Show, don't tell – Developing and Validating a Role-Play-Based Simulation (RobS) for the Assessment of Pre-Service EFL Teachers' Feedback Competence on Writing

λογ ος T homas J anzen Show , Don’t T ell Developing and V alidating a Role-Play-Based Simulation (RobS) for the Assessment of Pre-Service EFL T eachers F eedback Competence on Writing ’ Thomas Janzen Show , Don’t T ell – Developing and V alidating a Role-Play-Based Simulation (RobS) for the Assessment of Pr e-Service EFL T eachers’ Feedback Competence on W riting Logos V erlag Berlin λογος Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license CC BY -SA (https://creativecommons.or g/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Creative Com- mons license terms for re-use do not apply to any content (such as graphs, figures, photos, excerpts, etc.) not original to the Open Access publication and further permission may be requir ed from the rights holder . The obligation to resear ch and clear permission lies solely with the party re-using the material. I acknowledge support for the publication cost by the Open Access Publication Fund of Paderborn University . Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requir ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Paderborn University . © Copyright Logos V erlag Berlin GmbH 2025 All rights reserved. ISBN 978-3-8325-5994-6 DOI 10.30819/5994 Logos V erlag Berlin GmbH Geor g-Knorr -Str . 4, Geb. 10, D-12681 Berlin Germany T el.: +49 (0)30 / 42 85 10 90 Fax: +49 (0)30 / 42 85 10 92 http://www .logos-verlag.de Parts of t his dis sertati on are publ is he d in: Janzen, T., V ogelsang, C., & Rumlich, D. ( 2024). Fee dba ckko mp ete n z han d- lun gsnah p r üfen : Die Entwicklun g einer r ollensp ielbasierten Sim ula tion als Prü fungsfo rmat für ang ehende Englischlehrkrä fte. In D. Gerl ach (Ed.), Wiss e n, Kö nnen und Handeln v on Fremdspr ac hen leh rpersonen: Prof essi- ons- und Wiss ensforschung in den Fremd sprachendidaktike n (pp. 221 – 234). Peter Lang . This thesis is p a rt o f the project Performanz or ien tie r te Profes sio nalisier ung i n d e r Le h ramts ausbildung (PER- FORM-LA). The pro ject is fun ded b y the Federal M inistry of Educa tion a nd Research in Germa ny a s p a rt of the R a h- menprogramm Empirische Bil dungsforschung – N a- chwuc hsg ruppe n in der Bildu ngs fo rschun g . Fundin g numb er: NWGW IHO02. Ackn ow l edg ements Th is thesis presen ts the con clusio n t o a j ou rn ey which I am tha nkful to ha ve sha red with so many remarkable people, for whom words can hardly express my gra tit u de. First an d foremost, I wan t to express my deepest gra titude to m y su pervisor s, Dr. Christoph Vog elsang and Prof. Dr. Dominik Rumlich . The su pport the two of you ha ve given me thr oughou t this time is inva lu able a nd the a d vice I received is pr iceless. You r h igh st an dards m otivat ed m e to strive for m y best, while your thou ghtful pragmatism allowed me to a cc ept my lim its. I am beyon d tha nkf ul that you put your faith in me and g a ve me t h e necessary freedom to develop aca demica lly and persona lly. I also wish t o thank Prof. Dr . Pe ter Hohwille r and Dr . Jana Meier, not on ly for their con tributions to th is project, bu t a lso fo r their roles in the do ctoral co m- mittee . Tha nk you. The influ ence o f Pro f. Dr . Frau ke Matz o n m y aca demic journey canno t b e overstated, as she introduced m e to the world of a c a demia . Your su pport a nd your kin dn ess continu e to b e no thing sh ort of extra ordinary. Thank you so, so mu ch for everything. I am beyond gra teful that I had the privilege t o travel this do ctora l ro ad with Philipp W otsch el. You a re the best office bu ddy I cou ld have hoped for. O ur cou ntless discu ssions s h arpened my cr itical thinkin g in so many wa ys an d im- pro ved my work beyon d wha t I could ha ve ever ima gined . But m ost importantly, they alwa ys bro ught joy and laughter . Tha nk you, from the bo tt o m o f m y he a rt. I am so lucky th a t I have h ad the sup por t of multiple teams who h ave a ll con tributed imm ensely to this thesis. I am in great debt to Dr . Lea Gro tegut, for your invaluable feedback an d su pport, con sistently mo tivating me in the writ ing pro cess by kin d words and deliciou s b a ked g ood s. Fur thermore, I wo uld like to than k the peop le of the PLAZ – Profess ion al School of Education , pa rticular ly Dr. Ann egret Hilligus, a nd its r esearc h depa rt ment: Dr. A n dreas Seifert, Ha M y Tru - on g, Dr. Fra nziska Sch wabl, Prof. Dr . S a bine Fechner, a n d a ll par ticipants of the Fors chu ngskolle g Empi rische Bil dungsfor schung for their com men ts, wh ich have greatly impr oved m y work. This p roject would not have been po ssible without the gr eat wor k of our stud ent co lleagues: Jasmin Heinrichs, Elena Seifert, Hannah Grum mel, Ella Beer, Eike S chriegel , a n d Ca rlo va n Laak. Y ou r work on - and off - screen is tru ly a war d-worthy. Thank you. It is hard to find words to s ay h ow much I va lue the co ntribu tions o f the am azing TEF L Team a t Paderb orn Universit y . Especially, I wa nt to than k Maike Jolmes, Ju lie Intveen a nd Ben edikt Wag ner , with who m I started this journ ey and feel par ticularly connected to . I a lso wish t o thank Dr. Katharina von Elbwart, Dr. Jeann ett e Böttcher, Da gma r Keatinge, Le on ie S chieffer, Christina Lenn ert, Alexan der W o itinas, M adusha Sivanan d an , an d Juli an Schrowangen for their con sistent su ppo rt . I canno t oversta te the apprecia tion I have f or t h e work of Leigh Mensch ig, wh ose proofreading im men sely im pro ved the quality o f the text . Than k you . A h eartfelt tha n k you go es also ou t to all t he great people w h o h ave a ccom- pa nied me o n this journey in their special way. Alicia Ba ttenfeld and Clarissa Diekma nn , I a m so thankfu l for your support, feedba ck an d friendship over the years. I also wis h to tha n k a ll of the English Lang uage Education team at the University o f M ün ster, especially Dr. Ricar d o Röm hild, Jens - Folkert Folkerts, Ma r - ius R itter, Anika Marx l, Dr . S teph a n Gabel, an d Dr . Joh anna M arks fo r a ll you r assista nce a nd empowering wo rds. I wou ld a lso like to than k M eral Roeben, Ho- an g Ngu yen an d Annett e Methfess el for th eir co opera tion a nd co un sel, a s well as my former colleagues at the Be rufskolleg Beck um des Kre i ses War end o rf for all th eir flexibility. Tha nk yo u . I also wa nt to tha nk the Federal Min istry of Education a nd Research in Ger- ma ny for th e fu nding of this pro ject. It is n eedless to say tha t I owe grea t debt to a ll the par ticipants in this project – all the studen ts who participated in the simu lation s, a s we ll a s t he e xp erts an d st a k eholders I interviewed . Than k you fo r your time, I who leheartedly app reciate it. Last, but certainly n ot least, I wan t to thank m y fam ily a nd fr iends for th eir un derstan ding, the d og care and the warm mea ls . I w ish to tha n k A rn e, who pro vided m e with a ll the b oo ks th at I nee ded , a nd Marku s, w h o sup p or ted me from d a y on e in my decision to pu rs ue a PhD. Pippa , my fo ur -legged compa nion, I than k you for all t h e w alks th a t helped me clear my mi nd a n d t he joy yo u b rin g me e very single d a y. A bove all, I want t o th a n k my wife So lveig. Y o u h ave a lways believed in m e an d su p po rted me unwa ver ing ly. T han k you! Zulet z t möch te ich mich b ei meiner Fa milie und F reunden für d as Ve rs tä n dnis, die Hu ndebe treuung und di e wa rme n Mahl zeiten be d anke n. Mein D ank gil t Ar ne , der m ic h mi t all den Büc h ern v ersorgt hat, die ich brauchte, und Ma rkus, der mich vom erst e n Ta g an dari n unterstü tzt hat, die Promotio n zu v erfolgen. Pippa , mei ne vierbein i ge Begleit erin , ich dan k e dir für all die Spaziergä n ge , di e mir zu ei nem klaren Ko pf verh alfen und all di e Fr eude, die du m ir je den Ta g gib st. Der größ te Da nk gilt m einer Frau, So lveig. Du ha st im mer an mich geglau bt un d deine Un- te rs tützung war un erschütterlich. Danke! Table of Cont ents 1 Introduct ion ................................................................ ........................................ 1 Part I - (EFL) Teacher Education in G ermany : From Developing Competen ce to Assessing Performance 2 Struct ural Elemen ts of Teacher Education in Germany .................................... 7 The G oal of Teacher E ducation .............................................................................................. 7 The Structu re of (EF L ) Te ach er Education in Ge rman y ............................................... 10 3 Competence of EFL Teachers ........................................................................... 12 App roac hin g the Terminology of Comp etence ............................................................ 13 Mode ls of Competence in Teacher E ducation ............................................................... 17 3.2.1 Model of P rofes sional Com petence ........................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Competence a s Know ledge ........................................................................................................... 23 3.2.3 Competence a s a C ontinu um ........................................................................................................ 25 Fr ameworks for (EFL) Teacher Ed u cation in Germany ................................ ................ 28 Emp irical Findings on Professional Kno w ledge of Pre -S ervic e EFL Teach e rs ..... 33 Comp etence betwe en Kn owle d ge a n d Pra ct ic e ........................................................... 37 4 A Perform ance-Orient ed Perspective on Construct i ve Alignment in t he Firs t Phase o f EFL Teacher Education ............................................................................. 40 Cons tructive Alignment ......................................................................................................... 41 Learn in g Objecti ves: The Co re Pr actice Approach in EFL Tea che r Ed u cation .... 43 4.2.1 The Core Practice Approach ................................ .......................................................................... 43 4.2.2 Core Pra ctices in t he EFL C on text ................................................................................................ 45 Tea chi ng an d Lear ni ng Activitie s: S imula tion- b ased Learnin g ................................ 47 4.3.1 Chara cteris tic s of Si m ulations ................................................................................................ ....... 49 4.3.2 Ty pology of Simulations .................................................................................................................. 51 4.3.3 Perception of Simulation s and their Ef fectivenes s f or Learning ...................................... 55 Asse ssment: RobS in EF L Tea che r Ed u cation ................................................................ . 57 4.4.1 Concept s of As s e ssment in Higher Education ........................................................................ 57 4.4.2 Assessmen t in H igher Educa tion: Student s ’ Perc ep tions and Impact on Learning .. 60 4.4.3 S imulation-based Assessmen t in Higher and Teacher Educa tion ................................... 63 Ad d ress in g the As se ssmen t G ap in Teacher Educatio n ............................................. 65 5 Summary ........................................................................................................... 68 Part II - Developing a Ro le-Play-Based Simu lation ( R obS) to Assess Feedback Competence on Writ ing in the EFL co nt ex t 6 The Relevance of Feedback o n Writ ing in the EFL c o nt ext ............................ 71 Fee d ba ck ................................................................ ..................................................................... 71 6.1.1 On the Hi story and Ter minology of F eedba ck ........................................................................ 72 6.1.2 Feedbac k as L ite racies ...................................................................................................................... 75 6.1.3 Relevanc e of Feedbac k in (E FL) Teacher Educ ation ................................ .............................. 76 Writing in the EFL clas sroom ................................................................ ............................... 79 1 Int roducti on 2 (Rothland , 2020, p . 133) . However, there a re in dication s that the a ctual app lic a- tion of knowledge during su ch a uthentic pra ctical phases is quite ch alleng ing for stu dents (Zeichner, 2010, p . 91) . Po ssi bly, the complexity of the cla ssroom migh t be a reason for this fin di ng . One a pp r oa ch to ad dress the gap b etwe en theory a nd p ractice is through an app roximation of practice (Gro ssma n, Comp ton, et a l., 2009, p . 2076) . In su ch an a pproach, pre-service teach ers (PSTs) , i.e., teach er stud ents a t university, are allowed to perfor m in a n authentic, but re du ced -co mp lexity situation , whic h al- lows them to pra ctice the a pplication of knowledge withou t necessarily interact- ing with rea l learners (Grossman, Com pto n, et al., 2009, p. 2076) . However, PSTs are rar ely g iven the opportun ity to a ppro xi m ate pra ctice in terms o f a ction -ori- ented sequen ces d urin g their u niversity-based studies (Grossm an, Com pton, et al., 2009, pp. 2094 – 2095) . In m edical educa tion, su ch opportunities a re pro vided , for in stan ce, in the form of role-pla y-based sim ula tions (RobS 6 ), in wh ich trained actor s take o n the r ole of standardized p a tients (Sch na bel, 2018). In teacher ed- uca tion, Ro bS wo uld a llow futu re teachers to ta ke on the role of the t each er an d enga ge in a n authentic situa tion wit h an act or , portraying , for e xa mp le, a st a nd- ard ize d learner (SL) or p aren t (Dotger et al., 2010) . RobS can also be used as a performance-oriented form a t o f su mmative a s- sessmen t. In medical education, simulations a re used for the assessment of clin- ical skills befor e (future) do ctors engage with rea l pa tients in h igh - stakes situa- tions an d potentially severe co nsequ ences (So pka et al., 2018). Considering the relevance that a ssessmen t has for students a nd their lear ning behavior , the im- plementation o f RobS a s performan ce-oriented a ssessment formats m ight lea d students b eing b ett er p repar ed for actua l p ractice in the classro om , as “assess- ment drives learnin g” (Sopka et a l ., 2018; see also Gulikers, Bastiaens, e t al., 2008 ). In teach er educa tion, ho wever, RobS a re ra rely foun d as a n assessm ent form at in teacher educa tion programs or addressed in research . If Rob S we re u sed a s a n assessmen t format in teach er educa tio n , a f ocu s sho uld a lso be o n su bject-sp ecific pra ctice s , i. e. feedback on writing in the con- text of English a s a Foreign Language (EFL) . W hile t ea chers need to a cq u ire a diverse set of com petences for their profes sio n , t hey are st ill primar ily respon si- ble fo r teaching their su bjects, su ch a s E FL, a nd m astering the required p ractices . In the EFL cla ssroo m, for instance, p rovidin g feedba ck on writing can be viewed as such a relevan t practice (Grossm an, 20 18, p. 168; Pan g , 2019, p . 265; Su mm er & Plötz , 2024, p. 164) . Feedb ack h as proven to be o ne of the most impactfu l 6 RobS ( Ro le -pla y-base d Simulat i on ) is u sed as a fixed te r m f or the test that is at the focu s of this the s is as well as f or a n ab br eviat ion o f any role -play -b ase d si mulati on . F or le gibility, R obS is used as t he sin- gular as w ell as p lu ral f o r m. 1 Int roducti on 3 var iables in fl uencin g le a rnin g (Hattie , 2023 , p . 320; Hattie & T imp erley, 2007) . However, there is a lso a grea t v a riance in t h e effect t h at different kin ds o f feed- ba ck have, in dic a ting th a t it is essential for teachers to lea rn h ow to provide feedback a ppropriately (Hatt ie, 2023, p. 319; Wisniewski et a l., 2020, p . 12) . Fee d- ba ck on writ ing in the EF L con text has shown to be sp ecifically rel eva nt (Sch erer et a l., 2024). Con ceptualizing writing as an i terative a nd n on linear pro cess, fee d- ba ck is required in order for revisions to take place (Hayes & Flowers, 1980; Hy- lan d, 2019, p . 12) . As writing is also a skill tha t is statutor ily p ar t o f Germany’s EF L cu rricu la, EFL t ea chers need to b e a ble to pr ovide a pp ropr iate feedback on writing pr odu cts of their learn ers (Coun cil of Europ e, 2020, p. 68; Kultusm inis- terkonferen z [ KMK], 2023a, p . 16) . Considering the im port a nce of feedback in writing, t his co n text o ffers a releva nt focu s for developin g a p erformance -o ri- ented ass essment fo rma t. To evalu ate the qua lity o f su ch a newly dev eloped performance -or iented as- sessmen t form a t, the crite rio n of validity mu st a lso be tackled. Within a n argu- ment- ba sed approach to v a lidation , differen t claim s of v a lidity are made, in ves- tigated an d discussed critically (M . T. Ka ne, 2013 a ). Follo wing this app r oa ch, v a - lidity do es no t refer to the test itself bu t th e extent to wh ich theor y and evidence sup port the in tended i n terpretation of it s results (AER A, APA, N CME, 2014 , p. 11) . F rom a theoret ical persp ective , the constru ct o f the t est must be de- scribed tra nspa rently. From an empirica l point o f view, data mu st b e co llec ted that a llows to discu ss the claims. All fin dings a re then used to make an overa ll evalu ation c oncern ing the approp ri ateness of the inte nd ed score interpretation. Based on these consid erations, a gap i n teacher edu cation can be iden tifie d that is a ddr essed in this thesis. Teach er edu cation p rograms do not p repar e PSTs adequ ately fo r the pr ofession, as teachers do no to fully capitalize on their po- tential po sitive im pa ct. The ga p betwee n t heor y an d p ra ctice is often cited as a cha llenge in tea cher edu cation pr ograms. Using RobS a s a wa y to a ppr oximate pra ctice might be o ne a ppr oach to b ridge this g ap. As an ass essment fo rmat in teacher edu cation , RobS h a ve the p otentia l to influ ence PST’s learn ing b ehavio r, focu sing more o n action-o riented com pe tences which a re relevan t fo r a ctua l pra ctice in the classr o o m . However, there is a lack of subject-sp ecific, perfo r- ma nce- oriente d a ssessment formats. Th is ga p is ad dress ed sp ecifically for pre - service EFL teach ers (PS ETs) in this thesis, as a RobS is developed for the a ssess- ment o f PSETs’ fee dba ck compet ence o n writing . To ensure the qua lity of t he developed a ssessm ent forma t, the a spect of validity is a ddressed in the a rgu - ment based -approach . Conseq u ently, the followin g ca n be stated: Th e aim of th is th esis is to de velop an d val i date a r ole -p lay-bas ed simula- tion in the EFL context th at c an be us ed f or s ummative assessment . 1 Int roducti on 4 Structure of this Thesis This thesis is structur ed in five m ain p arts, ea ch ad dressing a specific a spect of the research p rocess. E ach part is divided in to ch apters and conclu des wit h a sum mary . T he following section provides an overview o f e a ch p art and its chap - ters. In Par t I , a m or e detailed lo ok a t EFL teacher educa tion in Germany is pre- sented an d the goa l of this thesis derived . In Cha pter 2, th e sp ecific g oa ls an d structura l elements tha t a re relevan t fo r this thesis a re descr ibed. In Cha pter 3 , the term co mp ete n ce is fo cused on . S pecific m od els of (teacher) co mp ete nce are presented and th e relevan t statutor y fram eworks a re s um marized. Th ereaf- ter, select ed em pirica l findin gs are s u mm ariz ed rega rdin g pr ofessional kno wledge of (pre -service) EFL teachers. L astly, the extent to which the cu rrent ap proach of teacher edu c ation suff ices to prepa re PSETs for pra ctice is critically discuss ed. In Cha pter 4, a perfo r m an ce-orie nted a ppro ach to university-ba sed teacher educa tion is o utlined, f ocu sin g o n learn ing ob jective s, teach ing a nd learn ing activitie s , a nd a ssessment forma ts . Lastly, the cu rrent a ssessm ent p ra c- tices in teach er educa tion and a po tential gap of performa nce -oriented a ssess- ment are crit ica lly discussed . As a co nsequ ence of the discussion, the aim of this thesis, i.e., developin g a RobS, is descr ibed a s one app r oa ch t o add ress this ga p. In Part II , the des ign of the RobS is prese n ted. In Cha pter 6 the r ea son ing for the content fo cus of the RobS, i.e., ass e ss ing feedba ck c om petence on writ- ing, is p rovided u sin g th eoretical m odels a nd empirica l evidence. In Cha pter 7 , a fr amework is pr esented, which i nclu des the relevant co mpetence facets for describin g and ass essing feedba ck compete n ce on writing ho listically. In Cha p- ter 8, the developed Ro bS is described a s a po tential a ssessmen t fo rm at. In Par t III , the m ethodo logica l backgr ound of this thesis is ou tlined. In Cha p- ter 10 , d iffer ent criteria for t est evalua tion ar e described. The rel eva nce o f va lidity is high lighted by providing a di ach ronic perspective o n d ifferent conceptualiza- tions o f this criteri on . It co nclu des with t h e arg um ent-based approa c h to valida - tion, wh ich descr ibes the postula tion a nd evalu ation of specific claims for an intended u se of a test a nd is followed in th is thesis (M. T. Kane, 2013a). In Chapter 11 , the sp ecific inte rp retation/use argum ent , which c a n be referred to a s a list of claim s fo r which evidence m ust be p r ovid ed to evalua te the RobS , is presented. In Part IV , the research pr ocess a n d the e m pirica l findings for the test eva l- ua tion are pr esented. In Chap ter 13 , an o v erview of this thesis’ two research cy- cles is given. In Chapter 14 , the first cycl e, i.e., the pr e-pilo t pha se a nd the pilo t survey, is fo cused on. The developm ent and evaluation of the test m a terial is detailed, a s is the training of the a ctors f or t h e RobS . In Ch a pter 15 , a ll the studies that a re executed in the ma in survey a re subsum ed. In Study 1, the perspective of th e par ticipa n ts on the RobS is described . In Study 2, the q ualitative exp ert 1 Int roducti on 5 judgem ents of RobS performan ces and the sco ring instrument is fo cused on . In Study 3, the pro cess of design i ng th e sc orin g instrument, ba sed o n differen t reliability indices on t h e item an d t est scor e level is det a il ed . In Study 4 , find ings of the testing o f severa l h ypotheses that are sta ted a priori to d isc uss the inter- pretation of test score a re presented. In Part V , the findings are discussed i n terms of the t est’s q ua lity . I n Chapter 17 , the p reviou sly ma de claims are evalua ted using the findin gs generated i n this thesis a nd a conclu si on is dra w n reg ard ing t he valid a tio n of the R o bS. I n Chapter 18 , the overa ll thesis is summa riz ed, limitation s d rawn and imp lic ation ma de. The ap pendix i nclu des the relevant ma terial tha t complemen ts this th esis, i.e., the material for the RobS , the r ating manual and transcription guidelin e for the Rob S, the gu idelines, tra nscrip tion ru l es a nd codin g ma nuals fo r the inter- views an d fu rther sta tist ica l information. 2 Str uctural Eleme nts of Teac he r E ducation in Ge rmany 7 Part I - (EFL) Teac her E ducati on i n G ermany : From De vel oping C ompete nce to Ass essi ng Performa nce [T he ] quickest way to change s tudent learni ng is to change the a ss e ssment syst em. Lewis R.B. Elton a nd Dia na Lau rillard (1979, p. 100) In the fir st par t, the th eoretical background for this thesis is given and the re- search a im derived. Firstly, the focu s is pu t o n the sp ecific co ntext of the study an d the stru cture a nd goals of teach er education in German y a re described. Sec- on dly, the n otion of com petence is fo cused on . The term is d iscussed theore ti- cally first, before specific mo dels o f teach er com petence a re pr esented. The s tat- utory g uidelines fo r EFL teach er educa tio n are outlined and empirica l fin dings presented tha t allo w fo r an in dic ation of c om petence developm ent. The dissat- isfaction tha t is ass ocia ted with the statu s qu o of teacher educ a tion is discuss ed as a r esult of t h ese observa tions . Third ly, a perform ance -or iented perspective is pro vided to a ddr ess this issu e. Based on t he fr amework of co nstructive align- ment by Big gs (1996 ) a nd cu rrent research, performance - oriented lea rning ob - jective s, teach ing an d lea rnin g a ctivitie s a nd a ssessment fo rm ats a re p ropo sed . Regardin g the latter, a n a ssessmen t gap in teach er educa tion is identified, wh ich leads to this thesis’ research aim . 2 St ructural Element s of Teach er Educa t i on in Ge r ma ny The aim of this first chap ter is to describ e the status quo of teach er edu cation in Germa ny. Firstly, the aim s o f teacher educ a tion in Germa n y will be presented . Secon dly, the h istory, structure, a n d o rganiz ation of ( EFL ) teach er educa tion in Germa ny will be o utlined, so as to show ho w the developm ent o f a c hieving these aim s is o rganized. The Goa l of Teacher Educa tio n Teachers h ave a l arg e impa ct on their learners’ achievemen t , as stated in the introdu ction ( Hattie, 2009, 2 023). T hu s, it is the jo b of the teacher to ena ble stu- dent learn ing i n the most beneficia l wa y. Con sequently, teacher educ a tion p r o- gra ms sh ou ld prepare PSTs e ffectively to d o t heir job and impact student learn - ing p ositively. The nature of the relation ship can h euristica lly be depicted by a cau sal f low ch art as seen in Figur e 1 (Terhart , 2012b, p. 7) . 2 Str uctural Eleme nts of Teac he r E ducation in Ge rmany 8 Figur e 1: Cau sal flow c har t de picting the influ en ce of te ach er e duc ation on te ac h er ac t ions and the cons equ e ntia l influen ce on student le ar n i ng (Te rha r t, 2 012b, p. 7; t r ans la tion TJ). The assu mp tion is that through teacher education , p eople acq uire the necessar y resou rces to fu lfill the demands o f the teachin g profession (V ogelsa ng, 2014, p. 20) . These resou rces can then be dra wn up on to act a dequa tely in co ncrete situation s, wh ich , i n tur n, have an impac t o n learni ng achievement . Conse- qu ently, lear ners’ a chievement is thus a direct r esult o f teacher edu cation . The exact n a ture o f this rela tio nsh ip is , h owev er, n ot tha t clea r cu t, a s other pote n- tially influ encing va ria bles a re no t inclu de d. Diez ’ s m odel (201 0; see Figur e 2 ) takes m ediating fa ctors into a cc ou nt a nd a dds an evaluative con no t a tion a s it inclu des question s to the pr opo sed flow (Vo gelsan g, 2014, p. 21) . In th e mod el, the desired ou tcome of teach er edu c ation pr ograms is describ ed a s “knowledge, skills, a nd dispositions” (Diez, 2010, p . 442) , which ar e to be defined in standard s that explica te the goa ls. Figur e 2: Flow diag ram of im pact o n st udent lea rning (Di ez, 2 010 , p. 442) . 2 Str uctural Eleme nts of Teac he r E ducation in Ge rmany 9 The first inqu iry of evalu ation then, sh ould b e to investigate the degre e to which PSTs ha ve ach ieved those sta nda rds. The se con d qu estion is if teachers a ctua lly implem ent wh at they h ave learned in the cla ssro om, with th e su bsequ ent fina l question being wh a t the impact of their ac tions on P -12 stud en t learn ing is , i.e., from pr e-school to twelfth gra de. Mo re recent m odels o n t he relation between teacher education an d stud ent learn ing h ave fo c used o n teach ers’ pr ofession al co mp ete n ce . In the COAC TIV 7 study , teachers’ p rofessio na l com petence is con sidered to be influ ential for the instruction al qua lity, whic h in t u rn influences the students in their ach ievement 8 (Krauss et a l., 2020, p. 315) . In her h euristic mod el, V oss lin ks teach er education with a constructive un derstan ding of tea ch ing, crea ting a dou ble o f fer - use- mo del 9 that describes teach er educa tion a s one offer -u se -situa tion, a nd the scho ol’s class room a s the o ther (Vo ss, 201 9, p . 10) . This mod el describes teach - ers’ professio na l com petence (see Chapter 3.2.1 ) as t h e result of te a cher edu c a- tion, a nd a p rerequ isite for pra ctice, sim ilar to Diez. However, it also inclu des the learn ers and other variab les like context, family or their in dividual learning (He lmke, 2022, p. 77; V oss , 2019, p. 11) . The casca de model by Kra uss et a l. (20 20) is to da te th e most differentiating becau se it m erges the m odel of com peten ce a s a co ntinu um 10 (Blöm eke et al., 2015) wi th other relevan t a nd sa lient para di gm s in teach er edu cation to describe the g oa l of teacher edu c ation (see Figu re 3). Th e m odel inclu des five column s : Column s 1, 2 an d 3 co ver competence un derstood a s a con tinuum as described by Blö meke et al. (201 5), wh ich, con trar y t o other m odels of com petence, sees perfor mance a s p art of com petence, n ot a requ irement fo r it ( see C ha pter 3 ). Column s 3 an d 4, respectively, co ver the o ffer -u se-model as described, for ex- am ple, b y Helmke (2022, p . 77) , while column 5 focu ses on the o utcom e o f the learn ing p r ocess o n the le a rners’ side. Evidently, teachers’ com petence, espe- cially th e perfo rmative asp ect, i.e., the teac her’s actua l beha vior, is central i n all of these m odels. This pa rt of the casca de i n tersect s m ost cl ea rly with learn ing – dependin g on h ow the teach er p erform s, le arn ers migh t be mo r e or less inclin ed to actua lly use the offers a nd a chieve learning ga i ns. The next chapter will de- scribe h ow teach er educa tio n seeks to ach i eve its goa l on a s tructur al level. 7 COACTIV is the abbreviat ed form f or Cogni tive Activa tion in the Ma themat ics Classroom and P ro fe s- sional Compete n ce of Teache rs (Baum ert & Ku n ter, 2013 ) . 8 See Chapt er 3 . 2.1 for a d etai le d ove rview of t he COA CT IV model of p ro fe ssional c o mpet ence. 9 See al so Helm ke (20 22 , p . 77). 10 See Chapt er 3 . 2.3 for a d etai le d desc ription of the mod el. 2 Str uctural Eleme nts of Teac he r E ducation in Ge rmany 10 Figur e 3: Th e Cas c a de Mod el (Kr a uss et al., 2 02 0, p. 31 6) . The Structu re of (EF L) Teacher Educa tion in Germa ny In Germa n y, the stru cture of teach er edu c ation , like educ a tion in genera l , is the respon sibility of the in dividu al federal state. I n most federal states, teach er edu- cation is differentia ted in three different ph ases: The fir st phas e: u niversity-b ased educa tion ; The s econd phase: teach er train ing or the in duction phase, which takes place at trainin g sc ho ols , as well as teacher educa tion i nstitutes (e.g. , Studienseminare, Zent ren fü r schulp raktische Lehrkräf teausbildung ); The t hird phase: fur ther educa tion a s in -se rvice teach ers (Pasterna ck et al. , 2017, p. 20; Terhar t, 2007). The ma in objective of the fir st pha se is to lay the fo un dation for teachin g the respective subjects. T h is inclu des a deeper knowledge a bou t the subject matter , but a lso other p edago gic a l (con tent) disp osition s (Pilypaitytė, 2013, p. 33) . As a result o f the Bologn a pro cess, the fir st pha se is separa ted into a B a chelor’s a nd a Master’s pro gram in most of Germ an y’s f ederal sta tes a nd , thu s , co vers at least five years o f studies in total. The fir st p ha se a lso inclu des sch oo l in ternship s o f var ious lengths, a llowing pro spective teachers to gain experience in the role o f the teach er. Th ese practical pha ses a re clo sely a cco mpanied by the universities to ensu re an a dequa te gu id a nce a nd reflection (J. M eier et a l., 2024, p. 312) . In the state of North Rh ine -W estpha lia, the lo cal con text of the presented studies in Cha pter 15 , there are t hr ee practical p ha ses (LABG N RW 2009, §12). In the 2 Str uctural Eleme nts of Teac he r E ducation in Ge rmany 11 Apt i tude and Orientation I nternship ( Eignu ngs- und O rientierungs praktikum ; ab - brevia ted as A OI ) PSTs a re s up posed to s pend five wee ks a t a scho ol , mostly observ ing o ther teachers b ut a lso ga inin g i n itial exp erience in t each ing. The AOI is su pposed to pro vide PSTs with a n op portunity to r eflect on the ap propriate- ness o f the ch oice of the teac hin g pr ofess ion ear ly on in their course of stu dy (Porsch & Gollu b, 2018, p. 240) . In the Occupational In ternship ( Berufsf eldp r ak- tikum ; ab breviated a s OI ) stu dents ar e su pp osed to sp end fo ur weeks getting an insigh t in to a pro fession th at is r elated to t h e teach in g p rofessio n (J. M eier et al. , 2024, p . 