Response\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest that the SRLM was developed as a direct response to the actual needs of undergraduate EFL learners in English argumentative writing. The needs analysis showed that students\u0026rsquo; difficulties were not confined to language accuracy, but extended to argument structure, idea development, revision, and the strategic regulation of writing processes. This interpretation is consistent with recent research showing that EFL writing performance is closely associated with learners\u0026rsquo; self-regulated strategy use, self-efficacy, and access to explicit writing support (Abdelaty et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Adiyono et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Teng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In this sense, the present study supports the view that instructional design for argumentative writing should be grounded in learners\u0026rsquo; actual difficulties and support needs, rather than organized only around general writing content or isolated classroom techniques.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis demand-oriented approach is crucial because it helps explain why SRLM was designed as a comprehensive rather than a single-focused intervention. Recent studies suggest that EFL learners often require simultaneous support in strategic regulation, motivation, revision, and feedback use, especially in cognitively demanding writing tasks (Abdelaty et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Bai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Shen \u0026amp; Bai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The present findings therefore indicate that the value of the SRLM lies partly in its responsiveness to this multidimensional profile of learner need. The module was designed to address writing as both a linguistic and a self-regulatory activity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 The Value of Integrating SRL, SRSD, Toulmin, and AWE\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central contribution of the study is the integration of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE into one coherent instructional framework. This integration is pedagogically meaningful because each element addresses a different dimension of argumentative writing. Recent work on self-regulated writing has shown that explicit strategy-based instruction can improve learners\u0026rsquo; writing quality and motivational beliefs when SRL is embedded in formative and process-oriented pedagogy (Anggraeni et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Related research has also shown that SRSD remains a strong framework for making self-regulation teachable through explicit and scaffolded instruction, although recent reviews note that more evidence is still needed in higher education and L2/EFL contexts (Fernandez \u0026amp; Guilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of the Toulmin model further strengthened the design because argumentative writing requires more than general strategy support; learners also need explicit guidance on how arguments are structured. Recent research using Toulmin-based analysis continues to show that EFL learners often display uneven control of claims, data, counterarguments, and rebuttals, which supports the pedagogical value of making argumentative components more visible and teachable (Tur\u0026oacute;s et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). At the same time, AWE contributed a feedback dimension to the module. Recent studies suggest that automated feedback can support revision, self-efficacy, and self-regulation, but that its value is greater when it is pedagogically embedded and complemented by teacher guidance rather than used in isolation (Karatay \u0026amp; Karatay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Sari \u0026amp; Han, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Taken together, the present findings support a multi-layered approach to argumentative writing instruction in which strategic regulation, structural knowledge, scaffolded teaching, and feedback support work together rather than separately.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Development and Expert-Informed Refinement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother important implication of the findings is that the study moved beyond conceptual design to produce a usable instructional prototype. In writing pedagogy, there is often a gap between theoretical recommendations and classroom-ready instructional resources. Recent design-oriented work in language education has highlighted the importance of making pedagogical logic visible through concrete artefacts, iterative refinement, and context-sensitive design decisions (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e; Yang \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the development of sequenced units, learner-facing materials, SRL scaffolding tools, and AWE-supported revision procedures suggests that the SRLM was not merely a theoretical proposal, but a structured prototype intended for practical use.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two rounds of expert review also strengthen the significance of the study. Rather than postponing quality judgment until implementation, the module was refined at both the design and prototype levels. This is consistent with recent module-development research emphasizing expert validation and iterative revision as key mechanisms for improving pedagogical coherence, clarity, and usability before classroom enactment (T. Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e). The present findings therefore suggest that expert review functioned not only as evaluation, but as a formative design mechanism that improved the alignment between objectives, activities, supports, and intended learning outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Contribution to Chinese Tertiary EFL Writing Pedagogy\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings suggest that the SRLM contributes to Chinese tertiary EFL writing pedagogy in two main ways. First, it offers a context-sensitive instructional model for argumentative writing that addresses not only language form, but also strategic regulation, argument structure, and revision practices. This is particularly relevant in higher education EFL settings, where recent reviews continue to report persistent challenges in academic writing and a need for better-aligned instructional support (Anggraeni et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Second, the study contributes a transparent design-and-development process that may inform future instructional innovation in EFL writing. In this sense, the contribution lies not only in the SRLM as a product, but also in the way it was generated through needs analysis, theoretical integration, prototype development, and expert-informed refinement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMore broadly, the study responds to the continuing need for integrated and pedagogically grounded models in EFL writing instruction. Recent literature on AI-supported writing, strategy instruction, and self-regulated learning suggests that isolated interventions are often less useful than designs that connect strategy, structure, feedback, and context in a coherent way (Sari \u0026amp; Han, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tran, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The present study therefore implies that future work in tertiary EFL writing may benefit from moving beyond single-method interventions toward more integrated instructional systems that are theoretically grounded, empirically informed, and developmentally refined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the design and development of an SRLM for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. Grounded in learner needs and informed by the integration of SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE, the module was developed as a structured and context-sensitive response to students\u0026rsquo; difficulties in argumentative writing and uneven use of self-regulated learning strategies. The study contributes not only a practical module prototype, but also a transparent design-and-development process shaped by needs analysis and expert-informed refinement. As this article focused only on the analysis, design, and development phases of the larger study, future research may further examine the implementation and effectiveness of the SRLM in classroom practice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelf-Regulated Learning (SRL)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelf-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAutomated Writing Evaluation (AWE)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDesign and Development Research (DDR)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSelf-Regulated Learning Module (SRLM)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSecond Language (L2)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnglish as a Foreign Language (EFL)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003e8. Availability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions involving student participants and expert reviewers, but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e9. Competing Interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e10. Funding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e11. Author Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eName of Author\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eM\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVa\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFo\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eO\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVi\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSu\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFu\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZhang Weijing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmelia Alias\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKhairul Azhar Jamaludin\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e✓\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eC\u003c/strong\u003eonceptualization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eM\u003c/strong\u003eethodology\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSo\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eSo\u003c/strong\u003eftware\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVa\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eVa\u003c/strong\u003elidation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFo\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eFo\u003c/strong\u003ermal analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eI\u003c/strong\u003envestigation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003eesources\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eD\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eD\u003c/strong\u003eata Curation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eO\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;:\u0026nbsp;Writing - \u003cstrong\u003eO\u003c/strong\u003eriginal Draft\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eE\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;:\u0026nbsp;Writing - Review \u0026amp; \u003cstrong\u003eE\u003c/strong\u003editing\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVi\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eVi\u003c/strong\u003esualization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSu\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eSu\u003c/strong\u003epervision\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eP\u003c/strong\u003eroject administration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFu\u0026nbsp;: \u003cstrong\u003eFu\u003c/strong\u003ending acquisition\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e12. Acknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to express sincere gratitude to the students who participated in this study for their time and cooperation. The authors acknowledge the use of ChatGPT in improving the language and readability of this manuscript. The author reviewed and revised the output carefully and takes full responsibility for the final content of the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical and privacy restrictions involving student participants and expert reviewers, but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbdelaty, Y., Alghamdi, E., \u0026amp; Alamer, A. (2025). The effects of self-regulation on L2 writing achievement: Examining the mediating roles of feedback quality and task complexity. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e132\u003c/em\u003e, 103715. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103715\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.system.2025.103715\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdiyono, A., Nurhayati, S., Muti\u0026rsquo;ah, N., Abdurrohim, A., Rienovita, E., \u0026amp; Arianti, S. (2025). Self-Efficacy as a Mediator: How Self-Regulated Learning and Family Support Reduce Academic Procrastination Among Indonesian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Students. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of TESOL Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 148.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAn, Z., Wang, C., Li, S., Gan, Z., \u0026amp; Li, H. (2021). Technology-Assisted Self-Regulated English Language Learning: Associations With English Language Self-Efficacy, English Enjoyment, and Learning Outcomes. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.558466\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2020.558466\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnggraeni, C. W., Mujiyanto, J., Rustipa, K., \u0026amp; Widhiyanto (2025). Effects of utilizing self-regulated learning-based instruction on EFL students\u0026rsquo; academic writing skills: A mixed-method investigation. \u003cem\u003eAsian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00317-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40862-024-00317-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAsomani-Adem, A. A. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEnhancing Writing Motivation Using Creative Writing Instruction: A Self-Regulated Strategy Development Intervention\u003c/em\u003e [Ph.D., Indiana University]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/enhancing-writing-motivation-using-creative/docview/2852249647/se-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/enhancing-writing-motivation-using-creative/docview/2852249647/se-2\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBai, B., Shen, B., \u0026amp; Mei, H. (2020). Hong Kong primary students\u0026rsquo; self-regulated writing strategy use: Influences of gender, writing proficiency, and grade level. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Educational Evaluation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e, 100839. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100839\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100839\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBai, B., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2020). Conceptualizing self-regulated reading-to-write in ESL/EFL writing and investigating its relationships to motivation and writing competence. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1193\u0026ndash;1216. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820971740\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1362168820971740\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBai, B., Zang, X., Song, H., \u0026amp; Nie, Y. (2025). The relationship between teachers\u0026rsquo; support and students\u0026rsquo; self-regulation in ESL collaborative learning in Hong Kong primary schools: The mediating role of students\u0026rsquo; motivation. \u003cem\u003eInnovation in Language Learning and Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e0\u003c/em\u003e(0), 1\u0026ndash;20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2025.2533973\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17501229.2025.2533973\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBranch, R. M. (2009). Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. \u003cem\u003eSpringer US\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCamacho, A., Alves, R. A., Silva, M., Ferreira, P., Correia, N., \u0026amp; Daniel, J. R. (2023). The impact of combining SRSD instruction with a brief growth mindset intervention on sixth graders\u0026rsquo; writing motivation and performance. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e, 102127. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102127\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102127\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, J., Zhang, L. J., Wang, X., \u0026amp; Zhang, T. (2021). Impacts of Self-Regulated Strategy Development-Based Revision Instruction on English-as-a-Foreign-Language Students\u0026rsquo; Self-Efficacy for Text Revision: A Mixed-Methods Study. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670100\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670100\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, M. (2022). Skillful Use of the Tulmin Model to Promote the Development of Critical Thinking: A Case Study of High School English Argumentative Reading and Writing Teaching. \u003cem\u003eStudent Growth Guidance\u003c/em\u003e, 13\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, R., Wang, X., \u0026amp; Zhu, K. (2025). A bibliometric and content analysis of strategy-based instruction and self-regulated learning in second or foreign language teaching from 1994 to 2024. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e, 1474689. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1474689\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1474689\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, Z., Chen, W., Jia, J., \u0026amp; Le, H. (2022). \u003cem\u003eExploring AWE-supported writing process: An activity theory perspective\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://hdl.handle.net/10125/73482\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://hdl.handle.net/10125/73482\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheng, X., \u0026amp; Zhang, L. J. (2024). Examining Second Language (L2) Learners\u0026rsquo; Engagement with AWE-Teacher Integrated Feedback in a Technology-Empowered Context. \u003cem\u003eThe Asia-Pacific Education Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(4).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernandez, J., \u0026amp; Guilbert, J. (2024a). Self-regulated strategy development\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness: Underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eMETACOGNITION AND LEARNING\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1091\u0026ndash;1135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09398-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11409-024-09398-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFernandez, J., \u0026amp; Guilbert, J. (2024b). Self-regulated strategy development\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness: Underlying cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eMetacognition and Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1091\u0026ndash;1135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-024-09398-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11409-024-09398-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerretti, R. P., Andrews-Weckerly, S., \u0026amp; Lewis, W. E. (2007). Improving the Argumentative Writing of Students with Learning Disabilities: Descriptive and Normative Considerations. \u003cem\u003eReading \u0026amp; Writing Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 267\u0026ndash;285. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10573560701277740\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10573560701277740\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFitzPatrick, E. R., \u0026amp; McKeown, D. (2020). Meeting the Needs of Middle School Writers in a Special Education Classroom: SRSD for the Informational Genre Citing Text-Based Evidence. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Treatment of Children\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71\u0026ndash;84. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00006-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s43494-020-00006-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlower, L., \u0026amp; Hayes, J. R. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. \u003cem\u003eCollege Composition and Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 365\u0026ndash;387. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198115885\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.58680/ccc198115885\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFu, Q. K., Zou, D., Xie, H., \u0026amp; Cheng, G. (2024). A review of AWE feedback: Types, learning outcomes, and implications. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 179\u0026ndash;221. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2033787\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09588221.2022.2033787\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhanbari, N., \u0026amp; Salari, M. (2022). Problematizing Argumentative Writing in an Iranian EFL Undergraduate Context. \u003cem\u003eFRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 862400. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862400\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862400\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraham, S., \u0026amp; Harris, K. R. (2018). An examination of the design principles underlying a self-regulated strategy development study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Writing Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 139\u0026ndash;187. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2018.10.02.02\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17239/jowr-2018.10.02.02\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraham, S., Harris, K. R., \u0026amp; Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(2), 207\u0026ndash;241. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHab\u0026oacute;k, A., Magyar, A., \u0026amp; Moln\u0026aacute;r, G. (2022). English as a foreign language learners\u0026rsquo; strategy awareness across proficiency levels from the perspective of self-regulated learning metafactors. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1019561\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1019561\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHanis, N. M., Jamil, M., Yulu, M. R., Md Zalli, J., M. M., \u0026amp; Othman, M. S. (2025). Design and Development Research (DDR) Approach in Development of Value-Based Pedagogy Model in the Context of a Multiracial Country. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Curriculum and Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 248. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v14n1p248\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5430/jct.v14n1p248\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris, K. R. (2024). The Self-Regulated Strategy Development Instructional Model: Efficacious Theoretical Integration, Scaling Up, Challenges, and Future Research. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 104. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09921-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10648-024-09921-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarris, K. R., \u0026amp; Graham, S. (2009). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Premises, evolution, and the future. In V. Connelly, A. L. Barnett, J. E. Dockrell, \u0026amp; A. Tolmie (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eBJEP Monograph Series II: Part 6 Teaching and Learning Writing\u003c/em\u003e. British Psychological Society. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1348/978185409X422542\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1348/978185409X422542\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang, X., Xu, W., Li, F., \u0026amp; Yu, Z. (2024). A Meta-analysis of Effects of Automated Writing Evaluation on Anxiety, Motivation, and Second Language Writing Skills. \u003cem\u003eThe Asia-Pacific Education Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(4), 957\u0026ndash;976. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-024-00865-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40299-024-00865-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuang, Y., \u0026amp; Wilson, J. (2021). Using automated feedback to develop writing proficiency. \u003cem\u003eComputers and Composition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 102675. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102675\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102675\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHyland, K. (2009). \u003cem\u003eTeaching and researching writing. 2nd edition\u003c/em\u003e (K. Hyland, Ed.). Longman. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/catalog/academic/product?ISBN=140820505X\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/catalog/academic/product?ISBN=140820505X\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaratay, Y., \u0026amp; Karatay, L. (2024). Automated writing evaluation use in second language classrooms: A research synthesis. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e123\u003c/em\u003e, 103332. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103332\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.system.2024.103332\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, R., Meng, Z., Tian, M., Zhang, Z., Ni, C., \u0026amp; Xiao, W. (2019). Examining EFL learners\u0026rsquo; individual antecedents on the adoption of automated writing evaluation in China. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(7), 784\u0026ndash;804. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1540433\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09588221.2018.1540433\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, T., Borhan, M. T., \u0026amp; Judge, S. K. (2026). Development and Validation of a Reading-Writing Module to Enhance Students\u0026rsquo; Critical Thinking and EFL Writing. \u003cem\u003eWorld Journal of English Language\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 351. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n3p351\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5430/wjel.v16n3p351\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiao, M., \u0026amp; Liao, Y. (2022). Improving Chinese College Students\u0026rsquo; Argumentative Writing: A Presentation-Assimilation-Discussion-Exercise Approach. \u003cem\u003eFRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 874531. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874531\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.874531\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLimpo, T., \u0026amp; Alves, R. A. (2013). Teaching planning or sentence-combining strategies: Effective SRSD interventions at different levels of written composition. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(4), 328\u0026ndash;341. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLink, S., Mehrzad, M., \u0026amp; Rahimi, M. (2022). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 605\u0026ndash;634. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, D. (2020). The Changes in Argumentation Schemas of Chinese English Learners: A Longitudinal Study Based on Toulmin Model. \u003cem\u003eModern Foreign Languages (Bimonthly)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(6), 793\u0026ndash;805.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, F., \u0026amp; Stapleton, P. (2014). Counterargumentation and the cultivation of critical thinking in argumentative writing: Investigating washback from a high-stakes test. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e, 117\u0026ndash;128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.system.2014.05.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcKeown, D., Wijekumar, K., Owens, J., Harris, K., Graham, S., Lei, P., \u0026amp; FitzPatrick, E. (2023). Professional development for evidence-based SRSD writing instruction: Elevating fourth grade outcomes. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e73\u003c/em\u003e, 102152. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102152\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102152\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNunes, A., Cordeiro, C., Rocha, R., Limpo, T., \u0026amp; Castro, S. L. (2024). Breathe, Plan, Write, and Evaluate: The effects of an SRSD intervention and instructional feedback on 4th graders\u0026rsquo; writing and motivation. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers In Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 1305771. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1305771\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2024.1305771\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeltier, C., Garwood, J. D., McKenna, J., Peltier, T., \u0026amp; Sendra, J. (2021). Using the SRSD Instructional Approach for Argumentative Writing: A Look across the Content Areas. \u003cem\u003eLearning Disabilities Research \u0026amp; Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 224\u0026ndash;234. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12255\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ldrp.12255\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin, J., \u0026amp; Karabacak, E. (2010). The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(3), 444\u0026ndash;456. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.system.2010.06.012\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRichey, R. C., \u0026amp; Klein, J. D. (2007). \u003cem\u003eDesign and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826034\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203826034\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalas, N., Birello, M., \u0026amp; Ribas, T. (2021). Effectiveness of an SRSD writing intervention for low- and high-SES children. \u003cem\u003eReading and Writing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1653\u0026ndash;1680. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10103-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11145-020-10103-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSalas, N., Pascual, M., Birello, M., \u0026amp; Cross, A. (2023). Embedding Explicit Linguistic Instruction in an SRSD Writing Intervention. \u003cem\u003eWritten Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(3), 857\u0026ndash;891. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/07410883231169516\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/07410883231169516\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSari, E., \u0026amp; Han, T. (2024). The impact of automated writing evaluation on English as a foreign language learners\u0026rsquo; writing self-efficacy, self-regulation, anxiety, and performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Computer Assisted Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2065\u0026ndash;2080. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jcal.13004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen, B., \u0026amp; Bai, B. (2025). Explorations into EFL learners\u0026rsquo; self-regulated writing strategy use in writing for scholarly publications: A case study of Chinese PhD students. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Awareness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e0\u003c/em\u003e(0), 1\u0026ndash;22. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2585007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09658416.2025.2585007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen, B., Wang, Y., Yang, Y., \u0026amp; Yu, X. (2023). Relationships between Chinese university EFL learners\u0026rsquo; academic emotions and self-regulated learning strategies: A structural equation model. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Teaching Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(1), 317\u0026ndash;342. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221144832\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/13621688221144832\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShen, H., \u0026amp; Li, L. (2022). Influence of Self-Regulated Strategy Development on the Performance of Virtual Reality-Based Teaching in Online Learning. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(11), 312\u0026ndash;324. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i11.31759\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3991/ijet.v17i11.31759\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStevenson, M. (2016). A Critical Interpretative Synthesis: The Integration of Automated Writing Evaluation into Classroom Writing Instruction. \u003cem\u003eComputers and Composition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.05.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compcom.2016.05.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSun, B., \u0026amp; Fan, T. (2022). The effects of an AWE-aided assessment approach on business English writing performance and writing anxiety: A contextual consideration. \u003cem\u003eStudies in Educational Evaluation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e, 101123. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101123\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101123\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSundari, H., \u0026amp; Febriyanti, R. (2021). The Analysis of Indonesian EFL Argumentative Writing Using Toulmin\u0026rsquo;s Model: The Structure and Struggles from the Learners. \u003cem\u003eScope: Journal of English Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e, 67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30998/scope.v5i2.8544\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30998/scope.v5i2.8544\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeng, L. S. (2022). Explicit strategy-based instruction in L2 writing contexts: A perspective of self-regulated learning and formative assessment. \u003cem\u003eAssessing Writing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e, 100645. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100645\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.asw.2022.100645\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeng, M. F., Wang, C., \u0026amp; Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners\u0026rsquo; writing performance. \u003cem\u003eAssessing Writing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e, 100573. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeng, M. F., \u0026amp; Zhang, L. J. (2024). Assessing self-regulated writing strategies, working memory, L2 proficiency level, and multimedia writing performance. \u003cem\u003eLanguage Awareness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(3), 570\u0026ndash;596. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09658416.2023.2300269\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eToulmin, S. E. (2003). \u003cem\u003eThe Uses of Argument, Updated Edition\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTran, T. T. T. (2025). Enhancing EFL Writing Revision Practices: The Impact of AI- and Teacher-Generated Feedback and Their Sequences. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 232. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020232\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/educsci15020232\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTur\u0026oacute;s, M., Kenyeres, A. Z., Balla, G., Gazdag, E., Szab\u0026oacute;, E., \u0026amp; Szűts, Z. (2025). A Toulmin Model Analysis of Student Argumentation on Artificial Intelligence. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1226. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091226\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/educsci15091226\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUmamah, A., El Khoiri, N., Widiati, U., \u0026amp; Nunuk Wulyani, A. (2022). EFL University Students\u0026rsquo; Self-Regulated Writing Strategies: The Role of Individual Differences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Language and Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 182\u0026ndash;193. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.13339\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17323/jle.2022.13339\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, X., Hussin, S., \u0026amp; Abdul Aziz, A. (2025). \u003cem\u003eInvestigating the Relationship Between Self-Regulated Writing Strategies and Academic Writing Performance\u003c/em\u003e (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 5714142). Social Science Research Network. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5714142\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5714142\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Y., Luo, X., Liu, C. C., Tu, Y. F., \u0026amp; Wang, N. (2022). An Integrated Automatic Writing Evaluation and SVVR Approach to Improve Students\u0026rsquo; EFL Writing Performance. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(18), 11586. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su141811586\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su141811586\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWei, L. (2023). Artificial intelligence in language instruction: Impact on English learning achievement, L2 motivation, and self-regulated learning. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e, 1261955. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1261955\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWerunga, R. N., \u0026amp; Lo, Y. (2024). Effects of SRSD With Social Skills Prompts on the Writing Skills and Problem Behaviors of Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. \u003cem\u003eJOURNAL OF EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 239\u0026ndash;253. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/10634266231206749\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/10634266231206749\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, M. (2024). Fostering EFL university students\u0026rsquo; motivation and self-regulated learning in writing: A socio-constructivist approach. \u003cem\u003eSystem\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e124\u003c/em\u003e, 103386. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103386\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.system.2024.103386\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, Z., \u0026amp; Lee, Y. Y. (2025). Challenges and opportunities of design-based research in applied linguistics: Insights from a scoping review. \u003cem\u003eResearch Methods in Applied Linguistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 100178. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100178\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.rmal.2024.100178\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, J., \u0026amp; Zhang, L. J. (2024). The effect of feedback on metacognitive strategy use in EFL writing. \u003cem\u003eComputer Assisted Language Learning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(5\u0026ndash;6), 1198\u0026ndash;1223. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2069822\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/09588221.2022.2069822\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, Z. (2020). (Victor). Engaging with automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback on L2 writing: Student perceptions and revisions. \u003cem\u003eAssessing Writing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e, 100439. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.asw.2019.100439\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou, J., Wang, S., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2022). Investigating high schoolers\u0026rsquo; L2 writing anxiety, L2 writing self-efficacy, L2 writing self-regulated strategies, and L2 writing engagement: Relationships and mediator. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e, 1012407. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1012407\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1012407\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhu, M., Liu, O. L., \u0026amp; Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e143\u003c/em\u003e, 103668. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. \u003cem\u003eTheory Into Practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 64\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman, B. J. (2013). From Cognitive Modeling to Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Career Path. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(3), 135\u0026ndash;147. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.794676\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00461520.2013.794676\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"argumentative writing, self-regulated learning, SRSD, Toulmin model, automated writing evaluation, module development","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9249205/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9249205/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eArgumentative writing remains a persistent challenge for many undergraduate EFL learners, particularly in relation to argument structure, idea development, and strategic revision. Although research has highlighted the value of self-regulated learning (SRL), Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), Toulmin-based argument instruction, and automated writing evaluation (AWE), these strands have often been examined separately, with relatively limited attention to their integration within a systematically designed instructional module. To address this gap, the present study examined the design and development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module (SRLM) for English argumentative writing in a Chinese EFL context. Guided by Design and Development Research and the ADDIE framework, the study focused on the needs analysis, design, and development phases of the larger project. Data were drawn from needs analysis findings and two rounds of expert review. The findings showed that the SRLM was developed in response to students\u0026rsquo; difficulties in argumentative writing, their uneven use of SRL strategies, and the need for more structured, scaffolded, and feedback-supported instruction. The module integrated SRL, SRSD, the Toulmin model, and AWE into a coherent pedagogical design that was operationalised through sequenced units, learner materials, SRL scaffolds, and AWE-supported revision procedures. The study contributes both a practical instructional prototype and a transparent design-and-development process that may inform future EFL writing pedagogy and module design.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Design and Development of a Self-Regulated Learning Module for English Argumentative Writing in a Chinese EFL Context","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-07 16:33:06","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9249205/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T05:41:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"149275554242066073157251500555515845950","date":"2026-05-06T15:08:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T02:13:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T04:10:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-30T04:10:37+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","date":"2026-03-28T02:38:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"asian-pacific-journal-of-second-and-foreign-language-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"jsfl","sideBox":"Learn more about [Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education](http://sfleducation.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40862","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/40862/3","title":"Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education","twitterHandle":"@SpringerOpen","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"491779bc-5d30-4b3b-96cd-64b89e4d47ae","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 7th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T05:41:23+00:00","index":21,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"149275554242066073157251500555515845950","date":"2026-05-06T15:08:28+00:00","index":18,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-07T16:33:06+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-07 16:33:06","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9249205","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9249205","identity":"rs-9249205","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}