310) . Both th e A OI and the OI a re p art o f the B a chelor pro gram (J. M eier et al., 2024, p. 312) . In the Ma ster ph a se, stu dents n eed to finish the Sc hool In- te r nship Se mester ( Prax isssemester ; a bbrev iated as SIS). The SIS is the lo ngest internsh ip and stu dents are su pp osed to gain m ore experience a s teachers, guided b y mentor s at schools. Dur ing the SIS, students a re encouraged to put their theoretical knowledge i nto pr a ctice and co n duct a ction resea rch (Porsch & Gollub , 2018, p . 240) . The second pha se of t each er education , the induction pha se, takes pl a ce a t d edicated institutes t h at fo cus on practical teach er tra i nin g (Pily pa itytė, 2013, p. 33) . Teachers in the i n du ction p hase spen d m ost o f their time teachin g real classes, with and wit ho ut supervision fro m more experienced teachers. They a re guided by the institut es and are a ssessed predom i n an tly ba sed on their behavior in cl a ss (Sch ustere der, 20 20, p. 355) . Afte r 18 m on ths of teacher train ing and pa ssi ng the second a nd fin al state exa min ation su ccessfully, teacher can dida tes a re then certified to te ach . The third phase inclu des furth er educa tion programs th at the teach ers a re willing to participate in on a pri m arily volu ntary basis . Other structura l elements of teacher e du c a tion refer t o the specific su bjects PSTs a spire to teach . For in stan ce, PSTs for lower a nd u pper secondary choose (at least) two different su bjects for their s tu dies, su pplem ented with the sub ject of edu cation al sciences. Can dida tes wh o wa nt to study fo r prim a ry scho ols or for schoo ls for learners with special needs u sua lly h a ve m ore su bjects. One spe- cial cha racteristic in the educa tion of mo d ern foreign lan guage teach ers is that they need to inclu de a stay a broad in the ir studies (for North Rhin e- West ph alia, see LABG NRW 200 9 §11 (10)) , a peculia rit y tha t c an be d a ted ba ck to the 19 th century (Klippel, 2018, p. 20) . The specific r equiremen ts fo r the st ay a broad a re slightly different in th e variou s federal sta te s. Using the exam ple of North Rh ine - West ph alia , the stay co mpr ises twe lve we eks, which can be split in to sm aller segments, a nd the tar get lan guage m ust be sp oken in the co untry of the sta y. In co nclu sion , it can b e stated that the pr ima ry o bjective of teacher edu ca- tion is to develop teach er com petence to prepa re PSTs to perfo rm a t their po s - sible b est in the class room, as teacher perfor mance ha s a direct imp act on ac- tual learn er achievement. In Germ an y, teacher educa tion is structured in three 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 18 3.2.1 M odel o f Professio nal Com petence As a co nsequ ence of PISA 2000 , the DFG 19 fu n ded p rogram COACTI V was em - bedded in the 20 03/2004 PISA cycle ( Bau mert e t a l., 2013 , p. 2) . T he ai m, am ong others, was to examine t h e p ro fessional kn owledge of mathema tics teachers. As pa rt of tha t p roject, the p rom inent mo d el of p rofessio na l co mp ete n ce 20 o f teachers wa s developed by Ba umert an d K u nter (2006, 2013) 21 : Figur e 4: Mo del o f p rof essi on al co mp ete n ce use d in the C OACTIV study (B au m ert & Kun t er , 2 01 3 , p. 29 ) . The mo del is created as a generic m odel fo r t each er co mpetence tha t com bi ne s previou s resear c h on competence and c an be u sed a nd te sted in their empirical investigation s (Baum ert & K u nter, 2013, p. 25) . The m odel su cceeds in tha t it con nects “ the dema nds o f a m ulti -d i mensio na l competence -or iented pro fession […] with the an alysis o f dem ands of professiona l practice” (S. Meier, 2015, p . 61; tran slated b y TJ). The mo del o f p rofessio na l co mp ete nce con sists o f fou r asp ects (see F igu re 4 ): “ Specific dec lara tive a nd procedura l knowledge (com petence in 19 D FG is t he a bbreviat ion of Deu ts che Forsch ungsgeme in schaft , the Germa n Resea r ch Foundati on. 20 Inte rest ingly, Baum ert an d Ku nter have d ropped the appositio n ‘actio n ’ f or the model d escri ptio n in the E nglish-lan g uag e p ubli cat ion ( 2013) w hile r eferrin g to “professi o naller Handl un g skompet en z” i n t he older Germa n -lan guage public ati on (200 6 , p . 482). For con sistency, t he term pr o fe ss io nal compe te nce wil l b e use d when refe rr in g t o eithe r pu blica tion of the model. 21 The m odel serves as an exam ple f or other similar m od els that co nceptualize act ion c ompet ence sim- ila r ly and build upo n thi s m o del (see fo r exam ple Lehm ann -Gru be and Nickolau s (2009) ). 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 19 the na rro w sense: kn owledge a nd skills) / Pro fession al v alu es, beliefs, a nd g oa ls / Motivation al orientation s / Professio na l sel f- regula tion skills ” (Baumert & Kunter, 2013, p. 28) . Using these fa ctors, a clear con nection to Weinert’s m odel of competence is evident in tha t B aumert a nd Kunter inclu de cognitive a nd a f - fect-mo tivationa l asp ects their model. Regard ing the co gnitive asp ect, the au- thors structure t his d isposition into differe nt kn owledge fa cets that a re i n cluded in S hu l ma n’s taxonomy (1986). Shu lman distinguish es bet ween t hree facets: gen eral pe dag o gic al k nowledge (PK ), content k nowledge , differentiated in the two sub -fa cets of sub ject-ma tt e r content k nowledge ( CK) an d ped ago gical c ontent knowl edg e (P CK ), a nd curricular knowledge (Sh ulm an , 19 86, p. 9) . Later, Sh ulman slightly m odifies t h e categories by pu tting the pr eviously m ention ed four f a cets on an equ al footing as catego- ries of knowledge an d a ddin g the categories knowledge of lear ne r s and their characte ri stics ; knowl edg e of educa tiona l conte x ts an d knowledge of educationa l ends, purpose s, and valu es, a nd their p hilos ophical an d his torical ground s (Shu l- ma n, 1987, p. 8) . Shulman ’s ta xon omy has been quite influ ential in recent years, ha ving been adapted by Germ an researchers (see Bro mm e, 1997) a nd m odified to inclu de addition al knowledge categor ies that , fo r example, in clud e kno wledge of techn ical aspects (see Rod ríguez Mo reno et a l., 2019). Th is devel- opm ent is to be see n positive ly , as Shu lma n’s pro po s al shou ld b e reg a rded as a “heuristic mo del” (Vo gelsan g , 2014, p . 39; t ra nsla ted by TJ) no t a de f a cto stru c - ture of kn owledge. It can a nd s h ould thus be up dated, expanded and modified to inclu de kno wledge aspects tha t are relevan t a n d , in the best case, can be empirica lly pro ven to be relevan t f or te a c hers’ pr ofession a l competence. For t h e COACTIV stu dy, Baum ert a nd Kun ter adapt thr ee o f Shulman’s knowledge types: CK , PCK an d PK, m od ifying th e lat ter to a lso in clude a spects o f p sycho logica l kno wledge (2013, p . 30) . They ada pt on ly these three, a rguin g from a rath er pra gmatical point of view that these dimensions have preva iled i n pr evio u s stu d- ies, bu t do n ot give a ny su bstan tial reaso ns why the o ther asp ects a re exclud ed (Baum ert & Kunter, 2006, p. 482) . The c a tegories of organ izat io nal knowledge an d c ounse ling knowledge a re ad ded to t h e generic mo del, b ut n either is in- clud ed in COACTIV “for reaso ns of r esearch eco nom y” (Baum ert & Kun ter, 201 3, p. 36) . The three kno wledge types PK, CK an d PC K represent the dom ina nt a spects of t each ers’ cognitive disposition s (Krau ss et a l., 2020 , p . 311) and a re a presu m- ab ly essentia l p rerequisite for p erform ance. In COACTI V , P K in clud es th e kno wledge o f stu dent a ssessm ent, learni n g p rocess an d effective classr oom ma nagement (Ba um ert & Kun ter, 201 3, p. 29) . Whil e Vo gelsan g states tha t ther e is no generally accepted con cept of th e i n ternal structure o f PK (20 14, p. 41) , Bau mert a nd Kunter claim tha t there is a “ br oa d con se nsu s“ (2013, p. 34 ) of the 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 20 facets listed in Figu re 5, which add itionall y in clude histo rical asp ects o f educa- tion a nd kn o wledge abo ut empirica l so ci al r esearch, systemizing previo us r e- search . Figur e 5: F acets o f PK ( Bau mer t & Kun t er , 2013, p. 35). CK in clud es deeper kn owledge a bout the content tha t the teach er needs to con vey to their lea rners. This is n atura lly dependen t o n the su bject – an EFL teacher, for exa mp le, is supposed to h av e kn owledge a bout the English lan- gua ge, anglophon e cu lture and literature . Wit hin each su bject, a con sensus sho uld be reached with rega rd to the content lear ners must acq uire in tha t sub- ject during their time in scho ol. Th ese are usually d ocumented in g overnmental guidelin es like th e su pr anational Common Europe a n Fr a mework of Reference s (C E FR) (Cou ncil o f Eur ope, 2001, 2020 ) or th e n ation al BISTAs (K M K, 20 04, 202 3a ). Teachers’ kn owledge sh ou ld exceed the c on tent described in these docu ments as they need to h ave a deeper u nderstandi ng of the subject -matter (Bau mert & Kunter, 2013, p. 29) . This k no wledge is also prescribed in statutory guidelines (see Cha pter 3. 3 ). PCK is describ ed by Sh ulm an as “ the blend i ng o f content a nd pedagogy into an u nderstandin g of how p articula r t op ic s, problems, or issu es a re or g a nized, represented, a nd a dap ted to the diverse i nterests an d ab ilitie s o f learners, a nd 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 21 presented for instru ction ” (1987, p. 8) . While the idea of content specific kno wledge is generally a pplica ble to a ll s ubjects, it is, a t the l atest, with this fa cet that Ba um ert a nd Kun ter lea ve the gen erality o f their m odel an d turn towar ds the subject-specificity of COA CTI V , focusin g on ma thematics teach ers (2013, pp. 31 – 34) . The sp ecific fa cets of PCK fo r m athem atics teach ers , wh ich they de- scribe as e xp lanatory knowledge, k n owledge o f students’ ma thematical think- ing, kn owledge of ma thema tical tasks , canno t directly b e adap ted to other sub- jects, which qu ite likely requ ire different kinds of PC K. In FALKO-E 22 , a successo r of COACTIV, PCK fo r English te a chers in cl ud es the first two o f the previously described fa cets, bu t m odifies th e third fa cet a nd fra mes it as “knowledge a bou t the learn ing a nd teach ing potential of task s a n d texts” ( Kirch hoff , 2017, p. 120; tran slated by TJ) . This mo difica tion is also mad e in the o ther language -o riented FALK O tes ts, a s these subjects ha ve a l ar g er focu s on the use of texts and their potential for the a cqu isition of cultura l , literary or lang uage - related comp e- tences (Kirchho ff, 2017, p. 121) . While th e mo del of pro fessional co m petence puts an emphasis on cognitive asp ects, it also a ddr esses several a ffective-m otivational disp ositions like “[be- liefs]/values/goa ls”; “[ m otivation al] orientation s” and “[ self - regu lation ]” (Baum ert & Kunter, 2013, p . 29) . The first of these a spects co nta ins epistemo - logica l beliefs, su bjective theor ies about t each ing a nd learn ing, value co mmit- ments a nd goal systems (Baumert & Ku nter, 2006, p . 497, 2013, pp . 37 – 38) . Fol- lowing Fenstermach er’s widely app lied dist inction (Bau mert & Kunter, 2006, p. 496) , kn owledge is the “justifie d true b elief” ( Fensterma cher, 1994, p . 8) a nd is categorica lly different from belie 23 . Beliefs do n ot have to comm it to the same stand ard s a s knowledge a s they, for example , do n ot n ecessarily h ave to be co n- sistent or justified (Bau mert & K un ter, 20 13, p . 37) . Teach er beliefs or teach er belief systems m ight still influen ce class roo m action, po tentially more than kno wledge (Pajar es, 1992, p. 311) . In C OA CT IV, beli efs a re a gain disting uish ed (Baum ert & Kunter, 2013, p. 37) . Epis temol ogical beli efs ca n be s een a s teachers’ meta- cog nition a bout knowledge a nd h ow it is acqu ired , represented an d struc- tured ( Ki tchener, 2002 , pp. 92 – 93 ). Subject ive theo ries abo ut e it her t e aching or lear ni ng in clude assu mp tio ns th a t teachers have mad e , b a sed on their o wn 22 F or f urther i n fo r mat ion on FALKO- E, s e e Cha pters 3 . 4 and 15.5. 3. 2.2 . i n which t he test will b e furt h er descri bed . F A LKO is the ab b r evia tion o f Fa ch spezif is ch e Le hrerkompete nzen, and th e prefix E refers to the subject o f English (K rauss , Lindl, Sc hilcher, Fricke, et al., 2017) . 23 Th e re is not nece ssarily c on s ensus o n the s ta tement t hat knowled g e an d b elief ar e cat egorica lly dif- ferent, as is note d by Vo gelsang (2014, p. 42) or Baume rt an d Kunt er (2006, p . 496); ( 2 0 1 3 , p . 37) an d it is difficult to make that strict differe ntiat ion. 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 22 previou s exp erience, an d are hence also subject-specific 24 . For EFL teachers, for exam ple, beliefs a bo ut languag e learn i ng an d secon d lan g ua ge a cqu isition a re of particular import a nce a nd ha ve been inv estigated (Ma ttheouda kis, 2007). F or the sa ke o f com pletion , the n otions o f valu es a nd goals , two a spects tha t a re no t con sidered o f p art icu lar interest in compet ence r esearch , will be presented briefly ( S. Meier, 20 15, p. 76) . Value comm it ments includ e teachers’ ideas o f p ro - fession al mora l and ethos , and how dedica ted they are in te rm s o f executing certain va lues like “justice, car ing [and] veracity” (Harder, 2014, p . 172; tran sl ated by TJ; see a lso O ser, 1996, p . 236) . Goal systems describ e teachers’ a ssumptions with regar d to what a i ms school as an institution sho uld a chieve (Vo gelsan g, 2014, p. 43) . Mo tivationa l o rientation as a dispo sition is r espon sible for te a chers’ “psy- cho logica l functionin g” and in cludes “t each ers’ self -rela ted cogn itions — espe- cially contro l belie fs an d self - effica cy belie fs […] — an d intrinsic mo tivation” (Baum ert & Kunter, 2013, p. 38) . W h ile the co ncept of m otiva tion h as a lon g research histor y (e.g., Wigfield & Ec cles, 20 20; Woo lfolk, 2010, p . 378 ) a nd spa ns a mu ltit u de of influ ential theor ies (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wigf ield & Eccles, 200 0) , the mo del of pr ofessio na l competence by Baumert & Kunter fo cuses only on teachers’ in trinsic mo tivation (Ba um ert & Kun ter, 2013, p. 39) . Gen erally, intrinsic mo tivation d escribes a ctivitie s tha t ar e based on the inh erent satisfa ction that they entail, e.g. , exp eriencing joy while playin g footba ll, while extrin sic m otiva - tion focuses more on the e xterna l rewa rd t ha t the com pletion of the activit y wil l ha ve, e.g., finan ci a l compensa tions (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Within in trinsic m otiva - tion, Baumert and Kun ter primarily fo c us on teach er enthusiasm (20 13, p . 39) , which can be “con ceptualized a s the enjoyment, excitement, and p leasure that teachers experience du ring teach i ng” (L a zarides et a l., 2018, p . 2) . Th e en thusi- asm c an b e directed towards the activity, e.g., teach i ng , or the top ic or su bject, e.g., English (Kunter, 2013, p. 277) . While the co ncept of control b eliefs include s a p erson’s beliefs on the outcom e that a certain beha vior triggers (Bandura, 1997; Hol zberger et a l., 2013, p. 774) , i t ha s largely b een repla ced by Ba n dura ’s con cept of self -effica cy (Ba umert & Kun ter , 2006, p. 502) . S elf-effica cy 25 can be defined as a perso n’s confid ence o r trus t in th eir ca pa bility of dea ling with 24 Vogel sang ar gues that the use o f subjecti ve t he or ies by Baume rt and K unter a s a n umbrella te rm for beliefs is misleadi ng, a s b oth a s pects ca nnot b e equa ted ( 2014, p . 43); others do not make that st rict distinct ion ( S. Meier, 2 015, p. 77). 25 The us e of the terms self - effica cy, self- effic acy beliefs and s elf-effica cy ex p ecta tions as well as their German co unte rp a r ts Se lbstwi rksamke it , Se lbstwirk samkei t süberzeu gu ng and Selbstwir k sam k eitse rwartunge n is inco nsistent in r esea rc h. A s this co ncept is not of prima ry co ncern for this t h esi s , t rying t o systematic ally define t hese te rms a nd the te rms o f the respecti ve source us e d will be ref rained fr om . 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 23 com plex task s (H olzberger e t a l., 2013 , p. 7 74) an d is r ooted in B a ndura’s soci al - cogn itive theory (Ba ndu r a , 1997; S. M eier, 2015, p. 74) . Lastly, self- regula tion in the COA CT IV m o d el is d efined as “teachers’ ab ility to b udg et person al resou rces in th e profession al context” (Klusma nn , 2013, p. 291) . This facet o f pr ofession al com petence aim s m ore at teach ers’ health as it covers h ow teach ers ca n co pe wi th the p redom inantly mental a n d emo tiona l, cha llenges, d eman ds and stress that the jo b o f a teacher in cludes. The un derly- ing assumption is that t each ers with incre ased self - regula tory sk ills ar e better equipped to deal with m ore d eman ding situa tions, lea ding to a gen erally high er well-being, which in turn, increa ses a) teach er persistence , a s well as b ) their instruction al qua lity (S. M eier, 2015, pp. 75 – 76) . Generally, while also focusing on non - c ognitive a spects, th e m odel o f pro- fession al competence can best be d escrib ed a s k n owledge- oriented as it con- stitute s kn owledge a s “ [the ] co re o f p rofessionalism ” (Ba umert & Kun ter, 2013, p. 28) , assum ing th at teachers’ kno wledge is a prerequisite for action in the classr oom. However, this assu med r elationsh ip h as sp a rked fu rther discussi o n con cerning the extent to wh ich kn owledge ca n b e u sed in practice , which will b e add ressed in the next chapter s. 3.2.2 Comp etence as Knowledge Knowledge tha t P STs are meant to a cqu ire d urin g t heir educ ation is, a s N euweg poin ts out, not an end in itself , a s its purp ose is to be ena cted in the action of the jo b (2022a, p. 11) . The relationsh ip between the two concepts is still debated con tentiously an d requ ires a brief defin ito ry intro duction before it ca n b e dis- cussed furthe r . N euweg’s mo del (2014) ha s ofte n been used to differentiate be- twee n different con cepts of teacher kn owledge (see Figur e 6 ). As knowledge 1 , Neuweg co nceptua lizes k n owledge tha t is ca no nica lly an d systematically co nsidered essent ial to b e acqu ired in teach er educa tion, also calling it pro fession al kn owledge (D. Gerlach , 2022, p . 36; Neuweg, 2014, p. 584) . Kn owle dge 1 ca n b e distinguish ed fro m th e other co ncepts in that it ca n m ostly be co nsidered as o bjectively tru e, bein g subject to scientific scr utiny , which is why it is also referred to as “research k nowledge” ( Wieser, 2016, p. 595) . An ex- plora tion of w ha t con stitute s k nowledg e 1 fo r fo reign language teacher s sh ows that, fo r example, foreign language teachers sho uld know about comp ete n ce orienta tion an d language acqu isition ( C asp ar i & Grünewald, 2022, p. 110) . Kn owle dge 2 , then , is class ified as wha t th e teacher actua lly kn ows, describing their a ctual cognitive r epresentations of k n owledge . It can a lso b e described a s “persona l kn owledge” ( Wi eser, 2016, p. 595) . In comparison to k nowledg e 1 , this kind o f knowledge do es n ot have to be verifia bly true, and is co nsidered to be sub ject ive. I t inclu des b oth e xp lici t kno wledge, e.g. , what teach ers a re a ble to 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 24 retrieve wh en ask ed for rea son ing a ction , a nd imp licit kn owledge, e.g . , wh at teachers cannot n ecessarily verbalize , with both being potentially in fluential fo r action (D. Gerla ch, 2022, p. 36) . Knowle d g e 3 is the externa l reconstru ction o f action by an observer and is thus a ttribut ed to a p erson , e.g., b y a researc her (N euweg, 2014, pp. 584 – 585) . K nowledge 3 can also be describ ed as “pra ctical kno wledge” (W ieser, 2016 , p. 595) – or “per form ance” ( Vo gelsan g , 2014, p. 111) . Figur e 6: C onc epts of “ teach er kno wl edge" ( Neuw eg, 20 14 , p . 5 85 ; t ra ns lat ed by TJ in c on c u rre n ce w ith Wi e s e r, 2016, p. 595 ). Putting Neuweg’s tho ugh ts on knowledge a nd the m odel o f pro fessional com petence in to r elation, s om e tensions c an be a scertain ed. Man y a spects that Bau mert a nd Kunter consider to be part of professio nal competence, e.g . , cog- nitive dispo sitions in genera l, b ut also beliefs, co uld b e subsumed as bein g part of Knowled ge 2 (2013) . Neuweg m akes a clear distinction b etwe en teachers’ cog- nitive stru ctures ( knowledge 2 ) an d their act ion ( knowledge 3 ). Accor ding to Neu- weg (2022a , p. 23) , th is clear distinction between knowledge a nd a ction , a nd kno wledge a nd competence is la cking in the mo del of Baumert an d Kunter, wh o arg ue that “kno wledge a nd a bility” a re b oth a spect s o f professional competence (Baum ert & Kun ter, 2006, p. 481) a nd that practical k no wledge is m anifeste d as ab ility ( Bau mert & Kunter, 2006, p. 483) . While it is clear tha t kn owledge ( knowledge 2 in N euweg’s term s) is t h e core aspect in t h e mo del o f pr ofessional com petence, its relation to ab ility an d performance ( knowledge 3 ) is no t m ad e clear, arguably to a degr ee tha t no rea l diffe ren ce ca n b e m ade (N euweg, 2022b, p. 1300) . The root issue se ems to be a histor ically reaso ned dich otomic 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 25 distinction between co mpetence a nd p erform an ce. S i nce Chom sky, com petence an d knowledge a re bo th considered to be interna l la tent traits of a person that are, to so me extent, ma de visible in the ir performance. Th us , both knowledge an d competence ar e ma de o ut to be dispositions for performan ce an d the two terms, tho ug h no t necessar ily used synonymou sly, ar e often closely linked to- gether a nd knowledge is co nsid ered to b e a m ain a spect of te a chers ’ p rofes- sion al compet ence. One a ppro ach tha t tries to consolida te this discussion is t he idea fr om Blömeke, Gustafs son & S havelson o f “[competence vie wed] a s a [con- tinuu m]” (2015). 3.2.3 Comp etence as a Continuum The review a rticle “Beyond Dicho tomies“ (2015) by S igrid Blö meke, Jan - Eric G us- tafsso n and Richard J. Sh a velso n ha s h ad a considera ble impact on the co ncep- tualization s of te a cher competence. The aut ho r s ’ ma i n c on tribution is a “’gra nd ’ structura l mo del” (Blömeke et a l., 2015, p. 3) tha t to their m ind , overcomes “con - ceptual contro versies” (Blöm eke et a l., 20 15, p. 3) of h igher edu cation compe- tence r esearch by mo deling competence as a continuum (see Figure 7). This mo del will be pr esented first a nd then compa red to the mo del o f pr ofessional com petence. The po int o f depa rture fo r Blömeke et al. lie s in the difficu lty of “ co mplex ab ility co nstru cts tha t a re co ntext -sp ecific, train able, an d closely rela ted to r eal life” ( Koeppen et a l., 2008, p. 61 ). They d escribe the titular dichotomy a s two con cepts o f com petence. On the on e h and, there is a mo re trad itional, analytical interpretation focu sing on complex a bilities , wh ich is roo ted in educa tiona l sci- ence a nd it s objective in fo stering compet ence. On the o ther han d, t here is a mo re ho listically- oriented in terpretation that focu ses m ore o n behavior i n real - life pro fessiona l situa tions , wh ich h a s its o ri gins in selecting a dequa te ca n didates for a jo b (Blömeke et al. , 2015, p. 5) . The a uthors , ho wever, find sim ilarities in the two con ceptua lizations , in th a t, 1) co mp ete nce is b eing co nstituted by mu ltiple sma ller dimen sions ( com petencies) o f va r iou s kind s ( e.g., cogn itive, affective, mo tivationa l) , wh ich c a n be acquired , and 2) com petence refers to th e ma stering of a uthen tic rea l- life situ ations a s a mo del or no r m s (Blömeke et al., 2015, pp. 5 – 6) . Using these simila rities as a found ation , t h e au thors further ai m to overco me the rema ining dicho tomous view o f “ (a) com petence is perfor ma nce in real - world situa tions, m ore specifica lly, wh ether beh avio r is the focu s of com petence, or (b) beha vio r is the crit erion a ga inst which co gnition an d affect - mo tivation a re valida ted a s mea sures of com petence ” (Bl öm eke et a l., 2015, p. 6; emp ha ses in the o rigina l) . Whereas th e first interpreta tion a rg u es tha t the previou sly ad- dressed com petencies influ enc e p erf ormance dyn am ic a lly in situ , the seco nd ap - pro ach sees these co mpetencies a s sum ma n ds that ma ke u p c om petence , which 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 26 rath er directly lead to perfo rmance in a cu mu lative sense (Blöm eke et al., 2015, p. 6) . The a u thors th en po int out tha t this ra ther po lariz ed resea rch perspective neglects research concerning the nature of the bond b etwe en d isposition and perfor mance (Blömeke et al., 2015, p. 7) . As a conclusion , they propose that “ in- stead o f insisting on an unproductive dichotomy v iew of competence, in partic- ula r knowledge or perfo rmance, competence sh ould b e regarded a s a process, a con tinuum with ma ny steps in betwe en ” (Blömeke et a l., 2015, p. 7; emp ha sis in the o rigina l). Figur e 7: Mo del o f co mpe t e n ce v ie w ed as a continu u m (Blö meke et al., 2015, p. 7) . The pro posed mod el d ifferentiates three d ifferent “ste ps” (Blöm eke et a l., 2015, p . 7) o f com petence: dispo sition, situ a tion - specific skills a n d perfo rmance. The dispo sitiona l a spect most clearly r elates to the m odel o f p rofessiona l com- petence in tha t it enco mpa sses co gnitive an d a ffect - mo tivational facets, simila r to t he model by Ba um ert an d Kunter ( 2006, 20 1 3) an d N euweg ’s idea of knowledge 2 . This asp ect ad dresses th e ra t her analytical perspective o f com pe- tence. Perform an ce, on the o ther end of the con tinuum, add resses the requ ire- ment to actu a lly a ct i n situatio n s a n d display one’s co mp ete nce, resemb ling knowledge 3 ( Neuweg, 2014, p . 585) . In b etwe en those t wo ends of the contin- uu m are situa tion- specific skills that “m a y media te” (Blömeke et a l., 2015, p. 7) between bo th en ds, e.g., professio na l visio n (W eger, 2019, p. 15) 26 . A 26 The quest ion of how profes sional k n owle dge a nd p er fo rmance inte ract ha s a lso be en r ais ed by Bromm e wh o, simi larly t o the p resented model, d i scuss es teac hers’ routine s in c las sroom situatio ns an d their d iagn ostic com petenc e a s situated betwee n tea c hers’ k n owle dge an d thei r c lass room activi ties (1997, pp. 198 – 20 0) . A sec o nda r y rec epti on of B romme’ s model by Frey an d J ung can als o be see n as a precurs or f or the mo del by Blömeke et al. (2015) (2011, p. 1 6 ) . 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 27 hypo thetical feedback conversa tio n bet ween a teach er a n d a learn er in the Eng- lish language cl a ssroom may serve a s a n exa m ple of this m odel. I n this scena rio, the lea rner a sks the t ea cher fo r som e feedback on a text , but time is l im ited. Th e teacher sca ns the text a nd dia gnos es severa l imp o rtan t a spect s fo r the learner to imp rove up on , but decides to focus on o ne specific a spect they 27 con sider to be the most important, su c h a s the text missin g specific genre aspects. The teacher is well-ca pa ble of using their kno wledge of the English lan guage , and ho w to p r ovid e a dequate feedba ck (dispositions) but given the lim ited time in the situation and the volume of feedba ck opportun ities, they decide to prio ritize a certain a spect (situation -specific skills) and provide feedback on o nly on e as- pect (perform an ce) 28 . In the end , it is the teach er’s performan ce i n the situa tion that is cr ucia l f or the success of this lea rn ing oppo rtu n ity for the learn er. By d issolvin g the dich otom y, a nd stating tha t co mp etence is both kno wledge an d p erforman ce, Chom sky’s i n itial definition is no t necessarily r e- futed, b ut r a ther clarified , as h e rega rds co mp etence a s knowledge (disposi- tions), wit h performan ce as the observab l e use of that kno wledge (C ho msk y, 1965, p. 4) . The m odel by Blöm eke et al. (2 015) expa nds on th a t by adding situ - ation -sp ecific skills a s a m ediator that co uld explai n why kn owledge do es not necessar ily transla te into perform an ce. Weinert ma kes a sim ilar point , criticiz ing that ma n y competence definitions n eglect the con text of p erforman ce, poten- tially leading to inva lid assumptions of co mp ete n ce (2001 , p p. 58 – 59) . Cri tically, it sh ou ld b e noted tha t not u nlike the m odel o f pro fession al c om petence, the mo del only takes the te a cher’s perspective into accou nt, not considerin g whether the perfo rmance has an impact o n the learner (K ra uss et a l., 2020, p. 314) . Nonetheless, Blöm eke, Gustafs son an d Shavelson succeed in that they are able to connect different s tra nd s of com petence r esearch , allowing t o relate the different fa cets to each other u nder one u nited fra mewor k. The respective position ing o n co m petence h as c onsid erable im plication s for teacher edu cation . Followin g the a ss um pt ion laid out by Baum ert a nd K u nter (2013 ), pr ofession al knowledge a nd o ther dispo sition s will eventua lly lead to perfor mance in the class room. Within this pa ra digm, teacher educa tio n then has as its g oa l the developm ent o f these disp osition s. Understa ndin g p erformance as a con stituting a spect of competence, as is d one in the mod el by Blö meke et al. (2015) implies tha t the p erform ative a spect m ust b e con sidered in teach er educa tion. Consequ ently, as a ll three phases o f teach er educa tion regar d the 27 Singula r t he y is used in this th esi s t o av oid assig ning gende rs and to com ply with data protect ion when it relat es t o specific partic ipant s in th e empirica l p art of this thesis. 28 See al so M a r ks (20 23 , p . 46). 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 34 kno wledge qua n tit ively a nd evaluate the pro gress o f p r ofessio na lization by the mea ns o f kn owledge develop ment. There h ave b een three promin ent p rojects that h ave sought to d evelop and v a lidate tests an d u se them to in vestigate the pro fessiona l knowledge o f (future) E FL t ea chers: TE DS - LT 41 (Blömeke, Bremerich -V os, et al ., 2013 ; Blö meke et al., 20 11) , PK E 42 (K ön ig et a l., 2016; Roters et a l., 2015) a nd FA LK O- E ( Kirchho ff, 2017) 43 . The resu lts o f thes e pro ject s will be discu ssed in this chapter, fo cusing m ostly o n CK an d PCK, as they allow for a br oader empirica l perspective on th e status qu o regarding pro fessional kno wledge of (pre -service) EFL t each ers a nd knowledge develop ment thro ug h- ou t the different pha ses 44 . Several simila rities ca n be found within the se pro jects rega rdin g their con - ceptualization . First, the diff erentiation of pro fessiona l kn owledge is a like in tha t Shu lman’s taxonom y was u sed to distinguish between the a reas o f PK, CK a nd PCK (Sh ulm an , 1986, p . 9) . Seco nd, the descriptors of KMK08 serv e as a general theoretical fou nda tion fo r constructing th e items o f CK a nd P CK (Ma rks, 2023, p. 93) . In TEDS- LT , the individua l u niversity - specific cu rricu la are als o used fo r orienta tion a nd experts con s u lted (Rote rs et a l., 2011, p. 80) . In PK E , “[several] pilot studies an d expert reviews were co nducted to develop the fin al set of 33 test items” ( König et a l., 2016, p. 327) . In FAL KO- E, further items ar e incl ud ed no rmatively fo r PCK, as KM K 08 on ly relate s to th e first ph ase of teacher edu ca- tion, and v a lidated in expert i nterviews 45 with resear chers a nd teac hers (K irch - ho ff, 2016, p. 85, 2017, p. 122) . Third, p rofessiona l kno wledge is mea sured in writte n pen - an d- p a per tests, which are predomin an tly designed with clo sed or semi- closed items in TEDS- LT an d PKE, w herea s the FALK O- E t est u ses m ostly open items (Ma rks, 2023, p. 95) . 41 TED S-LT is t he abbrevia tion o f Te ache r E ducatio n a nd Develo pment S tudy – Lear ning to Teach (Blöme ke, 2 0 1 1 ) . 42 P KE i s the acr onym for Profe ssionelle K o m petenz v on Engli schleh rk r äften: Fachdid aktisch es Wis sen an- gehe nder Engli schleh rkrä f t e – Konzep tion, Me ssung, V a li dierung w hich tran slates to EFL t each ers ‘ pr o fe s - sional c ompe tence: Future E F L teache rs‘ PCK – Concep tio n, mea sureme nt, vali dati on Kö nig et al. (20 16). 43 The in dividual desi gn an d constr uction of the PCK - speci fic test parts is focus ed on in Chapt er 1 5. 5.3 . 2.2 in the context o f fi n din g a ppropriate i nstrume n ts to mea sur e PCK as a n exte r nal varia b le. An in depth summary is also provi ded in Mark s (202 3) . 44 E mpi rical finding s on E F L tea che rs t hat a re c onseq uentl y n ot i nclude d here a re th o se f o cusin g o n qualita tive data ex plorin g th e r eflect ion of profes sional knowled g e ( fo r an o ve rview, see Ge rlach, 20 22 , pp. 32 – 33), aff ect-motivat iona l dispo sition s (see Doll & Schwippe rt, 2011; Schwip p ert et al., 2 013), situ- ati on -specif ic skills (f or an o vervi ew on professi on al vi sio n, s ee Hütt n er, 201 9; We ger, 20 19) or o the r specific aspects of E F L t eacher c o mp etence , e.g., diagnos tic competence (Flecke n stein et al., 2018; Jansen et al., 20 2 0; Sebasti ani, 2023). 45 E xpert inte r views w er e c onducted a s t hink-alo ud inte rvi ews, see K i rchhoff (20 16) for m or e i nformat ion on the validati on pr ocess. 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 35 In the TEDS- LT stu dy, pro fessiona l k no wled ge , as conceptua lize d by Ba umert an d Kun ter (2006, 2013), is tested at two different times in the first ph ase to investigate th e pro cess of p rofessio nalization of PSETs (J a nsin g et al., 2013, p. 78) . In the test, CK is m easu red in two d imen sion s, “British and American lit- erary s tudies” and “linguistics” (Roters et al ., 2011, p. 87; tran slated by TJ) , wh il e PCK is separa ted in to three different su bdim ensions “(1) Methods/co n- cepts/ana lyses, (2) pro cesses/strategies/langu ag e a cquisition, a nd (3) literature pedag ogy / in terculturality) ” (Jansin g et al., 2013, p. 80; transla ted by TJ) . How- ever, the differen tiation of PCK occu rred me rely for the second mea surement , as the psych om etric sta tistics for the PCK p art were co nsidered insu fficient for the first measu rem ent (Jan sing et a l., 2013, p. 79) . The resu lts o f T 1 ( n 1 = 4 62) sho w that the dim ension s o f CK and PCK cor relate positively ( r = .395 to r = . 604), in- dicating that the fa cets measu re a spects of the same co nstru ct (Roters et al., 2011, p p. 94 – 95) . As o nly 7 % o f pa rticipan ts pa rticipated in b oth m easurements ( n 2 = 420; N G = 862), the d ata is ra ther qua si - lon gitudinal, a s primarily ea rlier an d later sem ester gro ups a re co mp ared (Jansin g et a l., 2013, p. 81) . What is m ore, the reliab ility of the sca les is r elatively low, co mp licating the interpretation of the results (Jansin g et al., 2013 , p. 80) . Still, t he com parison of b oth data poin ts sho ws that a sig nifica n t increase o f knowledge is on ly eviden t fo r the first two PCK su bdim ension s, while the rem ain ing PCK a nd CK dim ension s a re relativel y stagn an t (Jansing e t al. , 2013 , p. 95) . I nterestingly, t here are no significant c o rre- lations betwee n PCK o r CK in relation to P K for the en tire co ho rt of PSET s, while there are for PSTs of Ge rman and Mathe m atics (König e t al., 2011, p . 150) 46 . Mo reover, PK seems to be g enerally low er for stud ents o f Eng lish an d German than for tho se of Ma thematics (König et a l ., 2013, p. 160) . Lastly, the fi n al g ra d- ua tion g r a de 47 seems to be significa ntly predictive fo r the a vera ge pro fession al kno wledge o f pre- service EFL teachers (β = - .44) (Blömeke, Buchh oltz, & Bremerich -V os, 2013, p. 179) . P KE can be cla ssified a s the sequ el to TE DS- LT a s it bu ilds directly on tha t work. For instance, it i nclu des the same i n strum ents to m eas u re PK 48 an d CK (König et a l., 2016, pp . 326 – 327) . It d iffers in tha t it uses the Cam bridge Place- ment Test to m easu re langu ag e proficiency (L P) ( Kön ig et al., 2016, p. 327) , 46 There i s only a positive c orrelation b etwee n PCK a nd PK f or t he s ub s et of p re -servic e E F L teac h ers studyin g f or low er sec o nda ry ( Köni g et al., 201 1, p. 151). 47 Occ asio nally , this grade i s co mp ar ed to the Grade P o int Aver age (GPA). H o weve r , i n this the s is t he last grade bef ore e nteri ng teach er educa tion is collec ted, w h ich can als o rela te to o th er gra des , e.g., g ra de of appr entices hips. 48 Th e auth ors use t he a bbreviat ion GPK f or g e neral p e da gog ica l k nowle dge. For co nsist ency, it will be referre d t o as PK in thi s thesis. 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 36 whereas in TE DS- LT participants a re only asked t o self-evalu ate their pr oficiency ba sed on the CEF R scale ( Roters e t al., 201 1, p. 84) . Also , PKE fo cuses on furth er developing the items to m easu re PCK , a s the r esults of TEDS- LT a re n ot con sid- ered to b e su fficiently r eliable. PC K i s con ceptua lize d a long the “ thr ee con ten t dimen sions: knowledge o f cu rriculum, te a chin g stra tegie s, an d studen ts ” (König et a l., 2016, p . 327 ) , a nd su fficient reliability scores are achieved this time ( Kön ig et a l., 2016, p. 328) . Finding s in dicate that PC K h ighly corr elates with CK and PK ( r = .69), while there a re modera te correlations between CK an d PK ( r = .40), a s well a s LP a nd CK ( r = . 52), a nd LP a nd PCK ( r = . 43), wh ile co rrelation s ar e r ather low for LP and PK ( r = . 24), wh ich is no t surprisin g c on sidering tha t th ese con- structs a re the fu rthest a pa rt co ntent - wise (König et al., 2016, pp. 328 – 329 ). A s pa rt of PKE , kn owledge o f PSETs i s mea sured in two differen t pha ses quasi -lon- gitudina lly, i.e., M aster studen ts in the first ph ase (n = 216) , an d teacher -tr a inees in the secon d ph a se (ind uction) ( n = 228) ( König et a l., 2016, pp . 326 – 328) . Find- ings indica te that PK a nd PCK is significa nt ly h igher for the gro up in the induc- tion phase, while CK rem ain s st a gna nt (König et a l., 2016, p . 329; T a chtsoglo u & König, 2018, p . 24) . Results seemingly align with fin di ngs o f TEDS- LT a s du ring the pro cess o f pr ofession a lization, P CK se ems to increase, while CK d oes n ot. This fin ding is corrob orated by König et a l. , wh o find even mo re pr onoun ced differences fo r PK a nd PCK between stu dents in their Bachelor a nd Master pha se (2017 , p. 29) . Takin g t he gr aduation grade i nto account, it is significa ntly predic- tive for CK (β = - .27), PCK (β = - .32) an d PK (β = - .18) 49 . FAL KO- E is the EFL-specific pa rt of the l ar ge r FALKO p roject in which m ultiple disciplines colla bor ated to develop pen -a nd-pa per tests to eva lua te p rofessio na l kno wledge of te a chers using the design of COACTIV a s a co nn ective fram ework (Krauss, Lindl, Sch ilcher, & Tepner, 2017, p. 10) . In FALK O- E, su bject-specific pr o- fession al kn owledge is similarly con ceptualiz ed as CK a nd PCK , while PK is a p- pa rently no t i n cluded in this study (Kirchh off, 2017, p . 118) . In th e CK test , deeper kno wledge on relevant a spects th a t are taught in school is fo c u sed on i n n ine items, in cludin g a spects of linguistic, literary an d cultural k no wledge (Kirchho ff, 2017, pp. 120 – 122) . Th e PC K test is present ed in d etail i n Chapter 15.5.3. 2.2 and thus n ot fu rther elaborated o n here. The FALK O- E tes t co nsists o f m ostly o pen items an d is va lidate d in a stu dy with a sample o f N = 186 p articipants. The sam- ple is m ade up of two subsets, PSE Ts ( n = 106) a nd in -serv ice EFL tea chers ( n = 80). A s ign ifican t po sitive corr elation between PC K a nd CK is fou nd ( r = .43), furth er sup p or ting the notions tha t both facet s a re pa rt of th e s am e knowledge dom ain. Comparing the two subsets , the find ings i n dicate th at in- service 49 Negat ive c oeffici ents are a result of the Ge rman gra ding s ystem us i n g lowe r nu m bers for bette r gr a des, see Chapte r 1 5.5 . 4.2 . 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 37 teachers achieve sign ifican tly more poin ts i n C K tha n pre -service t each ers, while there is n o sign ific a nt difference with regard to PCK (Kirchhoff , 2017, p. 136) . Mo reover, the fin al gr aduation g ra de seems to be sign ifican tly predictive fo r both PCK (β = - .25) a nd CK (β = -.30). Inter estingly, the pro fession al exp erience of teachers do es n ot seem to cor relate significan tly with either CK ( r = - .21), o r PCK ( r = - .05), an d a lso seems to be ra ther n egative (K irch ho ff, 2017, p. 141) . While the r esults of these project s a re i n sightful, they s ho uld be discussed with their limitations i n min d . First ly , the primary c o ncern of t h ese stu dies is th at of va lida tion . Th e test resu lts a re thus of an explo rative na ture and part o f the pro cess of te st co nstru ction. T h is is espec ia lly evident in TEDS- LT , wh ose P CK items ar e comp lete ly recon sidered for PKE du e to their insu fficient reliability scores. S eco nd ly, no ne of these studies a re of a strictly lon gitudi n al n a ture, which pro hibits statements re gard ing a ctu a l p r ofessio na lization processes, i.e., true growth in pr ofession a l knowledge. Thirdly, results of these studies a re pa rtially con tradictive. While there a re sign ific an t differences of PC K in TEDS- LT wh en com pa ri ng B a ch elor and Ma ster studen ts a nd in PKE when co mparing Ma ster students an d teacher train ees, this is no t cor robo rate d by find ings in FALKO-E . Conversely, th e FAL KO- E study o nly fin ds significa nt differences fo r CK, whil e this is n ot co rroborated by either TEDS- LT or PKE. Th e follo wing cha pter will seek to discu ss to wha t extent kn owle dg e, wh ich a rguably develops to a certain ex- tent a s ind icated by these findings, r elates t o PSETs’ a bility to p erform in in struc - tiona l sett ing s. Competence betw een Kno wledge a nd Practice Based on these theoretical an d em pirica l find ings, this chapter seeks to discu ss the extent to which EF L t eacher educa tion in Germa ny a ctu a lly ach ieves its goal of prep ar ing PSTEs for the t ask s of the prof ession , foc usin g on t he c o ntribu tions of the first phase. The goal of teacher education is d iscussed ba sed on severa l flow cha rt m odels, ea c h of which p uts teachers’ perform ance a t the center a s it ha s th e mo st direct influ ence on learn er achievement (Diez , 20 10; Krauss et a l., 2020; Terha rt, 2012b; Voss, 2019 ) . Looking at the sta ndards fo rm ul a ted in the statutory fra mewor k o f the KMK , ho wever, they are often criticize d for f ocu sing too m uch on the cog nitive dispo sitions. Blöm eke, fo r in stance, claims tha t the descriptors in KMK04 mo stly focu s o n asp ects of “kno wing” (2006, p. 29; tran s - lated by TJ ), e .g ., knowing a bout different pro cedures of assessme nt, but do not inclu de teach ers ’ ab ility to tha t kn owledge, con sequently sidelining perfo rma tive 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 38 asp ects a nd loca ting them only i n the second phase o f teacher educa tion 50 (Mar ks, 2023, p p. 316 – 317) . Critica lly, Blöm eke states the followin g: In einer zwei p hasi g e Ausbildu ng ka nn man siche r lich ni cht so weit ge- hen zu sage n, d ass die Studi er e nden am End e d er e rs t en P has e unt er- richten können. Den noc h s ollen sie etwa s kö nnen, w as ko gnitiv an - spruchsv o ller ist als l ediglich z u "kenne n ". (Blöme ke, 20 06, p. 3 0 ) (In a tw o - phasic st ructu re o f teac her e ducati o n , one ca n surely not g o so far as to sa y that stu den t s sho uld be abl e to teac h at the end of the first p ha se. Howeve r, t hey shoul d be a ble to do somet hing m o r e c og- nitively d e mandi n g than just “k now ” .) Universities, a s the instit ution m ain ly responsible for the first phase, s ho uld th us no t o nly foc us on theo ry and declar a tive kn owledge but go beyond a nd inclu de instan ces o f perf or mance, thus la ying the foun d a tions adequately fo r the second pha se. This focu s on theor etical k no wledge is also reflected in the different m odels of co mpetences, especia lly the mo del of pro fession al competence b y Ba um ert an d Kunte r , wh ich co nceptua lizes knowle dge a s the “core o f pro fessionalism ” (2013 , p. 28) . While the mo del su ggests t ha t kno wledge can be a resou rce f or perfor mance, it do es n ot clearly differentia te bet ween co mpetence a nd perfor - ma nce (Neuweg, 2022a, p. 23; Vogelsan g, 2014, p. 45) . Generally, there is ap pa r - ently no clear distinction betwee n kno wle d ge an d competence in the German discou rse (N euweg, 2022b, p. 1300) . W ith the m odel p ropo sed by Blömeke et al. , performance is co nceptua lize d a s p art of com petence , go ing beyon d existing dicho tomies (2015, p. 7) . If the dev elop ment of com petence is thus the goa l for each phase in teacher edu cation , t he fir st ph a se should consequently n ot disre- gar d it s performative fa cet, bu t inclu de it . Conceptua lizing competence a s m ore than knowledge and i nclu sive of performance also further em p h asizes Blöm eke’ s cr itique of the KMK g uidelines as too n arrowly focu sed on knowledge (2006 , p. 30) . This leads to the broader discuss ion of theory an d practice in teacher edu cation . Described a s a n “un solved problem” (Rothlan d, 2020, p. 133; tran sl a ted b y TJ) , t he discourse on the relation be tween theo ry a nd practice is dominant in teacher educa tion, d a ting ba ck to the beg inn ing o f the 20 th century (J. Dewey, 1904; Pilypaity tė, 2013, p . 36) . Whil e there is a simila r discussion i n the legal or medica l p rofessio n, it seems to be particula rly in tense in teacher education (N euweg, 20 22a, p . 12) . A plethor a of rela t ed discu ssion s o ccur un der this u m- brella p hra se, though generally theory refer s to the resea rch a nd science -rela ted 50 Baum er t an d Kunte r make the same point, b ut refer t o Te rh a r t’s ex p erti se and n ot th e KMK 04 stand - ards (20 06). 3 C ompetenc e of E F L Teac hers 39 asp ects of teach er ed uca tion, i.e., acquisiti on of theoretical kn owledge, whereas pra c tice refers to the professio na l action , i. e., doin g the a ctual job (Rothland , 2020, p. 133) . Th e ro ot cause for the d isc ussio n p ossibly st ems from the a p- pro ach of “ theory- to - pra ctice” (Carlso n, 1999, p. 203) : The university lays a foun- dation tha t con sists of m ostly theoretical or form a l knowledge (Fe n sterm a cher, 1994, p. 12) , wh ich can then be pu t into practice a t sch ool (Wideen et al., 1998, p. 167) . While this ap pro ach has preva ile d for d ecades and is reflect ed in the two-p ha sic structure of teacher e du c ation in Germa ny an d m odels of c o mpe- tence, PSTs encou nter ch alleng es in actu ally a pplyin g this kn owledge in pra ctice, resulting in a p erceived “gap between th eory an d practice” (F . A. Kortha gen, 2010, p. 409) . While the acqu isition o f kn owledge can be descr ibed as som ewhat success- ful, as described in Chapter 3.4, several studies indicate tha t ( pr e-service ) teach- ers enco un ter challenges in a pplying that knowledge (e.g., Zeichn er, 20 10). Spe- cifically a t the s ta rt of their pr ofession al life an d in in secure situa tions, teach ers turn to teachin g ho w they h a ve exp erienced it a s a learn er ra ther than what they were taug ht a t un iversity (Müller- Fohrb rodt et a l., 1978, p. 39 ). There a re m ultipl e poss ible reaso ns for these fin dings, a lthough at the core is the challenge o f the ap plication of knowle dge in practice (Widla k, 1983 , p. 213) . Severa l reaso ns na t- ura lly fa ctor in to individua l challenges teach ers fa ce when it co mes to a pplying the ir kn owledge (F. A. Kortha gen, 2010) . Rath er r ecently, pra ctical phases have been included in to university-ba sed t each e r e du cation i n Germany with t he dis- tinct aim to n a rrow this perceive d ga p a nd fa cilitate the pr ocess of applying kno wledge in practice (Ulrich et al., 2020, p . 6) . As describ ed by Zeichner, h ow- ever, so - called “ field-e xperiences” do no t n ecessar ily a llow fo r the ap plication of kno wledge, either: A p e rennial p roblem in t raditio nal colle ge - a nd univer sity-spons ored teac her educa tio n pro gr am s has been t he lac k of co nnec tion between ca mpus -ba sed, unive rs ity- base d t eacher educa tion co u rses and fiel d experie nces. Alt houg h m o st u nive rsity -ba sed teac her e ducation pro- grams now i nclude multi ple fiel d exp erienc es over t he le n gt h of t he prog ram a nd ofte n situate fi eld experience s i n s om e t ype of sch oo l - unive rsity p art n ershi p ( e. g., p ro f essional developme nt sc hoo l s, pa rtne r scho o ls), th e disconnect betwe en what students are ta u ght in cam pus courses and thei r opport u nities for l earni ng t o enact th ese prac tic es i n their sc hool plac eme nts is o ften v ery g reat eve n within profe ssional de - velopm ent and pa rtner sc hools . (20 10 , p . 91) While stud ents genera lly self - report tha t their co mp ete nces in crease a fter spendin g time a t sc ho ol, there is little em pirica l evidence tha t there actually is a mea surable in crease (for an overview, se e Ulrich et al., 2020, p. 49 ). Wit hin these pra ctical p hases, the fo c us ha s sh ifted mo re towards reflection, especially 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 40 “reflect ion - on - a ction” (J. M eier, 2022 , p. 2 7). T he ba sic assumption (altho ugh con densin g va st research on this top ic 51 ) is t h a t PSTs s hou ld use theo ry to thi nk ab out their exp erience and com e to a reasoned co nclu si on on its efficiency, h y- pothesizing a bout a lternative action s th a t cou ld have been taken in stead, thu s offerin g one way to c on nect theory to p r actice (F . Korthag en & Nuijten, 2022, p. 24) . These r eflect ive skills a re certain ly r elevan t, however, the jur y is still out on whether th ese sk ills ha ve a n i nflu ence on (pre - service) teach ers’ su bsequ ent action s ( Neuweg, 20 22a, p. 22) . While the issu e of theory- pra ctice-connection is being discu ssed an d ap proac h es a re b ein g taken to con solidate the ga p, there are still ch a llenges tha t students face wh e n it co mes to a ctually u sing theory in pra ctice. C ircling b ack to the introdu ct ory quo te, n either the acquisition of kno wledge, n or the implem entation of in ternships seems to be ha ving the de- sired imp act o n teacher edu cation (Fraefel & Gro ssma n, 2024, p . 139) . Th us, n ew ap proaches seem necessar y to a ddress this issue. In co nsequ ence, a f ocu s o n theory and knowledge can be ob served fo r the first pha se of teach er ed uca tion with r egard to th e statutory f ra mewor k s and the con ceptualization s o f pr o m inent co mp ete n ce mo dels. Th is ra ther n arrow p er- spective o f com petence m a y n ot necessa rily su ffice in p repar ing PSETs for the “core bu siness o f teach ing” (Bau mert & K un ter, 2013, p. 26) , i. e., “instructiona l perfor mance” (Krau ss et a l., 2020, p. 316) . While there seems to be a d evelop- ment in kn o wledge, its a pplication i n practice is cha llengin g (Zeichner, 2010, p. 91) . Consid ering perfor mance a s a n a spect of comp ete n ce as p ropo sed by Blöm eke et a l. (20 15) a nd includ ing performan ce in the first p ha se of teach er educa tion migh t be ben eficial in b ett er pr eparin g PSETs fo r pra ctice. The n ext cha pters will la y ou t h ow, usin g con structi ve a lignm ent, such an a pp roach can be taken. 4 A Performanc e-O ri ented P erspecti ve on Const ructi ve Al ignme nt in t he First Phas e of EFL T each er Edu cati on This ch ap ter will discuss h ow p erform an ce ca n be inclu ded in the fir st pha se o f teacher educa tion a s one a pproach to a ddress the cha llenges PSTs fa ce in a p- plying kn o wledge in the cla ssroo m. First, c on structive align men t is prop osed as a g eneral fra mewor k for high er educa tio n (Biggs, 1996; Biggs & Ta ng, 2011) . Secon d, a perfo rmance p erspective is tak en an d p ossible a pproach es detailed for each of the three d imensio ns o f constru ctive a lign ment: lea rning objectives, teachin g a nd learnin g activities , an d a sses sm ent. A sp ecial emp hasis is p ut on 51 Fo r a m or e nuanc e d a nd d etai le d discussio n o f refl ection, see, f or exam ple, Kle mpin (2019); J. Mei er (2022). 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 41 assessm ent of performance, a s a ssessment is particula rly influential f or learn ing beha vior. Constructive A lignm ent A fr amework th a t c a n be u sed to d isc uss how perfo rmance ma y b e i n cluded i n the fir st p hase o f teach er ed uca tion is that of constructive a lignment (CA) (Biggs, 1996; Biggs & Ta ng, 2011). Bigg s ’ fra mework bu ilds on t he idea of “instructional align men t” (S. A. Cohen, 1987), wh ich descr ib es the con gruence between curr ic- ulu m a nd a ssess men t (Biggs, 1996, p. 350) . CA a dds the n otion o f co nstructivism by learn ing a ctivit ies: “The ‘constru ctive’ asp ect refers to the idea tha t stude n ts con struct meaning throu gh releva nt lea rning activities. Tha t is, m eaning is not som ething impar ted o r t ra nsmitt ed from t each er to le a rner, bu t is so methin g learn ers have to c rea te fo r themselves ” (Biggs, 2003, p . 1) . According t o CA, when designin g u niversity co urses, three f a cets sho uld align to create a n in ter- na lly ha r mo nized system, i.e., “a stab le equilibrium ” (Biggs, 1996, p. 350) : The objectives that a re to be rea ched, th e teach ing a n d learning a ctivities (TL As) t ha t are pla nned and executed, an d the a ssess men t tha t seeks to eva lua te whether the objectives ha ve been a chieved (see Fig ure 8 ). Figur e 8: Con st ructiv e a lign ment in hi ghe r ed u cation (Bi ggs, 19 9 6; f igu re ada pted f ro m Dei bl e t al ., 2018, 295; Ga l- lagh e r , 2017, p. 3 01 3) . First, cou rses need to set the specific learn ing o bjectives. Biggs a rgu es that in o rder to ach ieve high levels of mastery, h igh - level goa ls, e.g., the “perfo rma- tive asp ect of un derstan di ng” (Biggs, 1996 , p. 351) , should be set. Biggs mainly distingu ishes between declarative an d func tioning knowledge . Whereas declar a- tive k nowledge refers to ”knowin g a bout thin gs”, functionin g k nowl edge , “ is wha t pro fessiona ls ar e co ncern ed with; they u se th eory to info rm their d ecisions o n wha t to d o in their p rofessio nal conte xt, b e it so lving p roblem s , design ing b uild- ings, planning t each ing o r perfo rming surge ry ” (Biggs & T a ng, 2011, pp. 81 – 82) . Objectives that a re set fo r higher levels ne ed to be more expansive than declar- ative kn owledge becau se “[good] stud ents will turn declara tive into functionin g 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 42 kno wledge in time, b ut m ost will n ot if they a re not required to” (Biggs, 2003, p. 3) . Thu s, o bjectives relating to fu nction i ng kno wledge mu st be set for a ll stu- dents t o increase t he likelihood t ha t they a re a ch ieved. However, t ho se h igh - level, perfor ma tive g oa ls a re ra rely found a t un iversity (Biggs, 199 6, p. 351) . This align s wit h Blö meke’s criticism th at t he imp lemented descriptors by t h e KM K do no t r each fa r enough , relying only on (decla rative) kn owledge (2006 , p . 29) . As ha s been elaborated in th e previou s ch apte r, these fra meworks ar e hence n ot sufficien t becau se their fo cus o n theory and kn owledge do es no t allow f or an adequ ate preparation of PSETs at u niversit y fo r practice. Using the m odel by Blöm eke et a l. (2015 ), a nd referring to th e arguments b y Biggs, learning out- com es sh ould a lso include perfo r m ative aspects wh en d eveloping competence ho listically. Consequ ently, the eva lua tion o f studen ts’ learn ing sho uld (a t least in pa rt) a lso b e opera tiona lized in criterion -oriented ob jective s t ha t con sider the perfor ma tive aspect (Biggs, 1996, p. 353) . Based on these cr iterion- orie n ted ob jective s, TLAs that dem and students to perfor m a s required should be used ( Biggs, 1996, p. 353; Biggs & T a ng, 2011, p. 58) . Educa tors need to design TLAs tha t follow a con structive ap proach, i.e., “le a rners arr ive at m eanin g by a ctively selecting, an d cumu latively constru cting, their o wn kno wledge, thr ough both indivi dua l and so cial activity” (Biggs, 1996, p. 348) . Biggs is especia lly critical of lec ture s as they do no t necessar ily allo w for the attain ment of these higher levels d ue to their la ck o f activity ( Biggs, 1996, p. 353) . Certainly, teachin g activities a t un i versity a re less u nidir ectional in cur- rent teacher edu cation , as, for exa mp le, se min ars a re usually in cl uded as cou rses that are mo re intera ctive (Hilger et a l., 2015, p. 59) . H owever, if perfo rma tive as- pects are inclu ded a s ob jective s fo r these cou rses, lear ning activities n eed to enab le perfor mance. I n te a cher ed u cation , fo r instance, this includ es internships as a learn ing a ctivity o utside o f the ca m pus as well cou rses tha t a llow fo r p lann ed pra ctice of perfo rmance. As a la st po int, ass essment seeks to evalu ate wh ether students h ave ach ieved the objectives throu gh the executed TL As. Consequ ently, ass essment sh ould be designed so that it r eflect s the objectives a pp ropriately a nd actually mea s ures wha t stud ents ar e supposed to lea r n in thei r co ur ses (Biggs & Tang, 2011, p. 99) . The pu rpo se o f a ssessment, h owever, is also depend ent on the respective p er- spective: While fo r the t each er, “it checks the q ua lity of learn ing, […] for studen ts, it defines wha t is to be learn ed ” (B iggs, 200 3, p. 3) . Assessm ent ta sks sho uld thu s also a ddress t h e high er levels o f u nderstanding , i. e. , performance, beca use “ if the set a ssessm ent ta sks add ress lo wer co gnitive level activiti es tha n those n om- ina ted in t he cu rriculum o bjectives, equilibrium will b e ach ieved a t a lower level” (Biggs, 1996, p . 350) . Perform a nce assessm en t co uld thus be defined as “a type of a ssessm ent tha t requires stud e n ts to actua lly perform, dem o n strate, 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 43 con struct, develop a pr o duct or a solu tion under d efined con ditions an d stand- ard s” (Khattri & S weet, 2 013, p. 3) . For the lea rner, the wa y they ar e ass essed is relevant to their lea rnin g beha vio r (Biggs, 2003, p . 3) . If students ’ perfor ma nce is the focu s o f a ssessm ent, they a re incen tiviz ed to focu s o n their perfo rma nce in the p repa ration f or the ass essment, so the i dea. This sentim ent can b est be su m- ma rized with the truism tha t “assessment dr ives learn i ng” (J ua n Fischer et al., 2024, p. 233; So pka et al., 2018, p. 97) . In the follo wing three cha pters, each o f the described asp ects of CA will be explored in m ore d epth rega rding th e pe rfor ma tive facet o f co mpetence, d e- scribin g concepts a nd em pirica l find ings for the first phase o f tea cher edu c ation . Learnin g O bjectives: The Core Pra ctice Appr oa ch in EFL Teach er Educa tion If perfo rma nce is to b e focu sed on in the first p ha se, adequate lea rnin g o bjec- tives n eed to b e fo rm ula ted, which can th en be tar geted. As the im plemen ted stand ard s fo r the first phase focu s more on knowledge, a d ifferent app roach ma y be con sidered to descr ibe lea rnin g obje ctives for m a perfo r m ance persp ec- tive, su ch as t he co re p ra ctice a ppro ach (Gross ma n, 2018; Gro ssm an & Fraefel, 2024) . 4.2.1 The Core Pra ctice App roa ch In respo nse to the cri ticism tha t initial teac her educa tion, especially the u niver- sity-ba sed pha se, is too relian t o n kn owle dge a nd n ot a dequa tely pr eparin g teachers for the profession, the core p r a ctice a pp r oa ch has emerg ed, p r ovid ing a different perspective on th e focu s of teacher educa tion (Grossman & Fraefel, 2024, p. 1; Grossman et a l., 2018 , p . 3; McDona ld et al., 2013, p. 378) . Core prac- tices ca n be defined a s pr actice s “that are fund a menta l to te a chin g and grou nd ed in discip linary and peda g og ical g oa ls tha t teach ers en act to su pport student le ar ning ” ( Gross ma n & Fra efel, 2024, p. 2) . T hey can be ch a racterized as • pract ices t hat occu r wit h high fr equency in teac hi ng ; • pract ices t hat teac hers c an e n ac t in cla ssr oo m s a cros s d ifferent curricula or i nstruct ional appr oaches; • pract ices that allow teac hers to l earn m ore ab o ut s t udent s and about teac hin g; • pract ices that prese rve th e inte gr ity a nd c o mplexit y of teach- ing; a nd • pract ices tha t a r e r esea rch-based a nd have t he potenti al t o im - prove student ac hiev ement. (Gros sman, Hamme r ness, & McDonald, 20 0 9, p. 277; Grossma n et al., 20 18, p p. 4 – 5) The in dividu al core pr a ctice ma y vary in gra in size, as some co nceptualiza- tions focu s on larger actions, like lesson p lan nin g , a nd other focus o n sm all er 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 50 The fiel d of simulati on should shift emp hasis awa y fr om stru ct ural pro p- erties of th e simula to r (i.e., physic al rese mblanc e) t o fun ctional prope r - ties o f t he enti re simulatio n contex t that alig n with lea rning object ives (i.e., func tiona l t ask al ignment ). T here i s n ow p l enty of evid ence tha t physica l resem b lanc e can be reduce d wit h minimal or no l o s s o f edu- ca tional effecti veness, provi d ed the r e is a p p ropriate c orres pondenc e between funct ional aspect s of the simulat or and the a pp lie d contex t. (2014, p. 390) Thus, fidelity is no t a mean , in a nd o f itself, a nd can b e redu ced, if the conte xt allows for it. Consequently, in o rder to cre a te an authentic sim ulation, o nly a s- pects of fidelity tha t ar e relevan t f or the a li gnm ent between learn ing o bjectives an d sim ulation h ave to be con sidered fo r developm ent. Au th enticity ca n then be co nstructed by the individ ual through different a spects o f fid elit y: Physical elements, i.e., the setting o r ob jects in the r oom , conceptual elements, i. e., the task or scen ario, o r experi ential elements, i.e., experiencing the situation o f the simu lation (Levin, Frei-Lan dau , Flavia n, & M iller, 2023, p. 9) . On e a spect tha t is con sistently a rgued to con tribute to a n a ut h entic p erception of simu lation is the use of actors takin g on the r ole o f communicative p artners (Le vin, Frei- Landau, Flavian , & M iller, 2023, p . 3) . For insta nce, a simu l a tion m ight take pla ce in a roo m that inclu des several aspects of a r eg ula r classroom, but ha s adults a cting as nin th gr aders. Such a simulation con tains a spects of p h ysical fidelity tha t con- tribute to a uthenticity, but a lso others t hat potentially imped e an a uthentic per- ception fo r the pa rticipant. Simu lation s a re flexible a nd dynamic, i.e., they ar e ad aptive to the p ar tici- pa nts’ a ctions , but also stru ctured, e.g., the b eginnin g of the simula tion is usually identical an d the a da ptive reactions are designed systematical ly (Levin, Frei- Landa u, Flavian, & M iller, 2023, p. 12; S au vé et al., 2007, p. 251; Stürmer et a l., 2024, p. 3280) . The pa rticipan ts h ave a certain extent o f co ntro l i n the simu l ation , arg uably mo re so tha n in real- life, where other factors migh t influ ence the situ- ation ( Sa uvé et al., 20 07, p. 251) . Ba sed on pa rticipa nts’ beha vior, the sim ulation ma y chan ge in a certain direction , a ccordi ng to simple if - then fo rm ul a tions. For instan ce, if participan ts of a cl ass room si m ula tion a sk certain questions, then learn ers in that sim ula tion wil l provide som e sort of reaction, e.g., in the for m of a verb al answer, which migh t steer the su bsequen t co urse o f the simu lati o n. Th e pro gress of a si mu lation is not, ho wever, accidental. Usua lly, simulations are in- itiated in a n identical m anner. Then, possi b le kinds of behavior fro m the p a rtic- ipan t ar e an ticipated and r eactio n s plann e d , so that the sim ul a tions m ig ht pro- ceed in a systema tic an d con sistent m an ner. In co mplex simulations, t h ese if - the n form ulation s ma y b ranch out to co m plex systems, resembling decision trees (Grünewald & Levin, 2022, p. 6; Kau f m an & Ireland, 2019, p. 5; Siker, 2023, p. 340) . In role- pla y b ased simu lations in the educa tiona l contest, on e 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 51 structurin g element in t h e d ynamic scen a rio could be “verbal triggers” ( VTs) (Dotger et al. , 2010, p . 133) . V Ts c an be d escribed a s “specific qu estions , in f or- ma tion, an d/ or co m ments” (Dotger e t al. , 2 010, p. 133) that the counterpa rt, i .e., the a ctor, u tters to el icit c ertain reaction s. They a re u sed flexibly in th e simu la- tion, bu t also a llow for stan dardization withou t the comp lexitie s of decision trees. 4.3.2 Typolo gy of Simu l ation s There a re d ifferent typ es of simu lation s with wh ich on e co uld engage. On a ba sic level, simu lation s can b e described on a s pe ctrum o f (A) Technology , i.e., digital or ana l ogu e, (B) Human I n teraction , i. e., th e extent to which the p articipa nt is required to in teract with a h uman communication partner, a nd (C) Fide li ty , i.e., the extent to which the sim ula tion refle ct s a rea l life scena rio (Ade-O jo et a l., 2022, p. 862; Chernikova , Heitz m an n, S ta dler, et al. , 2020, p. 503; Nickl, 2023, p. 7; S a u vé et al., 2007; Stürmer e t a l ., 20 24, p. 3281) 54 . In the following, these spectra will b e discuss ed an d e xem plified usin g selected simu lations , preferably from the rea lm of teacher education. Of c o urse, the select ed simu lation s could be pla ced on an d u sed to discuss each spectrum, the discuss io n of in dividua l simu lation s is th us on ly exempl a ry and n ot exh au stive. Te c hnology The spectrum of technology reaches from digita l to a nalogue simula tio ns. Digi- tal simu lations are u sually d ifferentiated fr om games as they do n ot ha ve a com- petit ive a spect, while in ga mes a specific a im ha s to be a chieved, followin g p re- determined rules ( Gro tegut, 2023, p. 17; Kaufm an & Irelan d, 20 19, p. 3; Sauvé et al., 2007, p. 253; Wou ters et al., 2013, p . 250) . Other terms tha t a re often syn o n - ymou sly used with digita l s im ula tions ar e, e.g ., com puter - based simulations (N ickl, 2023, p. 1; Theele n et al., 2019, p. 16) or virtua l sim ula tion (Ade-Ojo et al., 2022, p. 863; Ang elini, 2023, p. 45; Dieker et a l., 2014, p. 21; S tevens & Kincaid, 2015, p. 41) . Dig ital sim ula tion s can take variou s forms. In v ideo -based simu l a- tions, for instance, the par ticipant wa tche s previou sly filmed, usually scrip ted, video clips a nd re acts to them (Codreanu et al., 2022, p. 40; Gro tegut, 2023; Kulgemeyer e t al., 2021 ). One exa m ple of su ch a simu lation was developed in the pr oject Vis it-M ath as pa rt of the lar ger DFG - fun ded project COSIMA 55 (C od rean u et a l., 2022) . In tha t simu lation , p articipa nts’ diag no stic skills a re to 54 For a discussio n specific all y on simula ted dia g n os tic s i mulat ions , see Machts et al. (2023 ) . 55 Th e self -describe d g oal of the COSI MA g rou p i s “ t o a nal yse h o w sim ulation-base d lea rn i ng envi ron- ments in t he univer sity c ontext can be desig n ed a nd i mpleme nted in orde r to faci litat e t he acqui s ition of d iagn ostic c o mp etences, in particula r in early and interme d iat e s tages of c o mpet ence acquisiti o n ” (COSI MA R esearc h Unit, n .d. ) . 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 52 be fostered a s they take on the role of a n i nt ern wh o has to “assess the stud ents’ ma thema tical a rgumentation skills so th at [ the teacher] ca n choo se tasks for in- dividu al lea r nin g su pport in a sub sequent cla ss ba sed on the pa rticipants’ o b- servation s” (C o drean u et al. , 2022, p. 40) . The simu lation co nsists of fo ur steps: First pa rticipan ts fa miliarize themselves wi th the con text , i.e., the diagnostic sit- uat io n , by receiving add itional infor ma tio n , e.g., lesson plans (C o drean u et a l., 2022, p . 40) . Seco nd, th e participan ts a re p resented with the diagnos tic tas k a s described a bove (C od rean u et al., 2022, p p. 40 – 41) . In the dia g nostic process , pa rticipan ts watch vid eos o f simu l ated learn er - teacher interaction s in several cy- cles (i.e., vid eos of th e same lea r ner at d iffer ent p oints) and take n otes (Codreanu et al., 2022, pp . 42 – 43) . These video s ar e scripted situa tions , wh ich last about on e minute ea ch an d include a trained teac her and actual e igh th -grade le arners (C od rean u et al. , 2022, pp . 37 – 39) . In the las t step, p ar ticipants ha ve to fo rmu late a d iagn osis and assess various a spects of the learn er , e.g ., ma thematical con tent kno wledge (Codrean u et al. , 2022, p. 43) . Similar ly, in the digita l GEProS 56 simu - lation, participan ts’ d iagnostic competence is a lso fo cused up on a s t hey t a ke on the ro le of a six th- grade teach er (Grotegut & Klingsieck, 2023, p. 59) . Con versely, GEProS is a vatar-ba sed a s these sim ulate d situation s are designed a s 3 - D an i- ma ted video sequ ences (Grotegut, 2023, p. 26) . Participan ts a re a sked to co llect, systematize an d evalu ate da ta, which is presente d thro ugh various arte fa cts , e.g., test results, n otes, d ocum ents, a s well as observation s o f the a nimated sim ulated virtua l con versa tio ns with pa rents a n d lear n ers a nd , u ltimately, a sim ulated les- son in wh ich learn ers show specific features with rega rd to lear ning challenges or un w an ted behavior (Grotegut, 2023, p p . 25 – 26; Grotegut & Klingsieck, 2023, p. 59) . Ana logu e simulations , i.e., those tha t do no t in clude digital element s or tech- no logy in a p rimary m anner , (Cherniko va , H eitzmann , Stad ler, et a l., 2020, p. 503; Kadel et a l., 202 3, p. 29) h ave the p articipa nt in teract directl y with ph ysical ob - jects o r h um an b eings. They ar e som etimes a lso r eferred to a s p hysica l sim ula - tions (Ade-Ojo et al. , 2022, p. 862) or live simula tio ns (Kron et a l., 2021 , p. 7) . One co mm on ap proach to a nalogu e simulations is the r ole -pla y. While role - play- ba sed simul a tions (R ob S 57 ) migh t a lso be digitally mediated (Theele n et al., 2019, p. 17) , e .g ., throu gh a vid eo co nference syst em (Fecke & M üller, p. 224; Stürm er et a l., 2024, p . 3288) , they a re usually co ndu cted in a n analo gue ma nner 56 G EP roS is the abb reviatio n o f G ame- und e-lear ning basierte, problem o rie nt ier t e und selb s t-g es teue rt e Le rnumgebun g (Game - an d e-lear nin gb as ed problem oriented and s elf -regulat ed l earni ng e nvir o nm ent; translat ed by TJ) . 57 The term R ole-play- based Simu lati ons is alway s a b b revia ted as Ro bS i n this t hes is for c o nsi stency, n ot only w hen refer r in g t o t he test desc ribed i n C hapte r 8 . 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 53 (Ade-Ojo et al., 2022, p. 869) a nd cou ld b e describe d as “in vivo ” (Braun, Sch wabe, & Klein, 2018, p. 6) sim ulations. In R ob S i n te a cher ed u cation , the p a r- ticipant usually takes o n the ro le o f the teacher, e nga ging with o ne o r m ultiple learn ers (e.g., Bra un, S chwabe, & Klein, 20 18; Kulgemeyer & Tomczys zyn, 2015; Ma rczynski et al. , 2022; Telgma nn & M üll er, 2023) , pa rents (e.g., Dotger et a l., 2010; Ga rtmeier et a l., 2015; G erich & Sch mitz, 2016) or, potentially, o ther stake- ho lders like colleag ues (Braun, Schwabe, & Klein, 2018, p. 6) . In teacher educa - tion, such a nalogu e ro le -pla ys are so metimes referred to as micro teachi ng , which can be defined a s a “technique in which a short lesson is taugh t to an au dience, video - reco rded, reviewed, and a na lyzed” (Cavan au gh , 2022 , p. 23) . Micro teachin g is o ften pa rt of courses in which fellow stud ents take on the ro le of the cla ss without being specifica lly instructed, a d ifference from t o simu l ation s in gen eral a nd the RobS listed abo ve, wh ich u sua lly ha s people train ed for a specific ro le to ensu re stan dardization (Cava naugh , 2022 , p . 32) . Hum a n in te r action The spectrum of hu man interaction r anges fro m a ctual face - to - f ace co nversa- tions with human s to no co mmun ic ation a t all. An a logu e RobS can be f ou nd o n the on e end o f the sp ectrum as they dem an d a ctua l human interaction. There are, however, a lso examples of m ixed - realit y sim ula tions wh ich a re d esigned a s digitally mediated interactions (Ade-O jo et al. , 2022, p. 863) . In the TLE Te achLiv E ™ sim ula tion, for instance, the pa rticipan t i n teracts with a g rou p of teacher, par ent, or learner a vata rs “ that we re cr eated usin g 3 -D mo deling a nd com puter a nimation te ch niques. The resu lting a v a tars a re controlled by a rtificial intelligence and a h uman opera tor w h o emb odies the ava tars ” (Dieker et a l., 2015, p. 12) an d which are claimed t o “ look, ta lk, and interact like typical h u- ma ns “ ( Dieker et al., 20 15, p. 12) . This sim ulation can also b e classified as a “dig- ital pu ppetry- b ased virtual [environm ent]” (Dieker e t a l., 2014, p . 28) as a h um a n is respo nsible for the reaction of the ava tar s. Ava tar beh a vior is b a sed on a “de- cision tree” (Siker, 2023, p. 340) which pre scr ibes the br an ches o f b ehavio r that depend on the pa rticipants’ a ctions. This sim ula tion is not n ecessarily fo cused on a specific skill and can be u sed fo r a va riety of scena rios (Dieker et a l., 2015, p. 13) . The sim ula tion developed by Fecke a nd Müller focu sses on effective co m- mu nica tio n in ro le- plays (p. 216) . In their digita l sim ulation , wh ic h is ba sed on the an alo gue ro le- play s cenarios by Bra un, Schwab e, a nd Klein (2018), both the pa rticipan t and the actor use ava tars a nd m eet o nline in a virtua l room to a ct ou t a situa tion , wh ic h is relevant for future t each ers (Fecke & Müller, p . 222) . Wit hin such a virtua l learning environm ent , AI -ba sed avatars may also serv e a s cou nterpar ts, allowing for in teraction wh i ch is not hu man - based (Afzal et a l., 2024; Fecke et al., 2023; Fink et al., 2024) . 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 54 Simu lation s tha t a re less -intera ctive a re those tha t do n ot have a direct co m- mu nica tio n par tner . Th e C ook School Dist ri ct Simulation is web- an d a lgor ith m - ba sed, a nd allows PSTs “to explo re con nections betwee n their action s a s teach - ers a nd the learnin g and e n g a gement o f sim ula ted students” (Girod & Girod, 2006, p. 481) . Par ticipants ca n navig ate the websites, ma ke in structive decisions for a simulated class of learners an d see potential o utcom es (Girod & Girod, 2006, p. 486) . Sim ilarly, the simulation SC R Bio pro vides pa rticipants with sim u- lated teach er- learn er in teractions in the bi olo gy cla ssro om, targeting the diag - no sis a nd evaluation o f lea rner answers tha t are provid ed to th e par ticipants in writte n fo rm (Julian Fischer et a l., 2022, p. 1 770; Ju lian Fischer et a l., 2021, p. 221) . The simu lation DiaSim fo cuses o n pre -servi ce for eign la nguage teach ers, specif- ically French and Sp anish (Grün ewald & L evin, 2022 , p . 4) . It was piloted as a pa per & pen si mu lation and subsequently turned into a digital simula tion (Grü - newald & Levin, 2 022, p. 5) . Th e simu lation inclu des a spects of gam es, in tha t there ar e several le vels a n d a gamema ster (Grünewald & Levin, 2022 , p. 4) . In the simu lation, pa rticipants a re pro vided with a n initial vid eo of a lesson se- quen ce a nd have to take on the role o f the teacher a fterward s, u sing further text an d a udio ma terial to decide on su bseq u ent action s (Grünewa ld & Le vin , 2022, p. 4) . Ba sed on a d ecision tree , the gamemaster un locks a d ifferent pa th fo r th e pa rticipan ts and, in the end, pa rticipants have to d ecide on o ptions to su ppo rt learn ers optim ally (Grünewa ld & Levin, 2022, p. 4) . Fid eli ty The spectrum o f fid elity is concern ed wit h t he ext ent to wh ich t h e simu lation replicates actu al rea lity. Naturally, RobS might ha ve a relatively h igh degr ee of fidelity ju st du e to the n otion of h uman interaction . In teach er edu c ation , o ne asp ect of fidelit y m ight refer t o the n um b er of in teractors. Classroom -simula- tions u sua lly have m ultiple simu lated learners, either digita lly, as described b y Dieker et a l. ( 2015), or i n an a nalogu e format ( Telgma nn & M üller, 2023 , p . 5 ; Riegger & Ro tt h off, 2022 ). The Teac hEye- C las S simu lation , for example, while still being reduced in com plexity and thu s ap proxima ting p ra ctice , has a du r a- tion of 20 min utes an d i n cludes seve n tr a in ed actors a s learners wh o display, for instan ce, disru ptive beha vior (Telgma nn & Mü ller, 2023, p. 6) . Specific action s by the a ctors a re pla nned for differen t time fram es, a llowin g for coordination and stand ard ization of the sim ula tion (Te lgm ann & Mü ller, 2023, p. 6) . O ther Ro bS migh t fu rther redu ce complexity by focu si ng on single learners, th ou gh sim ul- taneou sly d ecreasing fid elit y. For insta nce, the sim ula tion developed by Kulge- meyer a nd Tom czyszyn focuses o n the expl a inin g competence of physics teach- ers u sing one - to -one situa tions wit h a p art icipa nt an d a n actor (20 15, p. 117) . High- fidelity simu lation s migh t fa cilitate participan ts’ “suspension of disbelief”, 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 55 i.e., their feeling of i mm ersion in the situa ti on , through attention to detail, wh ile low- fidelity simu lations m ake concessions in their appr oximation of pr actice (Kaufm an & Irelan d, 2019, p. 11; Kim et al., 2016, p. 2; Levin, Frei-La ndau, Flavian, & Miller, 2023, p . 14) . For in stance, in m ic roteach ing simulation s used b y Hol- stein et a l. (2022) , ag e-approp ri a te a ctors ar e used, while in o ther si m ulation s, other university- students ta ke on the role of yo un ger learners (Kulgemeyer & Tomczyszyn, 2015) , d isplayin g the potential va ri ab ility o f fidelity in that regar d . Other a spects of fidelity refer to the immersiven ess, especially fro m a spatial perspective. Sim ulation s tha t a re designed by the mea ns o f augmented rea lity (AR) or virtua l reality (VR) allo w for an im me rsive experience in t he digital spa ce, potentially incr easing fidelity (Ade-O jo et a l., 2022, p. 863) . After explo ring th e different types of sim ula tions in the co ntex t of teach er educa tion, the followin g cha pter will present selected empirica l rese a rch in the area of sim ulations a nd SBL. 4.3.3 Perception o f Sim ula tions and their Effectiveness fo r Learn ing SBL is situated within the learning p aradigm o f co nst ru ctivism (L evin, Frei- Lan- dau , & Go ldberg, 2023, p. 2) . While in m edi ca l educa tion the effectiveness o f SBL ha s been explo red to a la rger extent, res ear ch in teacher educa tion is r ather scar ce (Chernikova , Heitz ma nn , S tadler, et al., 2020, p. 512) . Nonethe less, the existing resea rch tha t ha s focu sed on S BL in teach er edu ca tion ha s explo red a var iet y o f a dja cent topics, especially con ce rnin g digita l simu lation s 58 a nd simu- lations focu si ng on dia gnostic capabilities (Cherniko va, Heit zma nn , Fink, et a l ., 2020) . In the followin g, selected finding s will be presented that con sider SBL mo stly in the con text o f teacher edu cation , fo cusing on its effective ness a n d perception. In m or e genera l findings, the m eta -analysis of Chernikova , Heitz ma nn , Stadler, et al. ( N = 145 stud ies, n = 7 fo r te ach er educa tion) conclu des that S BL ha s a n o vera ll po sitive effect o n fostering com plex sk ills with g = .85, SE = .08 (2020 , p. 513) . Lit era ture reviews b y Ade-Ojo et al . (2022) an d Theelen e t al. (2019 ) corrobo ra te this notion. While overall resu lts ar e quite heterogen ous, t he skills o f technica l p erformance, diagnosis , an d problem solving seem to b enefit mo st from SBL (Cherniko va, Heitz ma nn , Stadler, et a l ., 2020, p. 513) . Role- plays ha ve an estima ted effect o f g = 0.63, SE = 1.12, b ased on N = 26 studies (C her- niko va, Heit zman n, St ad ler, et al., 2020 , p. 518) . Intere stingly, results for Ro bS are lower than tho se fo r o ther types o f sim ula tions, a lthough those other studies 58 See the fo ll o wing meta-a nalyses and literat ure r e views for an ove rview: Ade -Ojo et al. (2 022); C herni- kova et al. (2024); Cher nikova , Heitzman n , Fink, et al. (2 020); Che rn ik ova, Heitzma nn , Stadler, et al. (2020 ); Groteg ut (202 3 , p. 20); T heele n et al. (2019) . 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 56 were m ostly fro m medica l education a nd in cluded (physica l) m odels ( Cher- niko va, Heit zman n, Stadler, et al., 2020, p . 514) . N o tably, sim u lations th a t ar e classified a s highly authentic sh ow b ett er resu lts than those t h at are consid ered less a uth entic (Chernikova, Heitz ma n n, Stadler, et a l., 2020, p . 518) . In a subse- quen t meta -stud y, Cherniko v a et a l. fo und tha t while simu l ation s with h ig h au - thenticity ha ve a significan tly larger effect size tha n those with a low degree o f au thenticity, “[the] l evel o f ph ysical r esemblan ce of th e lear ning scena rio did n ot ha ve a significant imp act o n the effects of the simu lation ” (2024, p. 21) . Mo reo- ver, wh ile auth enticity plays a nota ble role in the discussio n o f simula tions (e.g. , Levin, Frei-Lan da u, Flavi an , & M iller, 2023) , it “can acco unt fo r o nly abou t 2 % of the va riance in the effective n ess o f simula t io ns” (Cherniko va et a l. , 2024, p. 22) , calling tha t emp ha sis on authenticity in research into q uestion . The no tion of a uthenticity is further complicated as its perception can no t necessar ily be predicted - it “is in the eye o f the beho lder” (Gulikers, Ba stiaens, et a l., 2008, p. 401) . For instan ce, it could be assu med that vid eo -b ased simula- tions are perceived as less authentic tha n live role - play simula tions, as the latter resemble reality m ore closely. In a study b y Stürm er et a l. , h owever, t he co ntra ry is fo un d , i.e., the video- ba sed simula tion is perceived a s m ore a uthen tic by the pa rticipan ts (2024, p. 3290) . Pote ntially, these fin din gs are the resu lts o f another var iable, sp ecifically the represen tation o f t he lear ner, a s t h e video - ba sed simu- lation inclu des images an d a ud i o o f a n actual sixth- gr a de learn er , wh ile the ro le- play wa s conducted with a dults a s acto rs ( Stür mer et al., 2024, p. 3286) . This arg um ent is also supported by Levin, Frei-L an da u, Flavian, an d Miller , who em- pha size the relevance of the a ctor for the au thenticity of simulations (2023, p. 13) . On e potential r eason stated by th e au thors is that “au thentic design fea- tures on the ph ysic al level ar e mor e overt to n ovices, and therefore pr i ma rily used fo r the assessm ent of task au thentici ty” (Stürm er et a l., 202 4, p. 3293) . In the sa me stud y, the fam iliarity with the simula tion a nd other lea rnin g p rerequi- sites also h a s a p o sitive impa ct o n authen ticit y (Stürm er et a l., 2024 , p. 3291) . These findin gs em phasize tha t the perception of authenticity is d ependent on the persona l a nd individual experience of the p articipa nt a n d is co nstructed throu gh several d ifferent asp ects by the individual. While the benefits for S BL are eviden t, ther e also limitations tha t need to be add ressed. For in stan ce, learn ers might feel overwh elmed du e to the com plexit y of the task and, po tentially, the digita l aspect o f the simulation, ma king a grad- ua ted intro duction to the simula tion fa vorab le (An gelini et al., 2024, p. 516; Stürm er et al. , 2024, p . 3293) . Also, especially with high -fidelity simu lation s a nd RobS tha t u se live a ctors, high fina ncia l an d timely reso urces are necessar y, which is why , especially for Rob S, d igital substitutes a re often im plemen ted (Kaufm an & Ireland, 2019, p. 10) . Lastly, Kau fman a nd Ireland a rgue “ t ha t no 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 57 rigor ous research demo nstra tes skills tr a nsfer fr om the sim ula ted classro o m en- viron men t to authentic classroom s . Without this eviden ce b ase, it is u nderstand- ab le that teacher edu cation a dmin istrator s are un willing to in vest in this n ew technolo gy ” (2019, p . 11) . Consequ ently, further resea rch is r equired that seeks to explor e this tran sfer. Assessmen t: RobS in EFL Teach er Educa tion Assessmen t is the third a sp ect o f CA an d, fr om the perspect ive o f the learn er, arg uably the m ost impor tant o ne a s le a rne rs adju st their lear ni n g p r ocess t o- ward s the sp ecifics of assessmen t (Biggs, 20 03, p. 3) , i.e., “ass essment drives learn ing” (Jua n Fischer et al. , 2024, p. 233; S o pka et a l., 2018, p . 97) . In align ment with cor e pr a ctices a n d SBL, this chapter details the explor ation of o ptions fo r the assessm ent of perfor mance. First, relevan t initial termin olog y th a t fa cilitates the d iscussio n a round a ssessm ent is laid out. S econd , research on students ’ p er- ception of assessm ent a nd the impact of a ssessm ent on learning is presented. Third, simulation -based ass essment formats, p ri ma rily in the form of RobS, which exist in the con text o f h igher education a re pr esented as a way to assess the perfor ma tive face t of competence. 4.4.1 Concepts o f Assessm ent in High er Educa ti o n In ord er to ad eq ua tely discuss perfo r m ance - based assessm ent formats, some termino logy n eeds to be in troduced and co ntextualized. The t erms of a ssess- ment a nd feedba ck a re essential to this thesis, a nd the latte r is d isc ussed in depth in Cha pters 6 a nd 7. A first distinction ca n ho wever be ma de , in that “feed- ba ck refers only to the fo rm in which the results of fo rm ative or su mmative a s- sessmen t a re co mm un ic a ted” (De Florio- Hansen , 2018, p. 276) , while a ssessment is [any] systematic method o f o btaini ng info r mati on, use d to d raw i nfer- ences ab ou t characteristi cs of people, objec ts, or pro gram s; a system- ati c p roc ess to meas ure or evaluate the charac te ristics or perf ormance of indivi duals, prog r ams, or o the r entities, for p urp oses o f draw ing in - ference s; s o metim es used s yn onym ously wit h t es t. (AER A, AP A, NCME, 2014, p. 2 1 6; emphasi s i n th e ori ginal) Assessmen t is thu s a p r ocess in w h ich inf orm a tion is collecte d t ha t is u sed to pro vide feedba ck. Altho ugh o ften u sed synon ymou sly with a ssess men t, tests a re stand ard ize d instrum ents tha t are used in assessm ent (AERA, APA, NCME, 20 14, p. 224) . Assessm ent can, h owever, also oc cur by systema tically evaluating be- ha vior of lear ners in class , i.e., withou t a test instru ment . A fr equently emp loyed distinction in the a ssessment context is made with regar d to its pu rpose. Summa tive a ssessment is usu ally co ndu cted at the end o f 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 58 a specified learn ing unit or progra m i n or d er t o obtain info rmation of t he le a rn- ing a c h ievement an d is a ls o described a s a ssessmen t of learnin g (AERA, APA, NC M E, 2014, p. 224; De Florio - Hansen, 20 23, p. 22; W. Stadler, 2018, p. 172) . A com mon exa mple o f summ ative a ssessment in teach er educa tio n is th e writte n exam ( Gro tegut et al., in prepar a tion) . R esults o f summative ass essment ar e also often the basis for pr ovidin g sp ecific credit po ints o r certificates in high er edu - cation . Format iv e asses sment , con versely, is executed d urin g the instru ction p ro- cess, with the p urp ose of o bt ain ing i nfo rmation that can be used to impro ve learn ing a nd teachin g pro cedures, an d is th us a lso called assessm ent for lea rnin g (AER A, APA, N CME, 2014, p. 219; De Florio - Hansen , 2023, p. 22; W. Stadler, 2018, p. 172) . A co mmon exa mple in higher edu ca tion a re po rtfolios , w h ich pr ovide PSTs with information on how to imp r ove i n sp ecific aspects d urin g t he le a rning pro cess (Caña das, 2023, p . 522) . S imilar ly, feedba ck m ay be describ ed a s su m- ma tive if information wit h regard t o the a chievement is provid ed, an d formative if it inclu des info rma tion o n how to improve (De Florio - Hansen , 2023, pp . 26 – 27) . As co nceptua lizations of feedba ck h ave increasin gly focu sed o n the fo rma- tive a spect to a n extent tha t it m a y be viewed as the do minant persp ective in literature, feedba ck is a lso u nderstood to be fo rma tive in the con text of this the- sis (De Florio -Han sen, 2023, p. 27) . Assessmen t ca n be viewed f rom various differe n t perspectives. On e persp ec- tive th at a llows fo r a cla ssifica tion r egard ing ho w fo rma ts o f a ssessm ent reflect the requirem ents of the p rofessio n is the “fra mework for clin ical a ssessment” (Miller, 1990, p . 63) , wh ich wa s origin ally developed fo r the con text o f medica l educa tion but is adaptab le to teacher education (Kulgemeyer et al., 2023, p. 606) (see Figure 11 ). Figur e 11 : Fr amewo rk f or clin ical asses sment (Mille r, 1 990, p. 63; ad apte d an d e mph a sis add ed by TJ) . Does (Action) Shows how (Performance) Knows ho w (Competence) Knows (Knowledg e) 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 59 Th e base level of a ssessm ent is th a t of knows , i.e., kno wledge. Assessm ent at that level targets the declar ative kn owledge of students , i. e., u s u ally in a writt en test (Kulgemeyer et al. , 20 23, p. 607) . It mo st clearly relate s t o cogn itive d isposi- tions (Blömeke et a l., 2015, p. 7) or profess ion al knowledge (Ba um ert & Kunter, 2013, p. 29) described in the m odels o f c om petence . The next level is that of knows how , i.e., com petence. The no tion of com petence in Miller’s framework is no t to be equa ted with th e co ncept of co mp ete n ce as discu ssed in Chapter 3 . Rather, this migh t relate to situation -specific sk ills as described in the mo del by Blöm eke et al. (2015) (Kulgemeyer et a l., 2 023, p . 607) . This level pr imar il y tests the ap plication of knowledge , i. e. , how kno wledge can be used in sp ecific situa- tions (W a ss et a l., 2001, p. 946) an d co uld also b e tested in written exam s . For instan ce, a PSET co uld b e a sked to decide wh ich of two version s o f a text is more suitab le for mediation a nd provide reaso ns (Kirchhoff, 2017, p . 124) . The n ext two levels can also be cla ssified as “performan ce assessm ent” (W ass et al., 2001, p. 946) as they ma y relate to the level of perfor ma nce in the mo del by Blömeke et al. (2015, p . 7) . The level shows how , i. e., perfo rm ance, a ssesses the beha vior of stu dents in sim ulated situations (Kulgemeyer et a l., 2023, p. 607) . They a re thus “in vitro” ( Wass et al. , 2001, p. 946 ) a s they ar e n ot con du cted u nder the fu ll com plexity of a rea l-life situa tion. S uch an ass essment co uld be conducted a s a RobS, in which cor e practices of th e teachi n g p rofessio n a re fo cused on. Lastly, does , i.e., a ction, r efers to a ssessmen t form a ts in which the participants ha ve to fulfill th e dema nds of the profession in real situa tions , i.e., “in vivo” (W a ss et a l., 2001, p. 946) , a nd are a ssessed b ased on their beha vior un der the fu ll complexity of the p ractice (Miller, 19 90, p. 63) . In t ea cher edu cation, gra ded o bservations of classr oom situations fa ll into tha t category, as tra inee teachers in the second pha se have to prepare fo r and teach lesso ns with actual lea rner s un der the fu ll com plexity of the situ ation (Schu stereder, 2020, p. 355) . Of these f ou r levels o f assessm ent, shows how s eems to mo st clo sely a lign with th e o utlined lear ning objectives d escribed as core pra ctices, and the TLAs wh ich focu s on mastering the cor e practice by SBL, a n equally complexity-redu ced situa tion i n which a n ap prox i ma tion of practice occurs in the first ph ase o f teach er education. Perform an ce assessm ent, a s assessment o n t ha t level is described, “r efers to a type o f a ssessment tha t requires s tudents to actua lly perfo rm, demo nstra te, con struct, develop a product o r a solu tion under defin ed con ditions and stand- ard s” (Khattri & Swe et, 201 3, p. 3) . If this assessmen t is “intended to h ighligh t the real world n a ture of tasks a n d contexts” ( Khattri & S weet, 20 13, p. 2) and inclu des a certain extent of fidelity, it cou ld a lso be describ ed a s a uthen tic a s- sessmen t (Gulikers et al., 2004, p. 69) . If a ssessment is to be a ligned with core pra ctices an d SBL, it is necessary t hat the assessment fo rmat is a lso perceive d a s au thentic, in that it a pp roxim ates p ractice adequ ately (Gulikers et a l., 200 4, 4 A Perf or ma nce - Or ie nted Pers pective on C onstr uctive Alignme nt in E F L Teac her E ducati o n 66 cou ld b e in cluded in teacher educa tion. As sh own in the last ch ap ter, a ssessmen t seems to b e of pa rticular im p or tance for t he stud ents’ lea rnin g p rocess . How- ever, h ere a lso seem s to be the g reatest ga p, con cerning a lignment a nd research in (E FL) teach er educa tion. Assessmen t in the first ph ase o f teacher ed u ca tion, i.e., a t the un iversity level is ra ther focu sed on the kn owledge -rela ted levels ( knows, know s how ), while in the secon d p ha se, a ssessment is ra ther im media tely co ndu cted un der t he full com plexity of the situa tion ( does ), r eflect i n g the statutory r equiremen ts b y the KMK (see Chapter 3) . Hence, there is a g ap for the a ssessm ent of the p erforma- tive level, i.e., shows how , as it is not included in the different ass essment forma ts at un iversity. Relating the levels of ass essment stated by Miller (1990) to the mo del of comp ete n ce as a c o ntinuum by B löm eke et al. ( 2015 ), it is e vid en t that the perfo rmative level of competence, i.e., o bserva ble b eh a vior, is not i nclu ded in th e assessm ent fo rmats at th e un iversity level, but o nly b y gra ded classro o m observ ations i n the second phase of teacher educa tion (see Figu re 12 ). As pre- viou sly sho wn, RobS ha ve been successf ully implemented a s an a ssessmen t for- ma t for th e level of shows how in m edical education for decades, e.g., as part of OSCEs (Sop ka et al., 2018, p . 98) . While Ro b S do exist in the resea rch context of teacher educa tion (see Chapter 4.3.2 ), th ey a re n ot comp rehensively im ple- mented at the u niversity level, esp ecially a s ass essment formats (J. M eier et a l., 2023, p . 91) . The gap in a ssessm ent is thus reflective o f t he a lleged g ap between theory a nd pra ctice, as p erceived by PSTs i n genera l, a nd indicated by th e cha l- lenges PSTs h ave in a pplying their kno wle d ge to pra ctice ( Zeich ner, 2010, p. 91 ; see Cha pter 3.5). Perform a nce assessm en t in the sense of M iller (19 90), i.e., shows how , could t hu s co ntribu te to closing tha t perceived g ap . Su ch a foc us would also a llow for the assessment of the perfo rma tive facet o f com petence a t un iversity, as described by Blö meke et al. (2015), extend ing the o ptions an d t he repertoire of co mpetence a ssessment. Thus , Rob S ca n still be descr ibed a s m eas- urin g competence, o nly fo cusing o n the perform ative a spect of the continuu m. As su mm ative ass essment h as an in fluence on lear ning , su ch a perfor ma n ce- oriented and a uthentic format c ould le ad t o PSTs being better pr ep ar ed fo r pra ctice as they adop t a deeper approa c h to lea rnin g (see Chapter 4. 4.2). As in medica l educa tio n, role- play- b a sed simulations a re a possible a ssessmen t fo r- ma t for that level. There is p recedent for si mu lation - ba sed learn ing activities in teacher edu cation , a lso i n the form of mi cro teaching (see C ha pter 4. 3.2). The simu lation s, either in the c on text of SBL or a ssessm ent, tha t the alrea dy devel- oped overwhelmin gly stem from the su bje cts t ha t a re no t related t o the foreign lan guage class room, except for DiaSim ( Grü newa ld & Levin, 2022) . W h ile the con cept of RobS a s f ou nd in m edical educ a tion may be adap table to situation s in the individu a l subjects, these sim ula ti o ns need t o be developed by t he 4 A Perf or ma nce-Orient ed Pers pective on C o n struc tive Al ignment in EFL Teache r E ducati on 67 individu a l su bject- pedag ogie s to ensure the subject -sp ecific co re, while still buildin g u pon research fr om other a reas an d pr ofessions (Ma rks, 2023, p. 34) . For RobS t o be used for a ssessmen t purp oses, however, specific crite ria n eed to be con sidered (Kaufm an & Ireland, 2019, p . 4) . Figur e 12 : Relation of a ss e ss ment for mats i n t each er edu c at io n, assess me nt l eve ls ( Mille r, 1 99 0) a n d c om peten ce facets ( Blö mek e e t al., 20 15) . 5 Su mmary 68 Based on the r eview o f p revious resea rch, both co nceptua lly and empirically, som e g uidelines ca n be derived for the dev elopm ent of Ro bS fo r the pu rpo se o f sum mative assessm ent. Con sidering the focus o f the Ro bS, c or e pra ctices are a suitab le con cept a s they ca n be used to desc rib e specific practices that t each ers need to be a ble to master. They can be r elated to the performance - oriented facet of co mpetence as d escribed in th e mod el b y Blömeke e t al. (201 5). Core pra ctices extend the goa l of wha t PSTs need to be cap ab le o f beyon d a mere focu s of knowledge a s found in the descr ip tors b y the KMK, especia lly in the fi rst pha se of teach er ed uca tion. Nonetheless, in order for th e Rob S to b e imple- mented sen sibly at G erm an u niversities, the fo cus o f the Rob S sh ou ld a lso tie into the statutory g u idelines. When d esigning simu l ation s, t h e characteristics of simp lification, a u thenticity, flexibility, a nd structu re m ust be co nsidered (see Chapter 4.3.1). The simulation sh ou ld approxima te the core pra ctice that is cho- sen to be the focu s of the Rob S. This a pproxima tion sh ould be sufficiently au- thentic, i.e., in terms o f the m odel by Guli kers et al. (2004), especia lly fr om the perspective of the PSTs. Their percep tion is decisive for ho w they s tee r their learn ing p r ocess. Fidelit y, a s discu ssed, may con tribute to a uthenticity, but is not a necessar y criterion for an authentic p erception (see Chap ter s 4.3.3 an d 4.4.2). The sim ula tion should b e flexible, in that it is a da ptive to the participan t. Espe- cially for a ssessm ent pu rposes, however, a high degr ee of standa rdiz ation is a lso required in the RobS, as it must b e ensu re d tha t the a ssessm ent is p erceived as fair and each PST has the s am e opportunity to sh ow their c a p a bilities, i.e., what they have p repar ed for. For the use of simula tions as summative assessm ent specifically, Ka ufm an and Ireland a lso po i nt ou t tha t “ the simu lation n eeds rig- oro us validity ” (20 19, p . 4) . Discu ssing the extent to which a n ewly deve loped test ca n be co nsidered va lid is essential to u ndersta nd its merits, and is a pre- requisite to its use a nd imp lementation. Cons eq uently, th e a im of this th esis is t o develop an d validate a rol e - play- based s imulation in the EFL context th at can b e u sed for su mm ative assess - ment. 5 Summar y The prim ary g oa l o f teach er educa tion ca n be describ ed a s d eveloping tea chers’ com petence so tha t learners’ achievement is impa cted m ost positively . T h e pre- sented flow ch ar ts all put the instructional beha vior of teach ers at the nexu s poin t, a s their a ctions and beha vior m ost clear ly influ ence learn ing. In ord er to develop the com petence of t each ers, t h ere is a thr ee -p ha sic stru cture in Ger- ma ny. The first ph ase is un iversity -ba sed a n d in cludes t he le a rnin g o f su bject kno wledge and first pra ctical phases to g a in experience in the professio n. The 5 Su mmary 69 second ph ase is mo re practice -or iented and takes pla ce at sch ools a nd specific institutions , while the third pha se incl u des the furth er educa tion of in - service teachers. In or der to prepa re teachers for pra ctice, the a im of teacher edu cation is to develop the requ ired com petences. Looki ng a t the mean ing behind the term com petence, it is ev ident that ther e is no r eal co nsen sus betwee n or within dis- ciplines. Based on the fre qu ently used definition by Weinert (2014), som e cha r- acteristics can still b e identified tha t can be a ttributed to com petence in genera l , e.g., their lear na bility, distingu isha bility, measur ability, performativity, an d spec- ificity. For teacher education, several mo d els o f competence a re pro p osed. Th e mo del of pr ofession a l c o mpetence by Baum ert and Kun ter (2006, 2013) de- scribes several facet s, bu t d escribes knowl edge as the core of c om petence and a p rerequisite for performan ce. Neuweg (2014) con ceptualizes different kin ds of kno wledge, differentiating between kn owledge tha t teach ers a re su pp osed to learn ( knowledge 1) , ha ve learn ed ( k nowledg e 2), an d their a ction ( knowled ge 3 ). The mod el by Blö meke et a l. (2015) sees co mpetence as a con tinuu m wh ich ran ges from cognitive an d affect - mo tivati ona l dispo sitions, over situa tion -sp e- cific skills to perfor mance as the ob serv a b le beha vior of c om petence, con soli- dating the differen ces and propo si ng a unifying ap proach to com petence. The fra meworks tha t p rescribe the con tent a nd com petencies tha t ar e to be in clud ed in the first an d second phase show tha t kn owledge is th e primary focu s at un i - versity (Blömeke, 2006; K M K, 2019a, 2019 b ). Empirica l findings into p r ofessional kno wledge o f (pre- service) EF L t each ers pro vide m ixed results regarding the de- velopm ent of d ifferent fa cets ( Jan sing et a l., 2013; Kirch hoff , 2017; König et a l., 2016) . Overall, there seems to be an i n crease of p r ofessio na l k no wledge throu ghout the d ifferent ph ases of teacher edu cation . Nevertheless, PS Ts in gen- eral do n ot feel a dequa tely p repa red to a p ply tha t kno wledge in action (Zeich- ner, 2010). Emp ha sizing the perfo rma tive a spect o f co mp etence in the firs t pha se of teacher education c ou ld be one approa ch to a ddre ss this issu e. The fr am ework of con structive a lig n ment d escribes the co ngr uence between the lear ning objectives, teach ing and learning a ctivities , and a ssessm ent fo r high er edu c ation course d esign ( Biggs, 1996 ; Biggs & Tang, 2011 ) . Using that fra mework, a performan ce -oriented appro a ch to the first p hase of teacher edu- cation c an b e o utlined. Learn ing ob jective s ca n be describ ed as c o re p r a ctices, which at least might expa n d the kno wledge- orien ted d escriptors fo r com pe- tence (Gro ssma n, 2018). A s TLAs, a sim ulation - based a pproach to learn ing can be employed ( Cherniko va , Heitz ma nn , S tadler, et al., 2020) . Simulation s ha ve been used in other d omains f o r deca des, a nd a prece dence ca n b e f oun d in micro teachin g scenarios (C avana ugh, 2022). Simu l ation s a llow for performance - oriented train ing in a situa tion tha t is an “ approx imation of pra ctice ” (Grossm an , 5 Su mmary 70 Compton , et al. , 2009, p. 2076) , an d thu s sim plified, bu t still au thentic, flexible an d stan dardized (Dieker e t al., 2014). SBL ha s sh ow n to be effectiv e for acqu ir- ing m ore co mp lex skills (Cherniko va, Heitz ma nn , S tadler, et a l ., 2020) . Si m ula- tions tha t a re consid ered to be more authe ntic tend to be more effective tha n those tha t a re less authentic to a certain e xtent, bu t it is d ifficult to d esign sim - ula tions tha t a re perceived to be a u thentic b y the sp ecific target grou p (C h er- niko va, Heit zman n, St ad ler, et al. , 2020; Ch erniko va et al. , 2024) . O ne com mon ap proach is tha t o f ro le-play-ba sed sim ulations , i.e., in teraction s with tra ined a c- tors, as th e use of a ctors m ay co ntribu te t o an a uth entic situ a tion (L evin, Frei- Landa u, Flavi a n, & M iller, 2023). Assessmen t can h ave an im pa ct o n the wa y students learn (Stru yven et al. , 2005), espe cia lly their p erception o f a uthen ticit y ma y be influ ential (Gulikers, B astia ens, et al., 2008). However, trad itiona l assess- ment fo rma ts, i.e., writt en tests, ar e gene ra lly not con sidered authentic, wh ile learn er-centered approa c hes, i.e., portfoli os, a re (Pe reira , As su nção Flores, & Bar ros, 2017). RobS might be used as authentic, performance - oriente d an d learn er-o riented assessm ent forma ts, a s is done in medical edu cation (Sopka et al., 2018). In t each er e du cation , simul a tions h ave been designed for t he fie lds of genera l educa tion an d STEM for evaluative purp oses, but mostly in r esearch con text s (Albu & Lindm eier, 2023). Other tha n in m edical education, simula ti o ns a re no t comprehensiv ely im - plemented for sum mative assessm ent pu r po ses at u niversities in the first ph ase of t each er education . PSTs also do no t c onsider trad itional a ssessm ent to refle ct the d ema nds o f the profession (W a gener et al. , 2019). Comp arin g the trad itional assessm ent fo rma ts of teach er education aga inst the fr am eworks of M iller (1990) an d Blömeke et a l. (20 15), it is evident t ha t tha t there is a ga p of ass essment form ats on t h e performan ce level in the first phase. This is refle ctive of the g en- eral perception o f a theory - p ractice gap in teacher ed uca tion. RobS, sim ilar to medica l educa tion, could fill th a t assessment ga p in teacher edu c ation , if they can fulfill the ou tlined requ irements. Thus, developin g and va lid ating a RobS that ca n be used fo r su mmative assessm e nt in teach er education is the aim of this thesis . This will b e don e in th e conte xt o f EFL teach er edu cation , a s there is a g eneral sca rcity o f sim ulations i n th is field. Th e n ext part of the thesis will fo cus on the test that is develop ed to ad dress the ga p , elabo r a ting on its distinct topic of a ssessm ent and construction. 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 71 Part II - De veloping a Rol e-Pl ay -Based Si mul at ion (R obS) to As sess Fe edbac k Compete nce on Writi ng in t he EFL c o ntext Some countries have ma de declaration s about the year of feed back (I won de r wh at they do the followi ng year, drop it?) John Hattie (2023 , p . 320) The focu s of this p a rt o f the thesis is on the first pa rt o f the a im: Th e co nstru ction an d d evelopment o f the Rob S fo r summa ti ve assessm ent. First, the topic of the RobS is reason ed an d, thus, the relevance o f fee dba ck for the le ar ning and writ - ing process is discu ssed a nd the necessity for the a ssessment teach ers’ com pe- tence in tha t rega r d is empha sized. Secon d, the framework will be pr esented in detail. The fra mework is preceded by a r eflection on the methodologica l ap- pro ach ta ken for its construction a nd a review o f existing evaluative tools, and con cludes with a reflection of its lim itati ons. Third , the RobS is pr esented in de- tail, stru ctured a l on g its three d istinct phases, pr eparation, si mu lation, an d a s- sessmen t , conclu ding with limitations that relate to the test des ign . 6 The R elevanc e of F eedb ack on Writi ng i n the EFL c ontext While the fo cus of this thesis is on developin g and v a lidating a RobS, it is n ot less im porta nt to discu ss the releva nce a nd reaso n s f or the cho ice o f the c om - petence that is fo cused o n : fee dba ck o n writing in t h e EFL cla ssroo m. This chap- ter will explor e the different components a nd m ake the case for wh y feedback on writing is a su itable focu s fo r the RobS. Fee dba ck It is h ard to fin d a topic in educa tiona l resea rch that h as been mor e pro min ent in th e 21 st centu ry than that of feedback. T he in trodu ctory quote by Ha tt ie em- pha sizes this, wh ile sim u ltaneou sly criticizi n g tha t feedback is n ot con sistently ma de a p riority (2023, p. 320) . A very b rief h istory and clarifica tion on the defi- nition of the term will serve as a ga teway i nto this to pic, before the relevan ce of feedback is illustra ted by sh owin g emp iri ca l evidence, t heo retical a ppro aches, an d releva nt gu idelines for (EF L) te a cher educa tion. R ega rding feedback, the am ount of a v a ilable research on theor etical an d emp i rical fin din gs ha s contin- ued t o i ncrea se in the l ast decade(s), esp eci a lly sin ce the meta -stud ies by K lug er an d DeNisi (1996) a nd Hattie a nd Timp erl ey (2007). It its thu s not the pu r po se of this c ha pter to a ccou nt for all poss ibl e a pproach es, empirica l results and 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 72 limitation s in the field , b ut rather to point to key findin gs that illustrate the sig- nifica nce of feedba ck 62 . 6.1.1 On the History a nd Termin ology of Fee db ack Historically, systems theor y ca n b e used as a starting po int to d iscuss feedback (Boud & M olloy, 2013, p . 701; Nar ciss, 200 6, p p. 15 – 16) . A dyna mic system 63 can be descr ibed a s striving to have a control va riab le reach a certain go al o r keep it at a specific level. An ou tdoor swimming poo l , fo r exa mple, sh ould have a min ima l water t emp erature ( con trol vari a bl e) of 25 ° C. Within t ha t system, t h er e is a regula tion device which seeks keep to this go al , e.g., the water temperatu re at 25 °C. Part of th a t system is a measuring device , wh ich c on trols for the actu al state of the co ntrol varia ble , e .g ., a thermomete r. This device pr ovides the in for- ma tion f or the system abou t the actu al sta te of the water tempera ture – it pro- vides fe ed back . Ba sed on t ha t feedback, different o ptions can be pu rsu ed to ad - just the co ntro l va ri a ble , e.g., add more ho t water if the tempera ture is too l o w. Based on the feedback, there needs to be a n adju stment because “[if ] th e infor- ma tion on the gap is merely stored without being utilize d to alter th e gap, it is no t feedback” (Rama pra s ad , 1983, p. 5) . T h e pu rpose of feedba ck from a sys- tems-theo retical p erspective is th us of a corrective n atur e, i nitiated a nd requ ired by the diagno sis o f a ga p bet ween th e actu al and t arget state (N a rciss, 20 06, pp. 15 – 16) . The perspective from syste ms theory offer s a descrip tive a nd neu tral model , aga inst wh ich conceptualizations o f feedback in edu c a tion can b e discussed di - ach ronically (Boud & Molloy, 2013, p. 701; Kop p & Man dl, 20 14b; Narciss, 2006 , pp. 15 – 16) . While a t its co re, feedback h as a lways fo c used on the transmissio n of info rmation, its con ceptualization h as also been a reflection o f c ur rent stream s in science in edu c ation al and lea rnin g research (Schlu er, 2022, p. 16) . Researchers with a background in beha viorism saw feedback a s a m eans to in- fluence beh avior towards a desired go al t hey ha ve set. By u si ng r einforcem ent as a type of feedba ck, certain behavior is p ositively r ewarded in the hope of increa sing its fr equency , exa mp les for this ca n be fo un d in the wor ks o f Tho rn- dike o r S kin ner (Fürstena u, 2019, pp. 15 – 16) . While b ehavio ristic approaches ha ve been c on sidered inappropria te fo r describ ing lear ni ng processes in hu - ma ns because “inpu t […] does no t equ al intake by lear ners” (Sch luer, 2022, p. 16) , the idea o f feedback a s a m e an s to adjust beha vior has rem ained. Later 62 For a c o mp rehen sive review an d o vervi ew on model s o f fe edb ac k through out h ist o ry, see, i.e., Lip- nevich a n d Pa nade ro (2021 ) . 63 T he provi de d descripti on here is rathe r supe rficia l and f o cu s es on the rele vant aspect s of syst ems theory. See Narci ss (20 06, pp. 14 – 19) f or a deta iled d e sc ription. 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 73 definitions of feedba ck i n the educ ation al context empha size the information that is provided to a perso n and take a cognitivist persp ective (Sch luer, 2022, p. 16) . Here, feedba ck is seen a s un idirecti o na l, mo nologic an d focused on the tran smissio n o f info rmation from the teach er to the l earn er (Ajja wi & Bou d, 2017, p. 253) . The purpose is to p rovid e informat ion o n a p otential ga p between t he curr ent an d desired state. Mo stly, the provided infor ma tio n fo cuses on whether the desired s tate is a chieved, i.e., kn owled ge of resu lt ( KR) , or i t includ e s in for- ma tion on what a correct solu tion for the d esired state cou ld be , i.e., knowledge of co rrect result (KC R ) (e.g., Lotz, 2016, p. 1 33) . A co mmon definition , wh ich fits th is view for feedba ck , is fou nd in the paper by Hattie a n d Timp erley 64 (2007). They state that “ feedback is conceptua lize d as info rmation p rovided by an ag ent (e.g., teacher, peer, bo ok, p a rent, self, experi- ence) regar ding asp ects of on e' s perform a nce o r understa ndin g ” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81) . I n this definition, fe edba ck is a lso con sidered the co n se- quen ce of perfo rmance, si mila r to p revious ap proaches , and transmission of in- form ation is emphasized (Hattie, 2 009, p . 174; Rütti-Joy, p. 55) . Hattie a nd Timperley (2007) also offer a promin ent model t h at h as frequ ently been us e d t o describe feedba ck (see Figur e 13 ). Figur e 13 : Mo del o f feed b a ck, acco rdin g to Ha tti e an d Ti mperl ey (200 7) ; figu re ada pted f r om Ziere r ( 20 19). 64 Kluger and DeN isi (1 996, p . 255) offer a similar defi nition. 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 74 Fee dba ck can b e aimed a t differen t levels: Tas k, Process, Self- regula tion a nd Self. The ta sk- level fo cuses on th e produ ct, the process - level on the a ctivities taken to a ch ieve the p rodu ct, a nd th e self - reg ula tion -level on t h e m eta- cognitive strategies that ca n be used to direct learning b eha vior, while feedback on the self-level r elates to the p erson d irectly (Hattie & Tim perley, 2007, p . 87) . These levels can be targ ete d with specific questions tha t ha ve pa rticul a r a ims: Feed Up – Where am I goi ng?, i.e., wh at is the desired state, Fee d Bac k 65 – How am I going ? , i.e., h ow d oes the cu r rent state rela te to tha t desired state, and Fee d Forwa rd – Wher e to n ext? , i.e., wha t steps need to b e taken in ord er to a chieve the desired state 66 . Mo re recent perspectives on feedba ck, w hich originated from resear ch in high er educa tion , reject the n otion o f un idirectiona lity a nd ta ke a (socio - )con- structivist a pproach , based on the ideas of Vygo tskij (1978 ) (Ajjawi & Bou d, 2017; Carless, 2020; Carless & Bou d , 2018; Carle ss & Winston e, 2020) . Learners are inclu ded a s active co -co nstructor s in th e process a nd feedba ck should thus b e dialo gic an d bi - or multidirectiona l (De Florio - Hansen, 2023, p. 107; S c hlu er et al., 2023, p. 156) . Providers of feedback sh ould , t herefo re, account fo r t he le a rn- ers’ individu a l kn owledge level, n eeds and wishes an d b e ab le to a dapt acco rd- ingly. Th e definition b y Hattie a nd Timperley ( 2007 ) is also n ot exclusive to a cogn itivist a pproach , if the feedba ck con t ext is in teractiona l. In ord er for feed- ba ck to be effect ive, e.g ., a iding learn ers in redu cing the ga p b etwe en the curr ent an d desired sta te (Sa dler, 1989, p . 142) , learn ers n eed to be able to u se the in - form ation a n d work with t he fee db ack in or der t o learn from it (Le e, 20 1 7, p. 78; Narciss, 2014, 77 – 78) . Consequ ently, fe edba ck in volves “sha red responsib ilitie s” (C a rless & Winston e, 2020, p . 150) betwee n teachers an d lea rners. Feedback as such co uld thus bro a dly be vie wed as “intera ction betwe en te a cher and student carr ied o ut fo r the p urpose o f student learning” (Hawe et a l., 2008, p. 45) . Sch luer pro vides a definition of feedback which accounts for both the co gnitivist as well as con structivist perspective of feedba ck a s “ an interactive pr ocess o f exchang- ing info rmation tha t persons can u se in order to regu late their furth er learning an d thu s impro ve their perfo rman ce ” (2022, p. 17) . This defin ition wo rks well in the co ntext o f this thesis a s it in cludes bo th the asp ect of interaction , which is inh erent to RobS , a s well a s the info rma tion an d p urpose of th o se intera ctions. This brief h istorical o utline pr ovides a first insigh t at wh at Lipnevich a nd Pa - na dero highlight in their co mprehensive review: There is a p let h ora o f differen t 65 Feed b ac k is used i n thi s th esis differentia tio n to fee dbac k. The first rela tes t o a spec ific level o f t h e feedback m od el by Hattie a nd Timp er ley (2007 ) , w hile t he lat ter refers t o t he ge ner al n otion . 66 The m od el ’s com p onents will be discu ssed i n mo r e det ail in C hapte r 7.3.1. 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 75 mo dels an d concepts of feedback, w hich migh t all be appropria te for their sp e- cific con text (2021 ; Schlu er, 2022, p. 17) 67 . 6.1.2 Feedback as Lite ra cies Rece n tly, the con cept of feedba ck lit eracy h as been intro duced in resea rch. The term literacy h as evolved from its or iginal focus on rea di ng a nd w riting; concepts such a s tha t of Multilite racie s exten d the t erm, a dding th a t con text a nd mode need to be inclu ded i n meaning m aking and nego tiation in m od ern commun i - cation (Kalan tz is et al., 2016, pp. 1 – 5) . Thu s, being literate m ean s b eing ab le to ma ke, a nd participate in mea nin gs so that an ind ividual can pa rt ake in , an d con- tribute to so ciety (Kalan tz is e t a l., 2016 , p . 3) . Consequen tly, in c on cepts of feed- ba ck literacy, feedba ck is predominantly r ega rded fro m the perspective of th e learn er, sh ifting a way fr om the p erspectiv e of fee db ack as a teacher - centered tran smissio n of information: [F e edback ] is defi ned as a proces s th roug h w hich lear ners make s en se of i nformati on f rom vario us sou rces an d us e it t o enha nc e thei r wo r k o r learnin g strate gies. T his definit ion go e s bey ond notion s that feedbac k is pr inci p all y a bout teac hers inf o rmi ng st ud e nts ab out s trengths, weak- nesses and h ow to im p rove, and h ighli g hts th e ce ntralit y of the student role in sense-ma king a nd u si ng comm ents to impr ove s ubseq uent work. (Ca rless & Boud, 2018, p. 131 5) As t he idea of feedback lit era cy has g a ined m om entum, differen t con cepts have been pro posed to g rasp it more clea rly (L ipn evich & Pana dero , 2021, p. 18) . Origin ally, the term stems fro m a ssessmen t an d aca demic literacies (Schluer et al., 2023, p. 156; S u tt o n, 2012, pp. 32 – 33) an d g enerally, a distinction between student feedback literacy an d teacher feedba ck literacy is made. Car less and Bou d, wh o d eveloped a p rom i nen t m od el , define stud ent feedback literacy a s “understa ndin gs, ca pacities a nd dispositi o ns n eeded to make sen se of info r- ma tion a nd use it to enha n ce work or learning stra tegies” (2018, p. 1316) . Their mo del co nsists o f students A pp reciatin g feedback process e s, i.e., rea lizing its worth a nd that they need to p lay a n a ctive p art in them, Mak ing jud gements , i.e., self-eva lua tion 68 a s well a s eva l ua ting wo rk o f o thers , e.g. , in peer- feedback sit- ua tions, Mana ging affect , i.e., r egula ting on e’s emotions a nd not interpreting nega tive feedba ck on a p erf orm ance a s negative, an d Taking action , i.e., usin g feedback and working with the comments t o improve (further) performance and close the ga p (Carless & Bou d, 2018, p p. 1316 – 1318 ) . 67 P anade ro and L ip nevich (202 2) als o p ropose an integ rative mo del o f feed back eleme nts, b a s ed o n their review. 68 See al so Tai et al. ( 201 8) . 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 82 the au thors ta ke in writing (H a yes & Flowers, 1980, p. 29) . In the m odel, this revision pro cess is focu sed on the writer , i. e., it focu ses on interna l feedback (F lower & Hayes, 1981, p. 374) . Sim ila r to the plan nin g process, Hayes la ter a r- gues tha t reviewing is a dis tinct writ ing activity , a n d thu s merely a “sp ecial ap - plication of the wr iting mo del” ( Hayes, 20 1 2, p. 376) . The m on itor, a s a last co m- pon ent, d escribes th e regu lation of these p rocess es fr om a m etacogn itive per- spective ( Flower & Hay es, 1981, p p. 374 – 37 5; S chn ell, 2018, p . 31) . In its entirety, the mo del is sim il ar to other co gnitive p r ocesses o f co mmun ic ative skills (e .g. , Goh & Burn s, 2012, p . 36 for a model on s pea king ba sed on Levelt, 1995 ; Weir & Khalifa , 2008 for r eading; Goh & Vander gr ift, 2021, p. 25 for listening) . Other relevan t mo dels of wr iting tha t will briefly be ou tlined a re that o f Kel- logg (1996) an d Bereite r a nd Sca rda ma li a (1987). Kellogg’s m od el is qu ite sim ilar to the original Hayes a nd Flower m od el. It p laces a fo cus on the wo rking mem ory an d the systems that r elate to these pr oce sses, the visuo - spa tial sketchp ad, the central executive an d the p honolo gical loop , an d relates them to the distinctly described writing processes o f Plann ing, Tra n slating, Progra mm i ng, Executing, Re a ding a nd Editi ng, wh ich migh t a lso be activa ted sim ulta neou sly, if “the de- ma nds pla ced on the central executive d o not exceed ca pacity limitation s” (1996, pp. 58 – 59) . Bereiter a nd Sca rd a ma li a (1987) d escribe the writing pro cess in two mo dels of stra tegies. The knowledge - tellin g mo del is predo minantly used b y no vices like L2 learn ers and describes the st ra tegy (or la ck t hereof) when writ ing in a no norganized an d linear m atter, m ostl y to simply con vey info rma tion using the a vaila ble con tent a nd disco urse knowledge, sim ilar to or al lan guage produc- tion (Bereiter & Sca rda ma lia, 1987, pp. 9 – 10) . The kn owledge- tran sform ing mo del is r ather used by experts i n writing, who also consider the pu rpose and genre o f the text and try to com pose the infor mation in an app r op riate mann er to a chieve their g oa ls (Bereite r & S card am alia, 1987, pp. 11 – 12) . These strategi es migh t be u sed to describ e different levels of writing expertise, a s the knowledge - telli n g is pa rt of kno wledge -transforming . Wit h rega rd to L2- writing, severa l models h ave b een devel op ed that are ba sed on th e pr esented m odels. Bö rner literally used the m odel by Ha yes a nd Flowers (1980) an d a dded L1/L2 sp ecifications for the co mponents o f the lo ng - term m emor y, plann ing, tr an sla ting a nd th e m onitor , a s well a s an extension of the teaching con text and the n otion of i n terlangu age (1987, p. 1346; S chn ell, 2018, p. 82) . F u rthermo re, Bör ner a rgu es that esp ecially the pr ocesses of formu- lating/tra nsla ting an d reviewing a re centra l for L2 lear ners, which m ake s sense, since the a ct of writing a n d high a ccu racy ar e of sp ecial co ncern fo r learners (1989 , p . 49) . Simila rly, th e m odel of Kring s extends the pr evious m od el by fo - cusin g and elaborating o n specific su bpro cesses that relate to both L1 and L2 , as well a s to L1 or L2 individu ally , dur ing the tra nsla tion/for mu l ation pro cess 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 83 (1989 , p. 397) . I t sp ecifically de tails that, after p lan s h ave b een expressed in the L1 (men tally ) an d a re b eing expr essed in the L2, typical in terruptions for L2 learn - ers take place tha t con sist of Id e ntifying L 2 Problems, Activat i ng L2 S trategies, Evaluating L2 Problem Solutions , a nd Decidin g on L2 Proble m Solution s (Krings, 1989, p. 397; Z imm ermann, 2000, p . 78) . The m odel o f text pro duction b y Chenoweth a nd Hayes (2003, p . 113) is b a sed on a study tha t includ ed L1 an d L2 lear ners (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001). It provid es a n a lterna tive co nceptual- ization o f th e form ula tor f o r L2 learn ers, like Kring s, but focu ses m ore on the lingu istic process. In their m odel, th e result s o f the tran slator ar e word strin gs which a re evaluated an d po tentially revised b efore bei ng transcribed into text, which is su bsequen tly also o pen for (re - )evalua tion (C h enoweth & Hayes, 2003, p. 113) . Natura lly, these models h ave a lso dr a wn criticism. All these models focus merely on the cog nitive and procedura l aspect and can thus not be used to de- scribe writing h olistically an d do n ot allow fo r a clear distinctive d escription o f the menta l an d verbal pro cesses (Mo litor-Lübbert, 1996, p. 1024) . The mo del of Hayes an d Flowers , a s well a s the o ther c o gnitively -or iented mod els, ar e criti- cized for exclu ding the role of em o tions (S ch nell, 2018, p. 35) a n d m otivation i n genera l, although Hayes has tried to acc o unt fo r th a t in the updated model (Hayes, 2012, p . 372) . Much of the cr iticism on the o riginal m odel ha s b een a c- cou nted fo r b y Hayes in later m odels (2012), e.g. , the u ndifferen tiated tran sl a tion pro cess is a men ded by the tran scription process (Hayes, 20 12, p p. 371 – 372; Z im- merm ann, 2000, p. 75) . Thu s, the mod els themselves ar e also in a co nstan t pro- cess an d continue to develop. In con clusion, the presented models describe the writing pro cess in three ba sic p h ases: 1) Plann i ng, be it m ent ally or in written form, for a text or a sen- tence; 2) Form ulating , incl u din g b oth th e overa ll structur e as well a s linguistic no rms considering o rthography, lexico - grammar a nd synt a x; 3) Revision, a s in readin g th e pro duced text, co rrecting err ors and restru cturing elements (Busse, 2022, p. 10; Hayes & Flowers, 1980, p. 1 2; Hyland, 2019, p . 12) . These thr ee pha ses are explicitly no t a rrang ed linea rly, bu t depict an it erative pro cess , which is regula ted by a mo nitor. While Hayes do es not co nsider p lan nin g a nd review- ing as pa rt of the writing p rocess bu t a s specific writing a ctivities, they rema in relevant for writ ing an d this reconceptu a lization of t hese t erms sho uld be fra med a s “re - representing ” (Hayes, 2012, p. 385) n ot as a n in dication to neglect them. The followin g cha pter will turn to how writing ca n be a pproached in the EF L class roo m. 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 84 6.2.2 App roa c h es to Writing in th e EF L classr oom Over t he ye ar s, writ ing i n struction ha s b een co nceptua lize d differently fo r t he EF L cla ssroo m. Different a ppro a ches to wri ting also put a fo cus on different a s- pects th at l earn ers n eed to b e ca pa ble of w hen it co mes to wri ting, emp ha sizing the com plexity of writing com petence. H yla nd h a s identified six guiding con- cepts to teach writing in th e second language, which s ho uld no t be considered exclusive, bu t “co mplem entary o verlapp ing p erspectives, representing p oten- tially com pa tible mean s of un derstan di ng the c o mp lex reality o f writing” (Hy- lan d, 2019, p. 3) . While initially developed for L2 lear ners, th e basic tenets can be ap plied to the EFL cla ssro om as well. Th e theories fo cus on 1) Langu ag e Str uctur es, 2) Text F un ctions, 3) Creative Expression, 4) the Writing Process, 5) Content, an d 6) Genre (Hyland, 2019, pp. 3 – 21) . A focus on language structures views te xt p redom ina ntly a s a string of “gram ma tical structures” (Hyland, 2019, p. 4) which ar e supp o sed to fo llow a certain n orm. Writing is thus a m ean s to an en d of a cq u iring sp ecific linguistic pa tt erns an d pro d u cin g lan guage accu rate ly (Hyl a nd, 2019, p . 4) . A commo n a p- pro ach to teach i n g gr ammar through wri ting that fo cuses o n stru cture is the “presentation, pra ctice, a n d production a pp roa c h (PPP)” (Müller-Ha rtma nn & Sch ocker- von Dit fu rth , 2014 , p. 104) . A text can thu s also be u sed t o make infer- ences abou t the L 2 ca pabilitie s of a le arner with regard t o their ling uistic kno wledge, a llowing to ass ess a n d provide fee dba ck on la nguage accuracy. Alt- ho ugh such an a pproach migh t co ntribu te to L2 acq uisitio n, Hyland a rgu es tha t, while “ma ny L2 s tud ents learn to wr ite in this way, a stru ctura l o rientation can create seriou s pro blems” (2019 , p . 5) . The ma in issue is tha t such a structura l focu s does not necessarily take into acc ou nt the co mm unicative purpo se of text s, which b oth t he ou tput a nd no tici n g h ypothesis inclu de a s n ecessary (L igh tbown & S pa d a , 2013, p. 115) . Learners m a y concentra te on expressin g si n - gle gramma tical issues accurately, but c anno t use them functiona lly (Hyl a nd, 2019, p. 5) . The fun ctiona l ap proach to writing can be viewed as an amen dmen t that aim s to a d dress these gaps. Stru ctures a re not taug ht in isola tion bu t are co n- sidered in ta ndem with their m ean i ng and ho w they ca n be used to co mmun i- cate effective ly ( Hylan d, 2019, pp. 6 – 8) . The structur al a nd functiona l ap proach are both reminiscent of “writing to le a rn langu a ge” (Man c hó n, 2016, p. 139) ap- pro ach es, in which writing is seen as a m eans to a cquire sk ills and c o mpetencies 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 85 in the L2 or F L. Such a persp ective is in li n e with second lan guage a cquisition theories tha t fo cus o n com prehen sible o ut pu t (Swa in, 1985). The a ppr oa ch a s - sum es tha t [l ea r n ers] m us t be p ushed to prod uce th e lan g uag e b ec ause t his f orces them to process the L2 syntact ica lly, as they h ave t o produce the lan- guage that exp resses t heir nee ds most preci sely and ef ficientl y (rathe r than a s o - ca lled ‘ semantic ’ t ype o f p roce ss in g whic h i s mi nimally r e- quired f o r co mprehe ns i o n an d can b e d on e by a cog nitively matu re listener by usin g a ran ge o f lin gu istic , disc ourse and si tuati on al cues) . (Behney & Mar sden, 2020, p. 42) Creating writ ten ou tput is o ne way to pro du ce lan guage by which learn ers wa nt to co mmunica te. In the pro cess, lea rners may a lso no tice gaps in their c ap abili- ties, which is essential for the process of act ua lly learn ing how to overcome t h at gap an d p roduce the desired output, e.g., con vey the m ean ing a cc u rately and effective l y (R. S chm idt, 2001) . Focusin g on creative expressio n i n writing pu ts the lea rner, their perspective, opin ion , an d identity at the for efront. T his ap proach stems from tra ditional high er educa tio n, for example, class es on English lite ra ture in the UK and North America tha t con sider writ ing as a “ creative a ct of self - disco very” (Hylan d, 2019 , p. 9) . The role of the teacher is minimized an d there is little stru cture in instru c - tion. F o r L2 learn ers , especially younger on es, such a n ap p ro ach is , ho wever, n ot necessar ily suitable a s it migh t neglect the lear ners’ individual cultural d iffer- ences, ignore different p otentials for creati vity , a s we ll as their ling uistic capabil- itie s (Hylan d, 2019, p. 10) . While also putting the fo cus on the lear ner, the pro cess a pproach to writing pro vides org anizational gu idelines. Th is approa ch is based o n the a lready -out- lined co gnitive m odels o f the wri ting p rocess by Ha yes an d Flowers (1980) a nd Bereite r and Scar damalia ( 1987) (see Chap ter 6.2.1) a nd ado pts t h em for writing instruction . T he teacher’s main t a sk is to g uide the learn ers through the writing pro cess, whic h, based on the previo us r ese a rch , ca n be described as “[ pla nning], dra fting, revising and editing” (Hyland, 2 019, p. 11) . Using gu ided a ctivities, learn ers ca n be su pported in the p lanning a nd dra fting process, while teachers can pr ovide feedback during revision , which can an d should be used w h en ed- iting the text. It is th e revis ion pha se wh ich is potentia lly one of the most infl uential as pects o f a process writin g cla ss, an d the point at w hich the teac her’s i n terve ntio n i s m o st o bvious and p erha ps most cruc ial. Not o nly does t his indivi dua l att ention p lay an imp or tant ro le in m otivat ing lea r ne rs , but it is also wher e o ve rt cor- rection a nd explicit langua ge teac hi ng a re m ost likel y to o ccur. (Hylan d, 2019, p. 1 2 ) 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 86 The last two app roaches seek to focus on the text an d its substan ce ma tte r. A fo cus o n co ntent is u sua lly ass ociated wi th t he t o pic of the text (Hyland , 20 19, p. 14) . There a re different strategie s t o choose from wh en deciding o n a topic for a t ext, bu t genera lly, it is beneficial, if it is of interest to the learner. The con- tent sh ou ld rela te to the lea r ners’ live s, situ ation s a nd co ntexts because it a llows them to use th eir prio r knowledge . Potentially, this allow s lear ners to feel com- petent a nd lear ners cou ld even decide themselves wha t they wa nt to wr ite a bo ut to incr ease a sense o f a utonomy, and thus p otentially mo tivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) . Howev er, g overn ment gu idelines ofte n prescribe the top ics tha t must b e taug ht at school, leaving less ro om for autonom y. I n the same vein, a focus on g enre goes “beyond conte n t, gr a mmar a nd com posin g processes to see writing a s a ttem pts to co mm un ic a te with readers” (Hyl a nd, 2019, p. 17) . Pr o viding a definition o f genre h as proven difficu lt a nd is beyond the sco pe of this thesis due to differen t con strain ts based on cu ltu ra l an d d isciplinary contexts (Hallet, 201 6, p . 32) . O n a gen eral level, genres can be defined a s “staged, culturally p urposeful a ctivitie s tha t […] u sers of l a nguage dra w on to get things do ne” (Paltridge, 2001, p. 11 , as cited in Surkamp, 2017, p. 106 ). Hence, g enres try to ach ieve certain goals of communica tion for a tar- get-au dience thro ugh sp ecific structures an d fu nction s (Parkinson, 2017, p. 2) . Genres are th u s so ci ally con stru cted a nd se rve as habitualize d forms of co mmu- nica tion within a commu nity (Hyland , 2007, p . 149; M artin & Rose, 2008, p. 18) . Wit hin genr es, a d istinction can be made bet ween the ma cro a nd the m icro level (Hallet , 2 016, p . 40) . The m acro level co nsid ers the tex t a s a who le, especially t h e sequencin g o f sp ecific elements. For exa mple, a news r eport co nsists of elements such a s a hea dli ne, a n ucleus or lea d with ba sic in formation (i.e., wh - question s), lead develop ment with fur ther info rmation, a nd a wrap up ( Ma rtin & Rose, 2008, pp. 76 – 77; Watan ab e, 2017, p. 68; White, 1998, p. 266) . O n the m icro lev el, spe- cific lin guistic pa tte rn s a re fou nd in sp ecific genr es, fo r insta nce, a news report that fo cus es o n p ast events u s ua lly use s past tense for ms (Hallet, 2016, p. 39) . Comm only, these are also l a beled as discourse functions, reflect ing the focu s o f text fu nction a nd em phasizing tha t the diffe rent writing ap proa ch es need to be con sidered in a n i ntegrative m anner ( see Hallida y, 2014; H ylan d, 2019, p. 18) . As genres a re a relevant co mmun ic at ive resou rce, lear ners m ust be ena bled to p r o- duce texts in different gen res, co nsiderin g the respective pur pose a nd audience. One a pproach to teach in g genre writing in the cla ssro om is an adaptation of the teachin g- learning cycle, as depicted in Fig u re 15 : 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 87 Figur e 15 : Te ac h i ng-l ea r ning cycle fo r teach ing g en re writ ing (Hylan d, 2 01 9 , p . 2 0 ). After sett ing the con text a nd activa ting prior kno wledge, a model text of the genre is d iscussed before the genre is co nstructed , first jointly, an d finally , inde- penden tly (H ylan d, 2019, p. 20) . A critical asp ect which sh ould be avoided is viewing gen res a s strict schem ata or r ecipe s, as writing within a genre still lea ves spa ce for cr eative expression (Hyland, 2019, p. 21) . The pro cess an d gen re foci can most o vertly be linked to “learn ing to write” (Man chón, 2016, p . 139) ap p ro aches, a s they focu s on h ow lear n ers can be guided in the p r ocess o f im proving their writing skills. Con sequently, these a p- pro ach es als o prevail in writing classrooms ( Hyland , 20 19, p. 22) . A combin ation of bo th the pr ocess a nd gen re ap proach is a su itable as “t h e s trengths of o ne migh t com plement the weakness of the ot h er” (Hyl a nd, 2019, p. 22) . The g enre ap proach a llows a g oa l to be set for the text, provid ing clea r guidance fo r the learn er on specific ch aracteristics fo r the t ext, wh ile the process appr oach pro- vides the stru cture fo r how to write the text. The other ap pr o ach es then in form this p rocedu re, e.g., by pro viding a no rmative an d functiona l basis for gen re - specific disco urse functions. A s this b rief overvie w h as shown, teach ing writing is a complex matter that s u bsum es many d ifferent facets t ha t a teacher co uld or is su ppo sed to co nsid er , in ord er to fo ster writing com petence . The imp lemen- tation is discu ssed from a st a tutory persp ective in the next ch apter. 6.2.3 Sta tutory Gu idelines fo r Learn ing and Teaching Writing A fina l relevan t perspective on this issu e is repr esented by the gu idelines which no t o nly indicate tha t writing is a re qu ired skill to focus on in the E FL c la ssro om , 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 88 but a lso clearly sta te the skills a nd co mp ete ncies tha t m ust be fo stered 74 . This cha pter will first p r esent the su prana tio nal gu idelines in the form o f the CEF R (C ou ncil of Europe, 2001, 20 20) , a nd th en the na tiona l BISTAs (KM K, 2004, 2023a) . The mo re specific guidelines o n th e le vel of the federal state (e.g ., North Rhine- West ph alia or Rhin eland - Palatine) are n ot in cluded , as they a re a fur ther specification of the su perior guidelines a n d do no t offer d r astically new ap- pro ach es to writing, bu t ra ther specifica tio ns for the class roo m. The d iscussio n will a lso be r estricte d to the n inth g rad e of Germa n comprehen sive schools, a s th is is the target ed gra de i n the RobS . The se studen ts u sually aim for th e “Mit- tlere r Schu lab schlu ss” after year 10 , wh ich is equivalent to B1 in the CEFR (K M K, 2004, p . 11, 2023a, p. 10) 75 . Thu s, the repo rte d CEFR descr iptors refer to B1 if no t indica ted otherwise. In the C EFR, writ ing is discussed from the p erspective o f inte ra ction (Coun cil of Europe, 2020, pp. 82 – 83) a nd production (C o uncil of Eur o pe, 2020, p . 66) . As the focu s in the RobS is on production, only th e se relevan t descriptors will be presented. For “overa ll writte n prod uction” it states that lea rn ers “ [ca n] write straigh tforwa rd co nn ecte d te xts on a ra nge o f familia r su bjects within t heir field of interest, b y linking a series o f shorter discret e elements into a lin ea r sequ ence ” (C ou ncil of Europe, 2020, p. 66) . Two fu rther relevan t set of descriptors refer to B1 “creative writing ”, wh ich sta tes tha t learners can, for ex a mple, “ give a descrip - tion of a n event, a recent trip – rea l o r imag i ned ” (Council of Euro pe, 2020, p. 67) . For the level of B1+ 76 , learn ers ca n, for example, “ clea rly signa l ch ronologica l sequence in narrative text ” (Council of Eur op e, 2020, p. 67) . Lastly, the CEFR ex- plicitly men tion s “reports a nd essays”, with rega rd to which learn ers a t the level of B1 “ [can] p rodu ce very brief r eports in a stan da r d co nven tionalised form at, which pass o n ro utine fa ctual inf or mation and state reasons for action s ” a n d “ [can] pr esent a topic in a sh ort repor t or poster, u sing photograph s and short blocks of text ” ( Coun cil o f Eur ope, 2020 , p . 68) . The CEFR also sta tes B1+ de- scriptors with rega rd to which lear ners 74 Thi s section will f ocus on writi ng. Nat ur all y, w r iting is not iso lat ed, espec ially the notio n of linguisti c compete nce, as outline d i n t he CEFR, fact ors int o writin g as well ( C ou ncil of Europe, 202 0, p. 130) 75 Th e BIST A s state t hat aft er the nint h g rad e, st udents s hould achieve t he CEFR level A2 by t he fi rst scho o l leavi ng certifica te ( Erster Schulab schluss ), a nd B1 is t o be achieve d by t h e secondary scho o l ce r- tifi cate ( Mittlerer Schu labschlu ss ) afte r the 10 th g ra de (K MK, 2 004, 2023a). As lear ners i n c ompreh ensive scho o ls t end to ai m fo r t h e la tter c ertifica te, a nd c onsid er in g the lea p from A 2 t o B 1 c an no t be ac hieve d wit hin one sch ool year an d m ust be d evelope d ea r lier, B1 is f ocuse d on as the ta rget lev el in the R o bS. 76 Th e se descri ptors a r e u s ually situat ed b etwe en tw o CE FR level s (Council of Eu rope, 200 1, p. 32 ) . B1+ is thus situated betw een B 1 an d B2. 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 89 [can] pr oduce short, sim ple essays on t op ics of int er e st. [can] prod uce a text o n a topica l subject o f p erso nal inte rest, using sim - ple la ngua ge to list a d vanta ges a n d disa d vanta ges, a n d g ive a n d justify their o pinion. [can] s um marise, report an d give thei r o pinion about ac cumulated fac - tual inf o rmatio n on fam iliar routine and no n -rout ine ma tters withi n their field with so m e confi dence. (C ouncil o f Euro pe, 2 020, p. 68) Furthermo re, the CEF R also lists specific pr odu ction strategie s wh ich a pply t o both oral and writte n pro d u ction. Sp ecifically, it arg ues that L2/FL learn ers sho uld m aster str ategies that i n clude “plannin g, execution, m on itori n g a nd r e- pa ir” (Council o f Europe, 2020, p. 68) , resemb ling the cognitive m odels o n the writing pr ocess describ ed previou sly (see also Porsch , 2020, p. 69) . The na tiona l BIST As represent t h e imp leme ntation of the CEF R on a na tiona l level. Coincidentally, th e KMK r evised thes e guidelin es dur ing the p roject which resulted in a few r elevant reevalu ations with rega rd to writing. Thu s, both ver- sion s will b e a ddr essed. In the origin a l vers ion, learn ers were r equired to b e a ble to present ba sic info rma tion in personal le tters; fo rm ula te stan dar dized letters an d e-mails in a n a u dience-oriented way; pr odu ce u nc o mplica ted texts on d if- ferent top ics of their in terest, e.g. , repor ts, stories, descrip tions; write sho rt es- says on genera lly relevant topics (KMK, 2004, p . 14) . With rega rd to r eports, it specifically sta tes that fo r B1, lea rners nee d to be a ble to write brief repo rts in a stand ard ize d format, st ating in f orm a tio n an d reasoning a ctions ( KMK, 2004, p. 78) . For B1+, it is a dded tha t learn ers sho uld b e a ble to wr ite down n otes if som eone a sks f or i nfo rmation or expl ain s a problem a n d write sh ort repo rts on fam iliar top ics , in cluding the provision of reason s a nd ta king a stan ce ( KMK, 2004, p . 14) . I t is a lso explicitly sta ted as pa rt o f text a nd media com petence that learn ers can indepen dently n aviga te the writing process, inclu ding “draftin g, writing, revising ” (KMK, 2004, p . 17; tra nslated by TJ) . Thus, the origin a l version ma kes a n explicit reference to previous process models o n writ ing, wh ile also prescribin g sp ecific genres like the repo rt that m ust be fo c used on. The u pda ted version d escribes that lear ner s sh ould be a ble to p r od uce struc- tura lly un c om plicated, c o herent texts on familia r a nd relevan t topics; describe real or fictio nal events; write repo rts in a typica l sta ndardized for mat a nd pro vide reaso ns for actions; use (digital) m eans for the prod uction an d revision of texts; independ ently extend th eir ling uistic repertoire and draw up on their m ultilingu al resou rces for text pr odu ction (KMK, 2023a, p. 16) . It m oves o n from providing explicit genres and types o f texts like TV sh ows due t o the rapidly ch a ngin g me- dia lan dscape (Rossa & Wilden, 2024, p. 14) . Also, the writing process is n o long er exp licitly referred to i n the com pet ence area o f text a nd m edia compe- tence. Rather, a broader argument is made that lea rn ers s ho uld be able to dr aw upo n k nowledge abou t text p rodu ction, also ar guing tha t other subjects should 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 90 con tribute to text an d m edia co mp ete nce (KMK, 2023a, p. 21) . After t he relevan t no tions on writing a re presented, it will be conn ected to feedback. Synthesis: Fee db ack on Writ in g After feedback and writing have b een foc u sed o n in divid u ally, this section will pro vide a syn thesis, i.e., ar gue wh y feedba ck o n wr iting is a suitab le issu e for the RobS. First, a con ceptual a rgument will be ma de ba sed on the p reviou sly o ut- lined co ncepts of writing an d feedba ck. Second, an empirical persp ective wil l pro vide in sights in to the impact tha t feedba ck can ha ve o n writing a n d the ex- tent to which this is imp lemented in German schools. On a conceptua l level, there is a clear co nnect ion betwee n the writing pro - cess a nd feedba c k. As displa yed in the cognitive p rocess mo dels b y Hayes a n d Flowers (1980), for exa mp le, t h e revision st age relie s on feedba ck whic h initiate s the editing p rocess. This a spect o f the writin g p rocess is , h owever, no t exclusively focu sed on externa l feedb a ck, a s r evision ca n naturally a ls o happen interna lly. Also, it mu st n ot necessa rily occur a fter a version of a text is fin ished , but can ha ppen durin g planning or tra nslating. Ho wever, Hylan d also states that feed- ba ck “emph asizes a process o f writing and rewriting where the text is s een a s poin ting forward to o ther texts the student will write” (2019, p. 171) , high ligh ting the pu rpose of fee dba ck i n the sense of le arning to writ e. W hile t here are differ- ent so ur ces of feedba ck , e.g., self-feedba ck , p eer feedba ck, co mputer o r AI - gen- erated feedback , students do valu e the f eedback fr om their teachers for the learn ing progress (Hyland , 2019, p. 172) and it is “ the most influ ential [asp ect] of a p r ocess writing cl a ss, and the point at which the t each er’s intervention is mo st o bviou s a nd p erha ps most cru cial ” (Hyla nd, 2019, p . 12) . Teach er fe edba ck can thu s be used by the learners to im pro ve o n their writing capa bilitie s. Wha t is mo re, the genre a pproach f or writing pr ovides a clear goal o rientation for feedback as the tar get va lu e or benchmar k. By usin g model text s as exempla rs, as d escribed in the teachin g - learn i ng cycle, a poss ible sta ndard is set an d dis- cussed wit h the learners a s to wha t they sh ould strive for. Feedback can t hus assist lear ners in a c h ieving this go al when it is in cluded in the wr iting pro cess, an d actually im plem ented, e.g ., through multiple draftin g (Lee, 2017 , p. 66) . While there is con ceptual syn ergy, emp iri ca l da ta a ls o s up por ts th e no tion that teach er feedba ck is genera lly effective on writing and in the writing p r ocess. A m ain focu s of feedback on L2/F L writing h as been o n written cor rective feed- ba ck (WC F ), e.g ., written erro r co rrection aim ing at la nguage accuracy. Truscott initially a rgu es against pro viding WCF , claiming tha t “gramma r co rrection has no pla ce i n writing courses and sh ould be a ba ndoned” (1996 , p. 328) . He ba ses this claim on a review o f studies which do no t p r ovid e eviden ce tha t g r a mmar corr ection lead s to a n imp r ovem ent in accuracy (Trusco tt, 1996 , pp. 329 – 333) . 6 T he Releva nce o f Feedba ck on Writi ng in the EFL c ontex t 91 Since, there ha s b een a deba te aroun d the issu e, calling Trusco tt’ s co ntribu tion a “polemica l a rticle” (Lee, 2 017, p. 66) a nd his thesis “prematur e a nd overly strong ” (Fe rris, 19 99, p. 1) . F erris a rgues that a n u ndifferen tiated perspective on ho w error correction is conducted, o veremphasis of particula r fin dings and het- erogeno us conte xts o f the pr ima ry studie s sh ow that h is cl a im d oes not with- stand a pp r op riate scru tiny (Ferris, 1999, p p. 4 – 5) . Sub sequently, there h a s been a plet h ora o f fu rther st ud ies that show t ha t cor rective fe edb ack can have a pos- itive impa ct on wr iting. Several meta studies an d ana lyses have dis cu ssed feedba ck on writing or in the wr iting pro cess 77 . A m eta- study by Gr aham and Perin ( N = 123 studies) f in ds quite va riab le effect sizes fo r t he im pa ct of fee dba ck on writing qu a lity for L1 learn ers due to h eterogenou s feedba ck co ntexts, leading them to n ot “dra w an y reliable or m ean i ngfu l conclu sions” (2007, p. 464) . A la ter meta- study by Gr a ham an d Harr is ( N = 22 studies) fi nd s tha t, co nsidering studies with exp erimental d e- signs, feedba ck has a po sitive imp act on writing qu ality in gr ades 2 to 12, with adu lt feedback ( ES = 0.87) ha ving a high e r effect si ze tha n peer, self, an d m a- chin e feedback (2018, p. 30; see a lso Gra ham et a l ., 2015). However, the study does no t differentiate between L1 a n d L2 l earn ers. Focusing on language a ccu- racy of L2/F L lear ners, Tru scott’s meta study identified a nega tive effect of cor- rective fe edback on a ccu r acy , d = -0. 155 (2007, p. 262 ; see a lso Scherer et a l., 2024, p. 3). The sm all n um ber o f inclu ded studies ( N = 6) , h owever, does limi t the va lidity of this study. Th e meta -a nalysis of N = 25 stud ies 78 by Biber et a l. sho ws th at feedba ck does have an effect on wr iting developm ent fo r L1 a nd L2 learn ers o f Eng lish (2011 , p. 50) . For L2 Eng lish learn ers, the effect ra ng es fr om d = 0.92 79 ( SD = 0.84) in p re- /post- test design s, to d = 0. 66 ( SD = 0. 84) in treat- ment/con trol gro up design s (Biber et a l., 2011, p. 37) . Possibly, these relativel y larg e gain s a re due to the fact that these studies m easu re improvemen t mostly as accu r a cy. The effect of feedba ck is also lar ger for weaker L2 learn ers tha n for strong er learners (Biber et a l. , 2011, p. 38 ). Addition ally, studies in dic ate that feedback by peers, self, o r co mputers is mo re effective tha n fro m teach ers (Biber et al., 2011, p. 39) . However, this is not too su rprising , considering that these studies a lso fo cus more o n surface -level f eatur es as th e qua lity indicator, i .e., spelling a nd gramm ar, which a re also mor e easily iden tifiable by p eers, self an d 77 This s ecti on will p rimarily focus on a general o ve rvie w as not to pre -empt a detaile d di scussi on on effect ive fe edba ck practi ces in t he writi ng contex t in th e cha p ter foc using on t he fee dback f ramewo rk, Chapte r 7. 78 In t his a nalysis. 281 stu dies are exclude d a s they do n o t meet the crite ria (Bibe r et al., 2011, pp. 24 – 25). 79 Bibe r et al. ca lculat e Co hen‘ s d as t he c o effic ient fo r t hei r analy sis (201 1, p. 27). 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 98 The Fram ework Ta b l e 1: Fram e wo r k for a p erfor manc e -o r iente d as sess me nt of feed back co mpet e nc e on writ ing 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 99 7.3.1 Fun ctions o f Fee dba ck The ba sic dim ension of feedback F unct ion d escribes the specific p urp ose of the feedback in formation or interaction, i. e. , t he specific a spect that is b eing tar- geted o r needs im pro vement. It inclu des th e a ims of the sub dimensio ns an d the levels o f fe edba ck. It is mo stly ba sed on th e fin ding s a nd the feedback mo del b y Hattie a nd Timperley (200 7) . Aim The respective a ims fo r feedback rela te m ostly the m od el of Hattie an d Timperley (2 007). Asp ec ts ar e ad ded wh ich are no t explicitly presented in the mo del an d do not fo cus on the info r m ati on , but on the learn er an d ho w they pro cess the feedback , relating to aspects of feedback literacies. Fe e d Up This a spect of the framewor k is ta ken dire ctly fro m Hattie a nd Timperley (2007, pp. 88 – 89) . It seeks to an swer the qu estio n of Wh ere am I going?, i.e., p rovid e the lea rners with info rma tion o n the desired state. These go als ca n b e d escribed with different degrees o f detail, ra ng ing , for exam ple, from n aming the n ews report a s a target- genre, to describing certain m oves or disco urse function s that con stitute the gen re o f a news r eport. Cons idering that it is the goa l of feedback to redu ce a discrepan cy between the actual and desired state, it is e ssentia l tha t the g oa l is well-defined, so that the ga p c an be expr essed m ore exact ly (Hattie & Tim perley, 20 07, p. 89) . Go als d o n ot ha ve to be p rescribed by the te ach er bu t can b e set by the learners in dividu ally o r to gether with the t eacher, so that learn - ers feel m ore co mm itted to achieving the m (Hattie & Timp erley, 2 007, p . 89) . The no tion of g oa l setting is a lso fou nd in o ther o verviews tha t provid e criteria for feedback pra ctices, man y referring bac k to Hattie an d Timp erley (2 007) an d other meta-ana lyses ( Buss e, 2019, p. 24; Gr otjah n & K leppin , 2017 , p. 261; H a we et al., 2008, p. 45; Kluger & D eNisi, 1 996, p. 278; Kop p & M an dl, 2014a, p. 151; Lee , 20 17, pp . 4 – 5; Narciss , 2014, 68, 2 01 7, pp. 180 – 181; S chlu er, 2022, p. 18; Siekma nn et al., 2022, p. 271) . Fe e d Back This a spect of the framewor k is ta ken dire ctly fro m Hattie a nd Timperley (2007, p. 89) . It s eeks to a nswer the qu estion of How am I going?, i. e., pr ovidin g info r- ma tion t o the lea rner about their actu al s tate of p erformance in rela tion to a goa l. N a turally, a preceding di a gno sis is necessary to identify the actu al state o f the learn er, u sing the go als a s a benchm a r k. This includ es no t on ly inf ormation on the gap betwe en the a ctua l and desir ed state, bu t also on the aspects in which the lear ner h as actua lly a c hieved th e goa ls (see Posi tive fee dba c k below). 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 100 Fee d ba ck is also o ften den oted w ith a pro cess com po nen t, e.g., p otentially com - pa ring the perfo rmance in focu s to a p revio us performan ce, a llowing for an in - dividu al co mpariso n a nd feedback on the ind ividua l pro gress (Voerman et a l., 2012, p. 1108) . Fe e d Forward This a spect of the framewor k is ta ken dire ctly fro m Hattie a nd Timperley (2007, p. 90) a nd h as subsequen tly b een fr am ed as the mo st-va lued a spect of feedba ck by learn ers (Mandou it & Hatt ie, 2023, p. 6; Z ierer, 2019, p. 7) . It see ks to an swer the question of Where to next? , i.e., wh at ar e the specific n ext steps that have to be taken in o rder to achieve a g o al and improve perfor mance. This i nclu des informa tion to students an d teache rs that leads t o an ad aption of l earn - ing in the f o rm of enha nced challen g es, m or e self -regula tion over the learnin g proces s , gr eate r fluency and aut omatic ity, mo re st r at egies an d processe s t o w o rk on t he task s, deeper u nder stan ding, and m ore inf or- mat ion ab o ut what is and what is not underst ood . (Wi sn iewski et al., 2020, p. 2) The pro vided info rma tion is supp o sed to “[enab le] studen ts to close the ga p betwee n current and desired perfor mance , helping th em im prove their fu ture perfor mance” (Lee, 2017, p. 56) an d reflect s no tions o f feedba ck literacy , in th a t students need to b e a ble to use this in formation to fu rther their lea rnin g ( Carless & Bo ud, 2018, p. 1315) . Althou gh man y students con sider this asp ect as va luable for their lea r nin g pro gress, research indicates tha t this kind o f feedb a ck is r are in cla ssrooms (Bro oks et al., 2019, p. 22) . Con sidering th e pr ocess m odels o f writing (Berei ter & S card am alia, 1987; Ha y es & Flowers, 198 0) , fe ed fo rwar d is essential to im pro ve on dra fts of a text and close a dia g n osed gap (Ferris, 2013, p. 8; Lee, 2017, p. 15; S adler, 1989, p. 121) . Th e relevance o f feed forwa rd is a lso imm inent when feedback is co nsidered as fo rmative a ssessm ent , i.e. , u sed to sup port learners i n the learning process and improve f ur ther learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Posit iv e feedbac k A fa cet tha t is mo stly excluded in the mo d el b y Ha tt i e an d Timperley (2007), is ho w feedback a ffects learn ers’ “ m otivation, efficacy, and enga gement” (Man- dou it & Hattie , 2023, p. 2) . The aspect o f p ositive feedback is therefo re included as a s pecific form of feed back wh ic h describes the provisio n of “information ab out learners’ corr ect task fulfillment, the p rogr ess they have ma de or u seful strategies they h ave applied“ (Schlu er, 20 22, p. 19) . Consequ ently, it d escribes asp ects in which the learners’ actua l state an d desired sta te are identical , i.e., there is no need for improvement (N a rciss, 2006, p. 16) . Su ch inf or mation mig ht be ben eficial fo r le a r ners’ self -efficacy , a s it po tentially allo ws for a n “ena ctive 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 101 ma stery e xperience” (Ban dur a, 1997, p. 8 0), i.e., a m oment o f s uccess (Mory, 2004, p . 766) . Self-effica cy, defined a s the “learn er’s p erception of h ow well he or sh e [sic!] ca n perform the lea rning tas ks to a ch ieve h is or her [sic!] g oa ls” (Mory, 2004, p. 766) is r elevant, a s “it influ ences ho w m uch effort a lea r ner will invest in a task” (Mory, 2004, p. 766) . Providin g po sitive feedba ck co uld th us bolster self- efficacy, which m ight b enefit l earn ers’ efforts fo r fu ture ta sks 83 . A n- other po tential ar gum ent for the inclusion of positive feedback can b e made ba sed on the self - determina tion theor y o f mo tivation by Ryan and Deci (2000) . They po stulate thr ee ba sic n eeds which a re to be fulfilled: au tonomy, rel a tedness an d com petence. With rega rd to the latt er , the a utho rs state tha t “ev ents su ch as p ositive feedback tha t lead to perceived com petence 84 by sup por ting the com petence n eed will en ha nce intri nsic m otiva tion” (Deci & Ryan , 2011, p. 418) 85 . Im porta ntly, in order to h ave a p osit ive im pact o n ach ievement, p osi- tive feedba ck sh ould no t rela te to the perso n th emselves, bu t ra ther to a n actu al acco mp lishment (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, pp . 96 – 97; Kopp & M andl, 2014a, p. 154) (see also section on Level b elow). T he n ecessity to provid e learn ers with info rmation on their achievement is also addressed in oth er overv iews of de- scribin g ‘good ’ fee db ack p r a ctices (Grotja hn & Kle pp in, 2017 , p . 261; Na rciss, 2017, p. 183) . Self-evaluation This a spect of s elf-evaluation is based on t he interactive tutorin g fe edba ck (ITF) mo del by Narciss, wh ich is ba sed on the assum ptions o f systems theor y (2006, pp. 69 – 70, 2017, p. 177) 86 . In th e mod el, two feedba ck loops tha t interact with each other a re describ ed. On the on e hand, there is the exte rn al f eedback lo op, focu sing o n informa tio n on perfo rmance provided by a n ou tside agen t , like the teachers or peers (Narciss, 2017 , p. 176) . On the other hand, there is t h e internal feedback loo p, fo cusing on feedba ck g ener a ted b y the lear ners th emselv es ( Nar- ciss, 2017 , p. 176) . In t he intern al feedback lo op, lear n ers self - evaluate their per- form ance and generate a subjective representation o f the extent to which they believe to h ave a ch ieved the go al, by com paring their performan ce to what th ey 83 Th is cau sal chai n is de picted in a simplifie d man ner as, nat ur ally , o t h er a s pects might have an impac t on self-eff ica cy and self-effic acy is only one as pect co nt ribu ti ng to effo rt. 84 P e rceive d c o mpete nce i s als o desc r ibe d a s self- effic acy b y Ryan an d Dec i (2000, p. 58). 85 Deci and Rya n p o int to two f urth er c onditi ons, which sh all not be igno red: “H o weve r , th e positive feedback must b e f or an aut onom o usly motivated act ivity […] o r wit hin a n aut o nomy -sup portive c ontext […] in o rder fo r it to enha nce intr i n sic m otivat ion” ( 201 1, p. 4 1 8 ) . 86 In Narciss (2008, p . 128, 2014 , p . 6 2 ), t he m o de is referre d to as the “ inte ract ive, two-f eedbac k-loo p (ITFL) model.” 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 102 con sider the g oa l to be (Narciss, 2017, pp. 176 – 17 8 ). This interna l representation is essential, as it serves as a backdrop against which the external feedba ck mes- sag e is c om pared and is necessary to a ct ua lly make use of extern al feedba ck (N a rciss, 2006, p. 72, 2017, pp . 179 – 180) . L earn ers’ “sel f - assessm ent skills” (N a r- ciss, 2017, p. 180) a re e specia lly re levan t a s pa rt of self- regula ted lea rnin g (N icol & Ma cfarlan e-Dick, 2006, p . 205) . I n a m eta-study wit h n = 19 studies, Pa nadero et a l. fou nd th a t self -a ssessmen t can have a positive influ ence on the u se of self - regula ted lear ning str ategies as well as self - efficacy (2017, p. 96) . Furtherm or e, the genera tion o f interna l feedba ck m ight a lso fa cilitate learn ers ’ a ppr eciation of nega tive feedba ck (Laudel & Nar ciss, 2023, p. 10) . Consequently, learners need to be given t he o ppo rtunity to e xp li citly self - evalu ate their p erforman ce before e xterna l fee dba ck is g iven so tha t th ey can better u se teach er com men ts an d can im p ro ve on their self -a ssessm ent skills: Der i nterne Fe edba ck- L oop ist v on zentra ler Bedeutu n g für s elb stregu- liertes Lernen u n d s o llte dahe r vor dem exte rnen Lo op a ktiviert werde n. Zu Begi nn eines F eed backge sprächs sollt en die Le rn e nden d az u ange- halten wer den , einerseits fe stzustel len, was si e mit Blick a u f die Sta n- dards bereits g ut erfüllt h ab en, ander erseits mö gliche D efizite zu e rke n - nen. E r st n ac hdem die Lernen d e n ih r Lerne rgebnis ode r ihren Lernp ro- zess sel bst mit Blick auf die Sta nda rds evaluie r t und int ernes F e edbac k generiert habe n, s ollte a ls o das exter n e F eedba ck ang eb ote n bzw . in selbst regulierte n Lehr -L e rnszena r ien auf gerufen werde n . ( Na rciss, 2014, 77) (The inte rn al fee db ac k loop is of ce ntral imp ortance f or self- regulat ed learnin g and shoul d th us be act ivated befor e the external loop. At th e beginnin g o f a fee db ac k c o nve rs ati on , the lea rn e rs sho uld be aske d to on the o ne hand, sta te whic h as pects of the s tanda rd s have b een ac hieved, a n d, on the o the r ha nd, to diag nose possibl e d efic its. Only aft er lea rners h ave eval uated thei r lea rn i n g p r o du ct or process with re- gard t o the sta ndar ds an d ge ner ate d inte rnal feed back, should ex te rn al feedback be offered or provid ed in s elf-reg ulated lear ni ng sc ena rio s . ) Na rciss states that le arners sh ou ld be e ncoura ged t o state asp ects in which they ha ve succeeded , a s well as deficits (2014, 7 7). On ly after tha t, the external f eed- ba ck messa ge sh ould be offered a nd pro vi ded. This also align s wit h th e goa ls of student feedback literacy, which inclu des th e a bility to self -eva lua te perfor - ma nces, i.e., Making judgements , a nd m aking use of externa l feedba ck , i.e., A p- pre c iat i ng fee dba ck processes (Carless & Bou d, 2018, p. 1317; see a lso T ai et a l ., 2018 a nd Cha pter 6.1.2 ). Level The su bdim ension o f le vel relates to the mo del o f Hattie an d Timperley a nd their findin gs o n the respective im pa ct that feedba ck on each level ha s on ach ieve- ment, i. e., Ta sk, Process , Self-regula tion an d Self (2007). To a g reater or lesser 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 103 extent, the model h as been used to observe, descr ibe an d evaluate feedback pra ctices in p reviou s studies (Buho lze r et al. , 2020; Holst ein et al., 202 2; Kür zinger & Pohlm an n-Rother, 2019; van den Berg h et a l., 2013) . Tas k Fee dba ck at the task -level con siders the quality of a pro duct that resulted from an a ctivity, i. e., a text tha t wa s written foll owin g a p rompt (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 91) . I f th e res ult o f th e task is a c erta in p rocess, i.e., plannin g , writ ing an d evaluation o f a text, th e pro cess ca n a ls o be the fo cus o f ta sk - level feedback , but it mo stly relates to su rface-level fea tures (Broo ks et a l., 2019, p. 25) . Th e task- level is the most a ddr essed level in cla ssroo ms (Bro oks et al., 2019, p . 22; Ha tt ie & Timperley, 2007, p. 91) , a fi ndin g which is corrob orated in the resu lts of the labo ra tory study by Holstein et a l. for bot h p re - a nd in- service teachers (2022 , p. 7) . Feedback on the tas k - level is essential, because it is the ba sis fo r fu rther an d deeper feedba ck (Hattie, 2023, p . 321) an d “[havi n g] corr ect informa tio n is a pedestal o n which the pr ocessing a nd self - regula tion is effectively built ” (Hatt ie & Timperle y, 2007, p. 91) . Ta sk-lev el feedba ck ca n b e described a s the fou ndation for high -information feedba ck, which a lso in cludes feedba ck on Pro- cess a n d Self-reg ulation, and has a su bsta nt ial effect siz e of d = 0. 99 (Wisniewsk i et a l., 2020, p. 11) . However, task -level feedback on its own is only powerfu l “when lear ning content, the ideas or surface level kn owledge” (Ha tt i e & Clar ke, 2019, p. 76) . Process Fee dba ck that is provided at th e pro cess-le vel focuses on t he st rategies tha t a re used to co mp lete a task a nd is th us “aimed a t the p rocessin g of in formation tha t is n ecessary to u nd erstand o r complete a certain ta sk” (Wisniewski et a l., 2020, p. 2) . W hile being directed a t specific t ask s, p rocess fee dba ck c a n i nclud e “strat- egies fo r erro r detection ” (Hat tie & Tim perl ey, 2007, p. 93) , i.e., the iden tification of cha llenges i n the writing p ro cess wh ich lea d to m odifications to the pro cess (Hatt ie e t a l., 2017, p . 304) . It is p a rt of high -in formation feedba ck and leads to deeper learn ing , if provided with feedba ck on the t ask (H attie et al. , 2017, p. 304; Hattie & Timp erley, 200 7, p. 93; Wisniewski et a l., 2020, p. 12) . However, process - level feedba ck is n atura lly m ore complex tha n task - level feedback, a s it mo ves beyond the su rfa ce-level (Hattie, 202 3, p. 321) . T hus , it is mo re effective fo r fa- milia r tasks an d for learn ers who a re mo re pro ficient (Hattie, 202 3, p. 322; Ha ttie & Wollenschlä ger, 2014, p. 141) . Self-regulation At the leve l of self - regu lation , feedba ck is aim ed a t “the in dividua l’s r egulation of the strategies they a re u sing to their pe rfor mance” an d h ow “t o mo nitor the 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 104 use of str ategies in the learning pr ocess” ( Wisniewski et a l., 2020, p. 2) . Conse- quen tly, it is n ot directly related to a task a nd how it ha s been co mp lete d. It inclu des asp ects su c h a s “skills fo r self - evaluation, exp an di ng effo rt in task en - gag ement, o r seeking f urther feedback informa tion” (Hattie et al. , 2017, p. 304) , i.e., the active choice o f seeking feedb a ck can be d escribed as a fa cet of self - regula tion and thu s be feedba ck can be p r ovid ed on it . It is a lso a po tential facet of “ h igh - i nfor mation feedba ck” and t hu s q u ite influ ential with regard to student ach ievement (Wisniewski et al., 2020, p. 12 ). The effec tiveness of self - regula tion strategies themselves a re well d ocu mented . Gra ham and Perin, for exam ple, r e- por t that the teachin g of self -r egulation str a tegie s ( e.g. , plann ing, writing, revis- ing) ha s a large effect size of 1.14 to 1. 47 with rega rd to writing qu ality (2007, p. 446) . Therefor e, feedback on these strat egies sho uld b e inclu ded in instruc- tion. However, it app ears th at feedba ck rarely occurs on this level (Brooks et al., 2019, p. 22; Holste in et a l., 2022, p. 7) . It s ho uld be n oted tha t feedback on this level exce eds the com plexity of the previo usly a ddr essed levels an d is more ef- fective when lea rners a re a t a n ad vanced sta ge (Brooks et al. , 2019, pp. 26 – 27; Hattie , 202 3, p. 323; Hattie & Clarke, 2019, p. 78) . Self When feedba ck is g iven on the level of the self, it c o nta ins pr aise o r criticism on a perso n al level a nd “ usually contains litt le task - related info rm ation an d is r a rely con verted in to mo re enga gement, co mmitment to the learn ing goa ls, en hanced self-effica cy, or un derstanding a bo ut the t ask ” (Hatt ie & Timperle y, 2007, p . 96) . Praise in the fo rm o f generic co mm ents , e .g. , “You are a goo d stude n t , ” migh t actua lly deflect fro m the a ctua l t a sk and is t hu s no t effective in pro moting learn- ing (Hatt ie & Timperley, 200 7, p. 96) . Kluger a nd DeNisi repo rt a small effect size of pra ise in feedback intervention s of d = 0. 09 (1996, p. 273) , whil e Hat tie repor ts an a vera ge of d = 0.14 (Hattie , 2023, p. 320) . What is m ore, feedba ck o n the self - level might even h ave a n egative effect o n a chievement, even in the fo rm o f pra ise (Wisniewski et a l., 2020, p. 12) . Although esp ecially younger learners a p- preciate the p ra ise ( Hattie & T im perley, 2007, p. 97) , it seems likely tha t older learn ers m ight p erceive praise “ a s an in dic a tion tha t the teacher p erceived their ab ility to be low ” ( Hattie & Timp erley, 20 07, p . 97) . With r egard to m otiva tion, Wisniewski et al. state tha t “ effects of u nin form a tive fo rm s o f feedba ck o n mo- tivation a re low or even n eg a tive” (2020 , p . 12) . Consequ ently, feedback on that level shou ld be a voided. 7.3.2 Stra tegies of Feedba ck The ba sic dim ension o f Stra tegy focu ses o n the m ode in wh ich the feedba ck is pro vided. On the on e ha nd, this con cerns t h e comm un icative a spect, i.e., the 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 105 extent t o which the info r m ation is pr esented appropria tely t o the learn er by the teacher. On th e other h and, this d imensio n also r efers to relevan t practices tha t are essential fo r effective feedback in the L2/FL writing cla ssro om , i. e., decidin g which a spects to pr ovide feedback on, how relevan t they a re , an d how tha t feed- ba ck is u sed. Comm unica tio n Dia log ue orie ntation This aspect is ba sed o n a dialogic understanding of feedba ck a n d a co n structive ap proach to learn ing (Aljaa freh & La ntolf, 1994; Carless, 2 020; Carless & Bo ud, 2018; Carless & Winstone, 2020) (see also Chapter 6.1). Feedback shou ld not be con sidered a s a mo nologue in w hich the teacher pro vides information to a learn er. Rather, the learner should b e c onsidered as an a ctive (co -)con structor of their lear ning p rocess. Thus, feedba ck s itua tions sh ould invo lve the learners con structively, i.e., by ask ing le a rners what they wou ld like to focus o n in the feedback conversation, allo wing them to ask qu estions, or p rovidin g op p or tuni- ties to explain certain decisions they m a de. This aspect , t hu s, is also refle ctive of the relation al dim ension o f teach er feedb ack literacy (C a rless & Winston e, 2020, pp. 155 – 156) . Invo lving the lear ner in the conversa tion seems especia lly app r o - pria te in the writing co ntext. As illustrated in the kno wledge -tran s fo rming model by Bereiter a nd S card amalia (1987, p p. 12 – 13) , the fin al written pr odu ct do es no t allow for ma king in ferences a bout the pro cess itself (Schn ell, 20 18, p. 43) (see also Cha pter 6.2.1). By ta king a d ialogic approa ch to a feedba ck conversa tion on a text, then, m ore in sights ca n be g ained into the writing p rocess , ena bling the feedback pro viders to in clude feedba ck on the writing p rocess. What is m ore, enga ging the learner in the co nversation i ncrea ses the likelihoo d o f u ptake a s the info rma tion is no t simply consumed passively. Furthermo re, dialogu e is also dependent on n on- verba l aspect s o f co mmun ication. Th us, the bod y l a nguage an d fa cial exp ression s sh ould suppor t the dialogue and i n dicate a tte ntiveness to the learn er, va luing their con trib ution s 87 . Adaptation of cont ent This asp ect is b ased on the n otion of the u sab ility of feedback . In o rder for lear n- ers to u se the feedback , they need to understand the info rmation th at is pro- vided to them on a con tent le vel (Ha ttie & Clarke, 2019, p. 51; Price et al., 2010, p. 279; S chlu er, 2022, p. 42) . Using Vygotskij’s mod el of the ZPD, feedback sho uld be situa ted abo ve the level o f wh at lear ners can d o o n th eir own, a nd 87 The aspect of body lan guag e wa s a dd e d t o the fram ework aft er the expe rt interview s, see Cha pter 15.3.4. 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 106 below the lev el tha t is out of their r each , so , within the zone in wh ich lea rners can further develop their competenc e, if a ppro priate sca ffoldin g is p rovid ed (1978 ). B esides the in form a tion th a t is available to the teacher due to previou s interaction s, the learner text a lso pro vide s info rmation on the lea rner’s co mpe- tence level a nd teachers migh t pr o vide feedback b a sed on their text -rela ted di- agn osis. However, teach ers sh ould con fir m that the in put they h ave p rovided is actua lly un derstood by the learn er by a ctively ch ecking u nd ersta ndin g (Man- dou it, 2020, p. 15) . This allo ws teach ers to a da pt their feedba ck to the learn ers by refo rmu lating, pro viding different e xamples , et c., if le a rners indicate a la ck o f un derstan ding. Adaptation of la nguage This a spect also results from the goal o f u sab ility , bu t takes a genu inely EFL- related persp ective , that o f la ng uage. Nat ur ally, EF L teachers serve a s la nguage mo dels for their learn ers in the EFL class r oo m, su p po sedly pro viding compre- hensib le inp ut, which lea r ners can use to acquire the target language (Lightbown & Spa da , 20 13, p. 106) . The n ormative pr inciple o f fu nctional monolingualism acco un ts for this, d escribing that t eachers s h ould speak English as m uch as pos- sible, an d as little Germa n a s needed (Matz et a l., n. d.; Schulentwicklun g NRW, n.d .) . As a con seq u ence, EFL teachers a re expect ed to h ave excellent com petenc e in t he target la ng ua ge (F reema n, 2017, p. 32) . While, for a lon g t ime , the n ative- speaker ideal has pr ev ailed in the p r ofessio n, cl a imin g that EF L teachers sh ould adh ere to a certain variety a s a norm o f English a s a target, there a re dou bts tha t such an ideal has an im pa ct on the teac h ing qu ality or stu dent ach ievement (Rütt i- Joy, pp. 25 – 26) . Th is is not to say that langu age acc u racy sh ou ld be d isre- gar ded (see the asp ect of Language acc ur acy ), bu t that language is a lso a tool that EFL teach ers n eed to be a ble to use a pp rop riately an d in an ada ptive man- ner. A concept tha t seeks to a ddress t h is is su e is t each er langua ge competence, which a lso includ es the communica tive nature , i.e., the n otion of actua lly trans- mitting the desired in form ation to th e learn er (Rütti-Joy, p. 28) . Kuster e t al. ha ve, for that purpose, created a set o f profession -r elated lan g ua ge co mpetence pro - files, in which they describe “ the comm unication -oriented lin guistic skills re- quired by teachers of foreign languag es at l ower secon dary level (‘Sekundarstuf e I’ ) in o rder to pra ctice their profession” (Kuster et al., 2014, p. 2) . As an example, they sta te tha t “ [i n] the target lan guage, the teacher is ab le to give o r al feedback on a lea rn er’s performan ce” (Kuster et al., 2014, p. 14) . In the co ntext o f feedba ck, ho wever, espe cially in in dividu al situa tions that do n ot directly take pla ce i n an in str uctive setting, the prim ar y g oa l is no t to fun ction a s a langu age role mod el, but rather to provid e information to the learn er in a n appropr iate an d u ndersta nda ble ma nn er, a s discu ssed above. This 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 107 cou ld b e done in the target lan guage, if t h e ind ividua l learn er’s lingu istic com- petence is sufficient , a dherin g to the p rinciple of fun ctional mono lingualism . A s it can be a ssum ed, however, that learners i n the EFL cla ssro om , especia lly in the lower secon da ry level h ave not (yet) a chieved the la ngu a ge level of their teach - ers, teach ers still need to a da pt their ou tput ap prop ri a tely a nd reduce ling uistic com plexity (Bleichenba cher et a l., 2017, p. 17) . EFL teachers sho uld th us, on the on e hand, be a ble t o theoretically perform cla ssroo m activities in t he t a rget lan - gua ge, b ut o n the other h and, be a ble to a da pt the level o f English ou tput they pro duce to satisfy their lea rners’ needs. As a fin al con sequence, a s u nderstanda - bility is key fo r learners b eing a ble to use fee dba ck, this would req uire teachers to actu ally switch to the learner’s L1 , if possible. De scri ptivenes s This a spect fo c uses o n the tone of the feedba ck, specifica lly with regard to a ffect (L otz, 20 16, p. 259) . When inform ation is p rovid ed on the c u rrent sta te o f the learn er, it shou ld be do ne in a descripti ve, no nevaluative m anner (Kopp & Ma ndl, 2014a, p. 158; Shu te, 2008, p . 153) . Th is is no t to say that statements ma de by the lea rner cannot be cla ssified as false, rather, that the presen ted dis- crepa ncy is not co nnotated with a value judgement. For exa mple, a more a ppro- pria te statement is : “You missp elled this wor d here” , while a state m ent like : “ It is ba d tha t you missp elled it , ” ma y be inappr op riate. T he foundation of this sub di - mensio n lies within Rosenb erg’s concept o f n onvio lent com munica tion (Rosen- berg & Holler, 2016). This co ncept provides a c o herent argum ent a nd gu idelines for co m munica tion a nd has a lso been use d in oth er con ceptu a lizations o f feed- ba ck ( Hüm bert-Schnurr et a l., 2019, p. 85 1). On e notion t hat Rosenb erg h igh- lights is the distinction b etwe en description a nd evalua tion (Rosenberg & Holler, 2016, p. 38) . A differ en tiation b etween b ot h is n ecessary , so tha t the ad dressee is less likely to p erceive th e feedba ck in formation a s criticism (Rosenberg & Hol- ler, 2016, p. 38) . As the conte xt of the RobS is situa ted within the learning p ro- cess, and th us of a formative a nd no t summative-eva lua tive natur e ( see Chap ter 4.4.1 ) the discrepa ncies should be presente d in a descriptive m an ner s o tha t the learn ers can use th e feedback appropr i ately. Specificity and C larity Ano ther releva nt a spect fo cuses o n the p r ecise pr esentation of feedba ck in f o r- ma tion, i.e. , its specificity a nd clarity. Feedback should be sp ecific , i.e., pr ecisely loca ting the issue a nd stating the g oa l to be strived fo r (Hattie & Timp erley, 2007, pp. 85 – 86; Kluger & De Nisi, 1996, p. 260; Sh ute, 2008, p. 167, p. 174 ). The messa ge should, for example, directly refer to an erro r o r err or pattern in a text an d n ot be provided va gu ely ( Ferris, 20 13, p. 8) . This allows le a rners to distinctly 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 114 Böttcher, 2020, p. 128) . The five d imensions a re “’lang u age correctness’ 88 , ‘lan- gua ge a ppropriateness’, ‘content’, ‘struct ure’ a nd ‘writing pr ocess’” (Becker- Mro tze k, 2014, p. 508; tra nsla ted by TJ) . Alt hou gh sim il ar in its dimen sions to the ESL co mpo sition sca le, this model is fa vored fo r two re a son s . First, it i nclu des the no tion o f the writing p rocess, w h ich is essential fo r d eveloping writing compe- tence. Secon d, while the ESL compo sition s ca le explicitly addr esses the criterion of vo ca bulary, lexis sh ou ld n ot be sepa rated fr om grammar co nsid ering, f or ex- am ple, the lexical a pproach b y Lewis (2009). Rather, the fo cus in the EFL class - roo m is su pp osed to be o n lexical chunks, i.e., “ gra mmatica lize d lexis” (Lewis, 2009, p . 89 ; see a lso Hutz, 2018, p. 142) . T he framewor k by Becker -M rotz ek al- lows for t hat m ore in tegrated view , a s the cr iterion o f lexico -grammar can b e sub sum ed in the dim ension of langua g e appropriat eness . For bette r orienta tion an d co hesion within the fr am ework, the five dim ension s will b e related to the respective level o f text, i.e., su rfa ce - o r deep-level, a nd referred to as a spects. The first aspect Surface: La nguage correctness covers the m echan ic a l n otion s of la nguag e. This relates to n otions of spelling /orthog raphy, p un ctu ation bu t also th e correctness o f morphological and syntactical constructions (Becker- Mro tze k, 2014, p. 508) . For instan ce, lear ners m ight erro neously use * wined 89 as a past sim ple fo rm of to win , while the correct lexica l i tem is wo n . Also, con sid- ering the EF L con text, this dim ension a lso extends to th e co rrect u se of lexico - gra mmar , in that the lexical chu nks tha t are u sed convey the intended mean ing. For exa mp le, a co mmon erro r a mong L2/FL learn ers with Germ an a s their L1 is the use of to become , d ue to the fa lse cogn ate ass um ption with th e German bekommen , which translates as to get . Th e dimensio n t h us considers context - independ ent erro rs that occu r in the text. Fee db ack o n langua ge co rrectness is reflective o f a n ap proach to wr iting that fo c uses o n lan guage structures (H ylan d, 2019, p. 4) . The second asp ect Surface: Lan guage a ppropriaten ess seeks to evalu ate whether lea rners u sed la nguage that is a ppropria te for the required genre a nd con text . It includ es the use of lexico - gra mm ar and syntax with regard to the specific g enre, co ntext an d audience o f the text (Beck er- Mro tze k, 2014, p. 508) . The asp ect is rem iniscent of a wr iting a pproach tha t fo c u ses on text fu nction s an d genre on a m icr o level (Hyland, 2019, 5, 19). For exa mp le, the chunk : “ She was a great presiden t. ” is a grammatically cor rect statement, b ut migh t n ot b e 88 In orde r to bet ter differe ntiate b etwee n the tw o cat egorie s that c o nside r the mec hanics of lan gua ge, this text- related d ia gnostic dimen sion is coi n ed l angua ge corre ctn e s s , while teac her’s lan g uage capabil - ities are fr am ed as la ng ua ge accuracy . 89 Erroneo us text fragme nts a re indic at ed with an asteris k (*) . 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 115 ap propriate to use in a news report , which su ppo sedly takes a neutral approach when reporting on event s. Such a value state men t can thu s be considered in ap - pro priate in that context. Furtherm ore , t here are genre -specific con ventions, which prescribe specific linguistic n orms f o r texts. Ne ws r eports tha t describe pa st events, for instan ce, sh ould use th e appropria te p ast tense fo r m s tha t i n di- cate the ma nn er o f time. The th ird asp ect Dee p: Struc ture co nsiders the extent to which the text fo l- lows the required p attern, i .e., ge nre convention s. This in cludes the a ppropriate use a nd sequ enci ng of p aragra phs, i. e., the sequ ence o f g enre - specific m oves (like in trodu ction, m a in pa rt, co nclu sion ) (B ecker-M rotzek, 2014, p. 508) , a nd re- flects the focus of t h e genre approach to writing fr om a ma c ro p erspective (Hy- lan d, 2019, p. 19) . For ex am ple, a h eadlin e is a r elevant structural element o f a news repo rt, pr oviding the read er with a first r eference to the text’s top ic a nd sho uld t hus be a ddressed in a feedba ck conversa tion , if m issing . Add itiona lly, this dim ensio n in clud es the extent to wh ich a) the text coh erently cover s a nd develops the topic an d b) the reader is gu id ed th rou gh the text (Becker-M rotzek, 2014, p. 508) . The fou rth aspect is Dee p: C ontent an d a ddresses whether the tex t inclu des ap propriate an d sufficient info rmation to fu lfill the task requirem ents (Be cker- Mro tze k, 2014, p. 508) . This dim ension is re flective of the co ntent ap proa ch to writing, a s d escribed by Hyland (2019 , p. 14) . If a ta sk, for i n stance, lists several pieces of in formation relating to a (fiction al) pa st event, they ar e to be inco rpo - rated in the news r eport by the learn er. If a r elevant piece o f in form ation is miss- ing, learn ers sho uld be info rmed ab out it . A s news reports are mu ltimoda l t exts, this extends to the u se of ima ges (Jewitt & Kress, 2010). The fifth a spect is that o f De ep: Process , pro viding criteria to e va luate t he extent to wh ich the learn er follo ws the wr iting p rocess (Becker-M ro tz ek, 20 14, p. 508) . I t inclu des the e xtent to which revision m ar ks a re evident in the text and if the learner has exp lored n ew styl istic mea ns o f expression . For in stance, a learn er tha t has tried to use n ew syn tactic al stru ctures can be praised for their risk, even thou g h improvement is still necessa ry. Inform ation After detailing the different a spects of th e text that sh ould b e a ddressed, this sub dimensio n focuses on how the in format ion is su ppo sed to be provided. De t ailedness The detailedness of info rma tion t h at learners a re con fronted with is o ften differ- entiated o n three levels. Knowle dge of Result (KR) con tain s information on ly o n whether the solution is correct or false, while Kn owle dg e of C orrect Results (KCR ) 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 116 also in cludes i nfo rmation on the c orr ect solution, if t h e previou s solution w a s false (Lotz et a l., 2013, p. 133; Narciss, 20 08, p. 132) . Elaborated Feedback (EF) inclu des any “ad ditional information b esides KR o r KCR ” (Narciss, 2008, p . 132 ; see also K ulh avy & Stock, 1989 , p. 285 ). T he exa ct na ture o f the ad ditiona l infor- ma tion relates “to a large if no t f u zz y set o f m eanin gs” (Lotz , 2016, p. 133) , a nd is thus not well defined . For example, EF inclu des “reason s of (in -)correct n ess of a respo nse […], exp lanations a b o ut the task, su ggestions, h i nts or stra tegic a d- vice […]” (Schlu er, 2022, p. 21) . Findin gs of m eta-analyses in dica te that the “[ type ] of feedba ck w a s also stro ngly related to effect size. When feedback merely in dicated that a respon se was corre ct o r inco rrect, it r esulted in a lower effect tha n when the feedba ck in some way info rmed the learn er of the cor rect an swer ” (Bangert- Dro wns et a l., 1991, p. 2 32) . Regard ing elabor ative feedback, the findin gs a re ra ther in c on clusive. While so me a nalyses d o n ot find that the am ount of i nfor mation influences the effects of feedback (e. g. Bangert-Dro wns et al., 1991, p. 234; see Lotz, 2 016, 133 -13 2 fo r an overview), Wisnieweski e t a l. arg ue tha t “[f ee db ack] is m ore effe ctive the m ore info rm ation it co ntain s ” (2020, p. 12) . Arg ua bly, ma ny factors n eed to b e co nsid ered h ere, especially the lear ner an d their ind ividual cognitive lo ad, as h as been discuss ed wit h regard to the genera l a m ount o f info rmation previou sly (see Chapter 7.3.2.2). Consequ ently, i t seems mo re relevant tha t teach er s d o provide som e so rt of elab oration ra ther than considering the kind an d a mount o f additiona l info r m ation. Profes sio nal acc uracy A p erspective which shou ld n ot b e ignore d when develop ing a framework that essentially serves a s a ba sis for a ssessmen t is the actu al acc ur acy o f in formation that is provided. On e asp ect is th a t of profe ssional acc uracy , describ ing the (in - )ability to pro vide cor rect a nd a dequa te i n for mation o n non - l an guage rela ted asp ects. It inclu des the extent to which i n f orm a tion on deep -level fea tures (i.e., genre- specifics, co ntent of the text, an d task demands) is stated cor rectly. For instan ce, it would be inaccurate to cla im that a n ews report do es no t need a head line or to not corr ect bu t repea t o r praise erro neou s statements fr o m the text . Mo reover, this exten d s to the accu ra cy of learn ing strategies tha t are pro- vided to the learn ers and the extent to which this ina cc ur acy m igh t be harmful to their learn ing process. For example, wh il e sta ting tha t lear n ing vocabular y by simp ly memorizing bilingual v oca bulary lis ts is on e potentia l app roa c h to take, it is n ot n ecessarily the o ptima l a ppr oa c h , c o nsid ering t he model o f the mental lexicon (Hutz, 2018 ). Nonetheless, it is a lso n ot in herently h armful to the lea rning pro cess, as it mig h t lea d to learn i ng an d o ther options are not explicitly ex- cluded. Arguing tha t memo rizing these b iling ua l lists is the only approach to learn ing cou ld, however, be considered ha r m ful to the learning pr ocess, a s oth er 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 117 option s tha t might be m ore a ligned with the mental lexicon , fo cus o n lexica l chu nks or ha ve a mo re communica tively oriented fo und ation, a nd are thus p o- tentially mor e beneficial, are exp licitly exclu ded. Lang u age acc uracy The final a spect co n siders the a ccu r a cy concernin g t he English langu age. As English lan guage role m odels, EFL tea chers sho uld ha ve excellent la ng ua ge com petence. While lan gua ge complexity sh ou ld be steered towa rds the learn - ers’ lev el of co mp rehensio n (see A daptati on of l anguage ), the la ngu a ge tha t is used sh ould no netheless b e a ccura te. This refers to b oth lan guage as the sub ject of conversation , a s we ll a s t h e m ean s of co m mu nication. With regard to the for- mer, this inclu des t alking ab ou t language in the te xt, i.e., provid in g error c o rrec- tions or explaining gr amma tical r ules su c h a s the forma tio n o f th e pa st simple . Regardin g the la tt er, this in cludes a ny in stance, in which the pre - service EF L teacher speaks i n English. Importantly, t h e a ccur acy o f pro duced langua ge m ust be evalu ated in the con text o f the o r a l sit ua tion. O ra l commu nication ad heres to d ifferent n orms th an writt en commun ication (Goh & Burn s , 2012; Levelt, 1995) . Hence, featur es o f sp oken language which m ight be considered errone- ou s in writte n lan gua ge, like m ino r m istake s (slips of t he ton gu e), self - cor rec- tions or ellipsis, are natura l to spoken la nguag e (Goh & Bu rns, 2012, pp . 86 – 94) . Thus, the gra vity of the err or with regard to its potential i m pedimen t to lea rn ing an d a c hieving the learning objectives should be co nsidered in an eva l ua tion. Th ese asp ects also inclu de pronu ncia tion, esp ecially if it leads to po ten tial com - plication s in commu nication o r shows lack o f a bility to fo rmu l a te releva nt ph o- nemes for the English langua ge , e.g., in adequa te pr on unciation o f the < th > sou nds / ɵ / a nd /ð/. Discuss ion and Limitation s of the Framework As wit h each fram ework , the one presented in t his thesis ha s it s own limitations. These d erive p rima rily f ro m the purpose that i t serv es; bein g crea ted as the b asis for a p erforman ce-oriented a ssessm ent forma t, specified a s a ro le -pla y -b ased simu lation , fo r PSETs . The first co nstra i nt o f the fram ework conc ern s its teacher- centered o rienta- tion. The fr amework fo c uses on the beh avior of the teach er , d escribing the aim an d content o f the feedback that they pro vide , as well a s the strategies they use. It does no t inclu de h ow th e learn er a ctu ally perceives an d uses the feedba ck, which cou ld be u sed as a n indic ator of the success of t he conversa tion, because the learn er is po rtrayed by an a ctor who is train ed to beha ve i n a standa rdized ma nn er . A s a result o f the stand ardiz ation , their beha vior canno t be u sed as an indica tion o f c om prehen sion , as the a ctor s’ beha vio r is no t n ecessarily a resu lt 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 118 of teach er inpu t, but is in f orm ed by the instru ctions they received. Thu s, the fra mework only partially in cludes aspects of student a nd t each er feedba c k liter- acy. For in stan ce, the rela tional dimen sion is a ddressed in Di alogue orientatio n , the pra gma tical dimension i n Focused er ro r selection , an d the design dim ension in Proc ess orientation (Carless & Winstone, 2020, p p. 154 – 157) . Althou gh a focus on the teach er alrea dy r educes the d imen sions of the fra m ework, som e po ten- tially relevant a spects are n ot i nclu ded, especially timing, the stru cture of the con versation , and motiva tion . Tim in g Findings indic a te t h at the effect of feedback is a lso dependent on the timing an d the respective l evel (Bang ert-Dro wns et a l., 1991, p . 226; Ha ttie & T im perley, 2007, p . 98) . For in stance, im media te erro r feedba ck m ight be mo re influ ential for f eedback on the task - and sur f ace- level, while delayed fe edba ck seems to be mo re impactful for deeper level s , i.e., the p rocess ( Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 98) . In the fram ework, the n otion o f timin g h as b een excluded , becau se the RobS provides a specific time fra me in w hich the fee dba ck co nversation hap- pens. Structu re Fee dba ck conversa tions, like written texts, usu ally follow a certain generic struc- ture, which is “p a rtly co ndition ed b y the mo des and too ls that a re utiliz ed” (Schlu er, 2022, p. 24) . One commonly known and widely used m a c ro str ucture for feedback conversa tion s is the so - c alled feedback sa ndwich , or feedback bur ger, in which the nega tive feedba ck is situa ted betwee n two po sitive co m- ments, with the last co mm ent p o tentially de scr ibing a wa y f o rward (Schluer, 2022, p. 25) . While su ch a structure allows fo r feedback providers to have a guidelin e that i n cludes positive as well a s nega tive feedba ck, “empirical o r ex- perimen tal evidence sup por ting the use of this metho d is la c king ” (H enley & DiGenna ro Reed, 2015, p. 322) . Find ings th a t exist indica te tha t the sequ encin g migh t not be o f su bst an tive relevance, wh ile it is still mo re powerfu l tha n n o feedback ( Henley & Di Genna ro Reed, 20 15, pp. 331 – 332; Parkes e t al., 2013, p. 406; Proch azka et a l., 2020, p. 7) . Po tentially, learners tha t are u sed to this pro cedure m ight anticipate the n egative c o mm ents an d no t a ppreciate the po s- itive stat ements, con sidering them disingenu ou s (Parkes et al. , 2013, p. 399; Sch luer, 2022, p. 26) . F or the fr am ework, a strict m acr o structure is avoided . Firstly , the emp irical findin gs o n the effectiveness of specific stru ctures , such a s the feedback sandwich , is n ot c o nsidered su fficiently sou nd fo r i n clusion. S ec- on dly, the situa tion o f the RobS does n ot allo w for the teacher to have pr ior kno wledge ab out r outinely implemented feedba ck p ractices, thus complica ting 7 Devel op i ng a Fr amew ork f or Fee dback Co m pete nce o n Writi ng in the EFL c ontext 119 their evalu ation of the ap propriateness of such structur es. Thirdly, the RobS is a dyna mic situation i n which the pa rticipan ts a re n ot fully in con trol , as t h e stand- ard ize d lea rner is not a p a ssive listener, b u t a n a ctive participan t wh o enga ges an d potentially in terrupts t he dialogu e, co n sciou sly steering t h e con versation in a sp ecific direction. Hence, it co uld be con s idered u nfa ir to in clude a fixed stru c- ture in the fra mework an d co nsequ ently in t h e assessm ent instru men t, kn owing that participants might n ot be a ble to fu lfill this crite rion . N o netheless, there a re other structu ral elements which are con si dered im porta nt f or a feedback m es- sag e tha t a re no t included in the framework. For example, a personal gr eet ing an d address, a r eference to t he le a r n er’s p r o gress, explai nin g t he p urp ose of the con versation ar e elements tha t are often advoca ted fo r (see Sch luer, 2022, p. 24 for an o verview). These elements are n ot inclu ded fo r i n dividua l r eason s . The situation of the specific R o b S takes pla ce aft er t he lesson, t hus a pers o na l greet- ing ha s p robably a lre ad y occu rred a nd is thus not ob ligator y (see Chapter 8). A reference to the learn er’s progr ess is com plica ted due to the fa ct that in this ap prox i ma tion o f practice, the in formation on the learner is sparce a nd no pre- viou s wor k o f the lea rner is pr ovided for time con strain ts, m akin g a ctua l pro g ress feedback difficult (Voerm an et a l., 2012). Th e pu rpose o f the con versa tion is a lso no t con sidered, a s it is the learner in this situ ation who a sks fo r feedback, m aking such a sta tement sup erfluo us (see C ha pter 8 a nd A ppendix A for more infor- ma tion on the sp ecific co ntext of th e RobS a nd ma terial) . Motivat io n Mo tivation is ob viou sly a relevan t asp ect of feedba ck (Narciss, 2006, p. 32) an d ha s b een con sidered partially in the fr amework in the fo rm of Po sitive feedback (see C ha pter 7.3.1.1) . Consid ering that mo t ivation can be defin ed a s “ an in tern al state tha t a rouses, d irects, an d maintain s behavio r” (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 376) , Pos- itive feedback m ight positively in fluen ce the interna l sta te, if rela ted to the task, pro cess o r self -re gu lation , wh ile still relating to the text, wh ich is the focu s of the RobS. Other potential so urces t ha t m ight in fluence m otiva tion a re not n eces- sar ily related to the text or the task , like general interest in the sub ject o r topic, as well a s issues beyond the scope of th e classr oom. While in a ctua l pra ctice these issues cer tain ly con tribute to learne rs’ m otivation in th e classro om and influ ence th eir beha vior , their inclu sion in the fra mework migh t sh ift the fo cus awa y from t h e te xt and towa rds a ge n eral c o nsu ltation o f t he le a rner’s sit ua tion. As the simu lation is an “ap proxima tio n of p ractice” (Gross ma n, Co mp ton, et a l ., 2009, p. 2077) , it a llows for the r eduction o f co mplexity and p lacing of certain emph ases. Therefore, a spects of m otivati o n tha t a re beyon d the text a re no t inclu ded in th e framework. 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 120 While a lot o f care ha s been p ut into the design of the framework, a nd some of the exclu ded dim ensions det a iled an d t heir exclu sion reasoned, it is p ossible, if n ot likely, tha t po tentially relevant aspects ha ve n ot b een con sidered o r in- cluded. Consequ ently, the fra m ework is of a prelimin ary na ture an d can function as a st a rting point fo r further discussion o n the t o pic, certainly allowin g for am endm ent and e xclu sion of aspect s and other modifica tions. The next ch ap ter will present the RobS that h as been de veloped, b ased on this framework. 8 A RobS t o Assess Feedb ack Comp ete nce on Writi ng in t he EFL context This cha pter will la y ou t the properties o f the Rob S as the test in strumen t tha t was developed in this thesis a nd will be structured a ccord i ng to the three d istinct pha ses o f the RobS: The prepa ration, the sim ula tio n and the assessm e n t (see Figure 16 ). Each section will d isplay the fi n al vers ion of the material tha t was used an d developed in this study. Figur e 16 : Sch ema ti c p r o c edu re o f th e RobS ( A d a p t e d and t ra n sl at ed f r o m Wotsch e l & Janz en, in p repa r at ion) . Prepara tion The pr epara tion phase ha s a duration o f 1 5 m inu tes a nd a llows pa rticipants to get ready for the simu l ation . Participan ts sit at a table and a re pr ovided with writing ute n sils, a timer, water a n d fruit loz en ges. Most importantly, pa rticipants ha ve time to wo rk through the material packa ge, which includ es th e fo llowing docu men ts (see Append ix A ): • M0 V ignette (e.g., context an d task descrip tion ); • M1 The lea ner text; • M2 The ta sk for the text; • M3 Excerpt fro m the series of lesso ns on t he top ic ; • M4 S ample text from the series of lesso ns ; 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 121 • M5 Emp ty sheet for n otes. The ma terial p ackage is predom i na n tly in English , except for M 3 and a fictiona l quo te from the S L in M 0. In M 0, t he p articipa nt is p r ovid ed with t he t ask . T hefo llowi n g i n formation on the situation is given : You have b een w o r king as an Englis h teac her at the H einz -Nix dorf- [compre h en sive s c h o o l] f o r 4 mo nths n ow. In yo ur 9 th grade y o u made an offer to provide y o u r stude n ts wit h fee dback i n the writing process. One of y o u r students has thus hande d in he r fi rst draft of a new spa per report afte r the 6th lesso n in your plan. She sta ted th e followin g: “ Kö n- nen Sie bitte schau en, ob das s o i n Ordnun g ist? Ich bin mir nicht siche r, ob das alles s o passt.“ (M0; ada ptation made by TJ ) The lea rner in that s itua tion a s ks, i n German: “Could you plea se h a ve a loo k at this? I am n ot sure if a ll of this is okay.” In a ddition, pa rticipants receive the fol- lowing infor mation about the le a rner: “ Mia is 15 years old and rather avera ge in English, h er grades a re bet ween 3 and 4, thou gh the la st cl ass test was a 5+ ” (M0) . The par ticipant then receives the following task: You have 15 Minutes t o p r epa re fo r a fee dback conver s ation, b ase d o n the lea rner tex t as well as t h e a dditi onal mat e r ial . Th e c onver sation is t o take plac e durin g t he 10-minute- b rea k aft er th e le sson. You ca n als o a dd some written rema rks f or Mia to the t ext. (M0) The situa tion has been purposefully des ign ed so tha t Mia a ppr oaches t he teacher. This b ehavio r in dica tes tha t M ia appr eciates the fe edba ck p rocess an d is willing to take action , b oth ar e asp ects of feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018, pp . 1316 – 1318 ; see a lso Cha pter 6. 1.2). Fur thermor e, seeking feedba ck is a self -regu lation strategy, and an a spect which the teacher can provide positive feedback on (see Chap ter 7.3.1.2). It also s pecifica lly states that the text is a fir st dra ft o f the news r eport, reflecting the learning objectives in M 3 , in th a t m ultiple dra fting is planned fo r in this series of le sso ns. This a ligns wit h a process a p- pro ach to writing a s indicated in Chap ter s 6.2 a nd 7.3.2.2 . M1 contain s the le ar ner t ext , which is t h e Mia has cr eated during t he le sso n. In or der to facilitate commen ting, an extra m ar gi n is pr ovided o n the right sid e (M1). The text is su ppo sed to be a news report, the r eport bein g a genre which learn ers need to m aster to ach ieve the B1 l evel , a ccor ding to the CE FR (see Cha p- ter 6.2. 3). This genr e has also b een c ho sen as it can be a ssum ed tha t participan ts ha ve suff icient knowledge to eva lua te thi s type o f text as it mo stly relates to genera l knowledge. The t ext shows in stan ces in whic h t h e learner h as already succeeded, as we ll as several areas in need o f imp rovem ent. I t inclu des a variety of features co ncern ing the text dim ension s as described by Becker-M rotzek (2014 , p. 508) a nd pr esented in Cha pter 7.3.3.1 tha t ca n be ad d ressed in the feedback con versation . There ar e fea t u res on the surfa ce - level co nsiderin g 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 122 lan guage correctness, like spelling, punctu a tion and lexico -grammar . For exam- ple, the word paren ts is sp elled a s * para n ts . Frequently, as a n exa mp le for lan- gua ge appropriateness, the present si mp le/bare in fi nitive is used in the text alt- ho ugh a past tense, i.e., past sim ple, is re qu ired in the sp ecific context. With regar d to deep- level fea tures, th e text is, fo r exam ple, m issing a hea dline , distinct pa ragraph s on a stru ctu ra l level , a nd excludes specific pieces o f r equired infor- ma tion in terms o f content. Also , no revisi on marks a re vis ible in the text co n- cerning the pro cess level. Ad ditiona lly, the text in clud es sev era l error pa tt ern s. For in stance, the p a st simple is u sed in consistently thro ugh ou t t he t ext, o ften the present sim ple/ba re in finitive is used i nstead , an d if used, the p ast sim ple is form ed in correct ly fo r irr egular verbs. Also, several false cognates, i.e., L1 - infer- ences, a re fo un d in the text which is typi cal for lea rners that have Germ an a s their L1. Th ere a re erro neous text featu res tha t ca n be reg a rded a s relevan t f or ach ieving the le a rnin g o bjective. This relates m ost importan tly to genre -sp ecific features like the use of past t ense when repo rting on a past event, the ob jective an d n eutral tone of a news repo rt, a nd the stru ctura l elements su ch as a h ead- line. However, there a re a lso erro rs tha t a re n ot directly r elated to the gen re, lik e spelling m istakes or L1- inferential false c ogn ates. A list of featur es that could potentially be dia gno sed in the text and addressed in the feedba ck conver sa tio n is depicted in Table 2. Ta b l e 2: Text f ea tu res to diagnos e an d ad dre s s in the fe edba ck c on versatio n . Aspect Succe ss ful as p ects Errors / Discrep ancie s bet we en curr ent and des ired s tate Possible corr ection s Langu age corr ectnes s Missing pre position before Tue s- day On Tue sday Missing agreeme nt (* wi n ) wins False c ognate: action project Missing q u otation mar ks ( Plan t trees f or bees ) “Plant trees f or bees ” *envire nmetal ministe r Ministe r f or th e En vir o nme nt Synt ax: * to o w as there … was there, t oo. Missing colon a n d full stop i n t he direct quotat ion He sai d: “… .” False c ognate: become received, got Synt ax: even We eve n receive d … *for plan t for planti ng *t re s s trees 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 123 Aspect Succe ss ful as p ects Errors / Discrep ancie s bet we en curr ent and des ired s tate Possible corr ection s Exc lama tion mar k no t ap propriat e for the g e nre False c ognate: * It gi ve There ar e Pr e positi on: * We r aise m on ey wit h We rais ed money by Langu age corr ectnes s Wrong conjugat ion: * buye d bought Missing comma: * Also Also, Wrong p u nctuati on (c o lon): * the bank p aid 5€ p er c ollected kil o ga r- bage: 207kg garbage were co l lected and 1035€ dona ted Missing ag reement : 207kg o f gar- bage was c o llected * 207kg of garba g e w ere collect e d *para nts, *grandp arant s parent s, gran dp a r ent *spee ck Speak / speech Tuesda y; g ym - nasium; was there Langu age appr opriaten ess Wrong Tense ( wi n , is , meet, sa y s , become, r aise, *speec k ) Won, wa s, m et, sai d , rec eived, raised, s aid Copying of ‘ NRW Umweltp reis’ wit ho ut quotati on mar ks o r pa ra- phr a sing Use of subjec tive la n gua ge (we) they We raise m oney with selli ng w affles, selling a r t… We raised money by selling waf fles and a rt. Also* So, Neutral begi n- ning of the news re port Structu re Missing headli ne Early p o sitio nin g of qu otes Position them la ter in the text *It give d iffe ren t pro jec ts . Missing audie nce gui d ance Missing co herence: * Als o t he bank paid 5€ per col lected kilo ga rbage Value statement: It wa s an amazin g event. Lead inclu des relevant info r- mat ion; q uo ta- tions 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 130 Aspect of th e f ramew ork Verbal trigger (Origina l) Verbal trigger ( Engli s h ) L2/FL w riting pe d agog y Adaptive error corr ec- tion Nein, da s weiß ich nicht. (As a rea ction to a questi o n. ) No, I d on’ t know. (As a rea ction to a ques - tion.) Können Sie das noch mal er- klären? Could y o u expla in it a gain? Focused erro r selecti o n - - Target- or i entation - - Pro c ess orientati o n Muss ich den Text noc h mal schrei ben/mache n? Do I have to write the text agai n? Prioritiz a tion of deep- level featu res - - Diagn osis La ngu age appr o priate- ness Ist das s o wie ei n Z eitungs be- richt sei n soll ? Is this like a real news re- port sho uld b e? La ngu age corr ectnes s Ist das richti g so? Ich b i n mi r unsiche r. Is this co rrec t? I am no t sure. Structu re Ist das v om Aufbau her in Ordnu ng? Is the st ructu re okay? Conten t Ist vom In halt h er alles dr i n? Is everyt hing i nclude d with rega rd to cont ent? Pro c ess - - In for mation Detailedne ss - - Pro f e s sional accu ra c y - - La ngu age accu r acy - - Assessmen t The pa rticipan t’ s perfo rman ce in the simula tion is a ssessed using a scoring in- strum ent. For a ssessm ent, only the b eh a vi or of the p articipant is a ccounted fo r . The b eha vior of the SL is no t considered, a s they are instru cted to beha ve in a stand ard ize d mann er an d their action s do no t indica te the success of the feed- ba ck conversation . Assessment c o uld occur either con currently o r su bsequently to the perfo rma nce. If assessment is do ne co ncu rrently, two a ssessor s ar e ad- vised in o rde r to a ch ieve a reliable item score (see Chap ter 15.4). If a ssessm ent is do ne s u bsequen tly, a video record i ng of the RobS is ad vised to ensur e relia- bility . In the fo llowing, the instr um ent wil l first b e presented a s a whole, a nd mo re details on the ind ivid ua l items p rese nted thereafter. 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 131 The scorin g in strumen t, as presented in Table 4, is used to ass ess the perfor - ma nce 90 . It co nsists o f 24 i tems in to tal, wh ich lea ds to the m ax imum sco re of 48 poin ts. Four different types of items are u s ed in the scorin g in strum ent. Dichot- om ous items are sco red with either two or zero poin ts. Of th ese 13 items, twelv e are event- ba sed and scored with two p oi nts if a described event o ccur s (or, in the case of Self, d oes no t occu r) at lea st once. On e dicho to mo us it em ( Body lang u age ) con siders the wh ole du ration o f the RobS a nd is technically based on relative-fr equency of beha vior , b ut is gr ouped with d ichotom ou s items du e to the sco ring sim ilar itie s. The ite m s Re visio n an d Adap tive er ro r correction are tiere d even t-ba sed, i. e., the observ ed event that rela tes to the h ighest item scor e for these cr iteria is scored. T h e i tem scores of zero, one or two points are differ- entiated. There a re two conditiona l relative frequ ency -ba sed items, Quality of Fe e d Back a nd Dialogu e orienta tion . For t he it em score t o be included i n t he t est score, specific events ha ve to o ccur at lea s t on ce. If th e event ha s o ccurred, the relative frequ ency is co nsid ered. O verall, s even items a re either ba sed o n relative or absolute frequ ency a nd are scored with either zero poin ts, one poin t, o r two poin ts. Relative fr equency con siders the s ha re o f o bserved beha vio r co mpared to the who le perfo rma nce. The qua lifiers that are used to describe this relativ e frequen cy ar e never (z ero p oints), someti mes (on e poin t) and often (two p oints). Never clear ly indica tes that behavior is not eviden t in the RobS . So me time s, a s a qua lifier, refers to b eha vi or that is evident, bu t less fr equent tha n half of the time (Bocklisch et a l. , 2012, p. 148) . Often refers to b eh a vior that is m ore freq u ent in relation to a q ualifier tha t describes b ehavior a s occurring half of the time (Bock - lisch et al., 2012, p. 148) . These three quali fiers a re perceived a s near ly eq uidis- tant in their r elation to frequ ency , a s repo rt ed by Bo cklisch et a l. (2012, p. 147) . Abso lute frequ ency co nsid ers the distinct instan ces o f beha vior that occu r a nd is specific to ea ch ite m . A detailed ra ting m a nual wh ich provides further specifi- cation s an d examples can be found in Ap p end ix B. Each item is derived fro m the fra mework an d can be viewed a s a co r respo ndin g operationaliz a tion. 90 Th e p resente d scoring in strument rep resent s the final versi on after valida tion. S ome ite ms from pre- vious ve r sions have b een excl uded after relia bility anal yses (see C hapte r 15.4.1. 3.1 ). 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 132 Ta b l e 4: Sco r in g inst rument for th e Rob S . Dichotom ous Cr iteria Exp lanation 0 2 Self-ev aluation TP 91 asks the learner for their o wn evaluat ion o f t he pe rformanc e (task, pr oces s or self-re gulatio n) , e.g ., by aski ng the lear ner fo r spe - cif ic challenges or spec ific aspect s the learne r succ eede d in. Positive feedback TP menti o ns s pecific aspect s t hat the learne r ha s achiev ed success - fully conce r ni ng the task, proce ss or self - reg u lat ion (no t self) at least o nce. Learning objectives (Feed Up) TP clea rly states at lea s t o ne contex t -r el evant a nd speci fic learnin g objective. Process TP a d d resses asp ects of t h e pr ocess of solvin g the task (feed up/back/ forwa rd) at lea st o nce. Self-regulat ion TP a d d resses the use o f speci fic strategi es (fee d up/ back/f or war d) on a metac ogniti ve level at least onc e. Self TP does not a ddress the lear ner’s perso nal level , e.g ., no gene ric praise or critic ism of t he l earn er is give n . Priori tiz ation of deep-level features TP fi r st p ro vi des fee dback on deep-level featu r es that n eed i m- proveme n t, e.g., c o nte nt or s tr ucture. Err or patt erns TP explic itly add resses err o r patte rn s (e.g. tense, i rr e gula r ve rbs, L1 - infe r e ntial erro rs like false frie nds or co gnates) an d provide s feedback on t hem (KR, KCR or furthe r elabo ratio n) at le ast once. Surfac e: Lang uage correctnes s TP refe rs to asp ects of lan g ua ge c o r r ect ness , e.g., formi ng of past simple at lea st o nce. Surfac e: Lang uage appropriateness TP refe rs to asp ects of lan g ua ge a ppropriate ness , e. g., ina ppropri - ate use of tense s at l east once. Deep: Structure TP refe rs to asp ects of str ucture , e. g., cohesi o n, hea dlin e or a ud i- ence- or ie ntati o n at least onc e. Deep: Content TP refe rs to asp ects of c o nte nt , e.g., mi ss in g i nforma tio n at lea st once. Body languag e TP c o nsist ently c onvey s att entiv eness t hrou gh body lan g uage, ap- prop riate eye-c o ntac t a nd fac ial expr ess i o ns. 91 TP is the abbre viati on of test pers on. 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 133 Conditional Relativ e Frequency -bas ed C riteria Condition Avail abl e p oints Achieved points Yes No 0 1 2 Dialogue orient a- tion The trig - gered en- gageme nt is at least once cogni- tively d e- mandin g for the learne r an d relevant for the feed- back co n- versatio n. TP does not involve the learne r i n the feed- back co n- versatio n, e.g., throug h questi ons or prom pts whic h ar e at least o nce cognitively demandi ng for the learne r. TP som e- times in - volves the learne r i n the feed- back co n- versatio n, e.g., throug h questi ons or prom pts. TP ofte n in- volves the learne r i n the feed- back co n- versatio n, e.g., throug h questi ons or prom pts. Quality of Feed Back The feed - back is at least o nce explic itly provide d agai ns t specific learnin g objectives. TP neve r provide s feedback that is acc u- rate, clea r and on a descri ptive level. TP provid es feedback that is sometime s ac curate, clea r and on a de- scriptive level. TP provid es feedback that is often ac curate, clea r and on a de- scriptive level. 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 134 Tiered Event-bas ed Criteria Avail abl e p oints Achieved points 0 1 2 Revision TP does not stat e that t he feedback needs to be use d for revisi on or f o r future ta sks or TP i s not clea r/contradic- tive in their in - structio n. TP a d vise s (but d oes not i n st ruct) the learne r t o use the feedback, e.g., for revisi on or f o r fut ure tasks. T his includ es revisi on in clas s or at home. TP clea rly instruct s that the text needs to be re- vised usi ng the feedbac k. This inc ludes revision in cla ss or at home. Adapt ive error correction TP does not provide an o p- portunity for self-co rr ecti on and only pro - vides explic it and direct feed- back TP at least once pro- vides o pportuniti es for lear ner self -cor- rection but ex plicit feedback is p ro vi d ed subseq uently with- out a n i nterm ediate step. Oppo rtun ity for self- correc tion ca n be a questi on or im- plicit /indirect fe ed- back. TP at least once provide s oppo rtun itie s f or lear ner self-co rr ecti on t hrough graded feedba ck tha t be- gins wit h a questi on and includes at lea st one in- termediate ste p bef or e providin g explic it fee d- back. Rel at ive an d Absolute Frequency -b ased C riteria Avail abl e p oints Achieved points 0 1 2 Quality of Feed Forward TP provid es ca lls to action that are never pos itive, unambi guous and specif ic. TP provid es ca lls to act ion that are sometimes posi - tive, unam b ig uous and specific . TP provid es ca lls to ac tion that are o fte n pos itive, unambi gu - ous an d specific . 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 135 Rel at ive an d Absolute Frequency -b ased C riteria 0 1 2 Achieved points Target - oriented error selection TP does not pro- vide feed b ac k on selected errors, error patt erns or mista kes t hat ar e relevant for ac hieving the learnin g objec - tives. Errors, e rror pat- terns or mistake s are disc ussed chronol o gical ly wit ho ut s elect ing specific e rrors. TP som etimes provi des feedback on selec ted e r- rors, error pat terns or mi s- takes that are relevant f or ac hieving the learning ob- ject ives. Othe r err ors, er ror pat - terns or mistake s that are not dir ectly relate d t o t he learnin g objective s a r e discus sed equa lly. TP ofte n provide s feedback on se- lect ed e r r o r s, e rro r pattern s or mista kes that are r el evant f or ac hieving the learn- ing obj ectives. Othe r err ors, er ror pattern s or mista kes that are not direct ly related to the learn- ing obj ectives ca n be discu ssed ma r- ginally . Detailed- ness TP only provi des KR or KCR with- out sp ecific elab- oratio n , i.e., o nly the corr ect s olu- tion is given o r it is said whet her somet hing is (in)c orrect. TP som etimes provi des specific elab o rate d feed - back, e. g., expla ins r ules, gives reas ons or provide s exam ples. KCR and KR d ominate, i. e., only t he c orrect sol ution is given or it is said wheth er somet hing is (i n)corr ect. TP ofte n provide s specific elab o rate d feedback, e.g., ex- plains rul es , gives reasons or p ro vi d es exam ples. In some insta nces, only KCR is pro - vided, i.e., on ly the correc t solutio n i s given. Amount and balance of infor - mation TP provid es an inapp ropriate amount o f infor - mat ion (too little, too much ) , re- gardle ss of bal- ance b etween surface- an d deep-level fea- tures. TP provid es an a ppro pr i - ate amou nt i nformat ion on diffe rent asp ects of t h e text and the writin g pr o- cess (ab o ut 3-5 a s pects ). Howeve r, su r fac e- a nd deep-level featur es are not a ddressed in a bal- anced proporti o n. TP provid es an a p- prop riate am ount informa tion o n dif- ferent asp ects of t he text and the writin g process ( a b o ut 3- 5 aspects). Surfac e- a nd deep- level featu r es are addresse d in a bal- anced proporti o n. Checking under- sta nding TP neve r a s sures themselve s of learne r’ s u nd e r- standin g a nd does no t adapt to their nee ds, e.g., by rep hrasing or TP a s sures them selves a few times, b ut at lea st once, o f learner ’s unde r - standin g a nd adapts to their nee ds, e.g., b y re- phr a sing or g ivin g alte rna- tive explana ti ons. TP a s sures them - selves seve ral time s of lea rn e r’s und er- standin g a nd adapts to their needs, e.g., by rep hrasing or giving alt ernat ive explana tions. 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 136 Rel at ive an d Absolute Frequency -b ased C riteria giving alt ernat ive explana tions. 0 1 2 Achieved points Lang uage ac curacy TP show s con - sistent inacc ur a- cies and error s i n the Engli sh lan - guage that either in sum or indivi d- ually potentiall y hinder learni ng. This inc ludes speakin g Englis h as well as whe n tal king a bout th e English lan g uage, e.g., pr oviding correc tions or rules on surfac e- level featu r es. TP pred ominantly uses t he foreign langua ge co r- rectly . Howeve r , the T P also sh ows rare insta nces of inaccu r aci es a n d erro rs that potenti ally hi nder learnin g, e. g., providi ng incor r ect c o rrect ions. This inc ludes sp ea king English as well as when tal king a bout th e Englis h languag e, e.g., providi ng correc tions or rules on surface-le vel feat u res. TP use s t he f oreign languag e corr ectly alm o st alwa ys with only a few mino r in- ac curacies that do not p otentially h i n - der lear ning , e.g., providin g i n co rr ect correc tions. This inc ludes sp ea k- ing Englis h as well as whe n tal king about the English languag e, e. g., providin g c o rrec - tions or r ule s on surface-le vel fea - tures. Profes- sional ac curacy TP show s con - sistent inacc ur a- cies whe n a d- dressin g profes - sional non- lan - guage rel ated as- pects a nd p ro vi d- ing info rmatio n on them, e.g., deep-level fea- tures an d lea rn - ing strategi es. TP does not ad - dress no n- lan - guage rel ated, e.g., dee p-level feat ur es an d learnin g strate- gies TP i s pre dominantl y c or- rect whe n add ressing pr o- fessiona l non-lang u age related aspects and providin g i n fo r mat ion on them, e. g., dee p- level fea- tures an d lea rn in g strate- gies. How ever , TP als o show s rare insta nces of in- ac curacies an d e rrors t hat do p otentially hind er learnin g, e. g., providi ng incor r ect c o rrect ions. TP i s alway s c o rrec t , e.g., doe s not p o- tentia lly hinder learnin g w h en ad- dressin g profes - sional non- lan - guage rel ated as- pects a nd p ro vi ding informa tion o n them, e. g., dee p- level featu r es an d learnin g strategie s . Sum Max: 48 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 137 Mo st of the event-b ased items a re a direct r esult o f a spects in the theo retica l fra mework an d na med equally (i.e., Self- evaluat io n, Positive f eedback, Learn i ng objectives ( Feed Up ), Process , Self - regula tion, Self, Surface: Language c orrec tness, Surface: La nguage appropri ateness, Deep: St ructure , a nd Deep: C onte nt ) . They wil l no t be d iscussed in more detail h ere a s the explan a tion in Table 4 suffices a nd add itiona l i nfo rmation is also provided in the r ating manual (see App endix B ). The opera tiona lization o f the item Pr ioritiza tio n of deep- level features deviates from its or igins, wh ich a rgu e th a t the prioritiz ation sh ould occur in relation to mu ltiple dra fts (see Cha pter 7. 3.2.2). For th e con text o f the RobS, it wa s cha ng ed , so tha t the in itial fo c us o f th e conversation is on deep -level fea tures, as su c h a tempora l prioritization within the R ob S m ight serve as a n ind ic ation of ho w teachers va lu e different featur es of th e text. The item Error pa tterns is d erived from the asp ect of F ocused error s election in the framewor k (see Chap ter 7.3. 2.2). Th is a spect, am on g o ther features, d escribes tha t it is m ore beneficia l to pro vide feedback o n error patt erns. Thus, the ite m evaluates whether the participa nt pro vides feedback o n an erro r patt ern wh ich they ha ve identified in the text. It is o peration alized as su ch, so that th e extent a nd quality in which the feedba ck is pr ovided is no t to be consid ered for this item. The item Body language is ad- dressed in Chapter 7.3.2.1 as p ar t of Dialogu e orie nt a tion . It is sp ecifically o per- ation alized as attentiveness in behavior tha t can be considered t o be supportive of Dialogue ori en tation , i.e., the o verall po sture, eye -co ntact a nd fa cia l exp res- sion s. Two items a re descr ibed a s tiered event - b a sed. Th e item Re vision d escribes three tie rs of q ua lity, in which pa rticipan ts can a ddress the issu e of whether the text n eeds to be revised ba sed o n the feedba ck , a nd is i n r eference to the a spect Process ori en tation ( Chapter 7. 3.2.2). Zero points a re scored if the p art icipa nt indica tes that no revision has to occu r, as t h is clearly co ntrad icts the process ap proach to writing, which is a lso in dic a ted in the m aterial (M4). One p oint is scored if the revision is advised bu t not m anda tor y. Su ch a n event indica tes that the p articipa nt is a w are o f the b enefits o f the wr iting pro cess, but it is no t en- sured tha t the feedb ack is actua lly used by the learn er. Two po ints a re then scored if there is a clear instructio n by the participan t th a t rev ision has to o cc ur , as this a ligns most clear ly with a pro cess appro ach. The item Adapt iv e err or c or- rection is related to the a spect of the sa me n a me (see Cha pter 7.3.2.2 ). It is o p- eration alized a s such that zero p oi nts a re scor ed if no o p po rtun ity f or self - cor- rection is p r ovid ed. O n e po i nt is score d if a t least on e o pportunity for self -co r - rection is pr ovided, b ut it is directly fo llo wed by explicit f eedba ck, wh ile two poin ts ar e scored if there is a n intermediary in stan ce of implicit or in direct feed- ba ck as a sort of scaffolding between self -co rrection opportun ity a nd explicit feedback. 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 138 Two items are described as co ndition al fre qu ency - ba sed. The condition s ar e events tha t a re rela ted to the frequ ency -b ased ite m and which have t o occur within the perfo rma n ce in ord er to include th e item sco re in the a ggr egated test score. For the item Dialogu e orient at io n, the con ditional event is a n instance in which the engagement tha t the par ticipa n t initiates is cognitively dem an ding at least on ce. Th is co ndition is ad ded to ens ure tha t no po ints a re scor ed if dia - logu e occu rs, bu t it is o nly o n a perso n a l level, withou t relating to the con text. Enga gement is co g nitively d ema ndin g if it i nvo lves the learn er m or e d eeply with sub ject-relevant issues a nd is outlined in more d etail in the r ating m anua l . Points are t hen sco red fo r t he e xtent to which the participan t engages the SL in the con versation , rega rdless o f t he focus o f th at engagemen t. For Quality of Fe ed Back, the co ndition requ ires an instance i n wh ich the fee dback in f ormation is directly rela ted to a sp ecific learn ing o bjective. S uch an event is po tentially qu ite impa ctful fo r lea rning , a s it clea rly ind ic ates the gap b etwe en the current and desired sta te. The poin ts a re then sco red for the fr equency with wh ich qualitative feed ba ck occurs. The qua lifiers are a ccura cy, cla rity an d d escriptiveness. Accu - racy r efers indirect ly to the a s pect o f information (see C hapter 7.3.3.2). Th e other qua lifiers, clarity and descriptiveness, direct ly refer t o the co mm un icative aspect of th e framework, emphasizing th e necess ity to ar ticulate the feed ba ck in for- ma tion precisely an d in a no nevalua tive man ner (see Cha pter 7.3.2. 1). Sim ilarly, Quality of Feed Forw ard also p rovid es po i nts with rega rd to the fr equency with which qualitative feed fo rwar d is pro vided. Qu ality is opera tio na lized a s positive, un ambiguous a nd specific, which all refer back t o Ch a pter 7.3.2.1. The fi rst qu a l- ifier refers ba ck t o Rosenberg’s concept of p ositive action l a nguage (Rosenberg & Holler, 201 6, p . 75) . Furthermo re, the a ctions tha t the lea rner is sup posed to take sh ou ld be un ambigu o u s, e .g., it sho uld be clear ly com municated what they ha ve to do, a n d specific in tha t the ca lls t o a ction directly relate to an issue in the text a nd ho w the learn er c a n im pr ove on tha t distinct issue. Besides the dicho tomo usly opera tionalize d item Body language a nd the con- ditiona l re la tive-frequ ency-based items, there are th ree fu rther relative fre- quen cy-ba sed items. Th ey co nsid er the r elative sha re of wh ich the described beha vior occ ur s co m pa red t o the whole duration of the conversation . Quality of Fe e d Forw ard h as alrea dy been add ressed with Q ualit y of Feed B ack. The item Tar g et-ori ented er ror selection combin es two aspects of C ha pter 7.3.2.2, i.e., Tar- get o rien tation a nd Focused E rror se lectio n , a nd reflects the sh ar e of feedback that is relevan t for the learning o bjectives. The ite m Detailedness refl ects the sha re of feedba ck that is p rovided with el a bora tion, e.g ., with a dditional infor- ma tion b eyond a correct solution (KC R) or statements o f (in -)corr ectness (KR ). The last four it ems are absolu te frequency -based, as they co nsider a distinct nu mber of instances within the p erforman c e. Amount a nd b alance of infor mat io n 8 A RobS t o Ass ess Feed back C ompetenc e on Writin g in th e EFL contex t 139 is reflective o f the a spect of F ocused er ror sele c tion in the fra mework (Cha pter 7.3.2.2). Th e item com bines the n otion of co nscio usly r educing the am ount of feedback , so as not to overload th e lear ner, with the findings that an o ver a ll ba lance with regard to text-level features is mor e beneficial ( Cha pter 7.3.2.2 ). Zero po ints a re pro vided if th e amou nt of info rmation is either too litt le o r too high , rel a ting especia lly to the notion of se lective feedback. On e poin t is scored if the amount is a ppropria te, which is defined as about three to five a spects, but there is an imb ala nce between surfa ce - and deep- level fea tures. The specif ic nu mber of aspects is kept con sciously vague in o rder to allow for performance - specific consid erations, esp ecially if errors a re grouped and clustered in the feedback con vers a tion. Two points are the n sco red if the amo un t is a ppropriate an d there is a balance of text -level features. The item Check ing un dersta n ding is the op erationa lization of the asp ect Adaptat ion of content (s ee Cha pter 7.3.2. 1), in th at, it acco un ts for the distinct num ber o f times in wh ich the pa rticipan t as- sures themself of the lea rner’s u nderstan ding. This step is a pr erequisite for a d- ap tation, a nd als o indica tes the ext ent t o wh ich the p ar ticipant ass ur es themself that the learn er is a ctua lly ab le to use the feedba ck later on, w hich is essential con sidering feedback lite ra cies (see Cha pter 6.1. 2). The item Lan guage accuracy con siders t he i nsta nces in w h ich t he p art icipa nt u ses erroneous lan g ua ge, either when talking a bo ut featu res of the Eng lish la nguage or spea king in En glish, th at can be co nsidered harmful for the learning process. Zero p oints a re sco red if ina ccuracies tha t could potentially b e ha rmfu l to learn ing o ccur consistently. One p oint is scored if there a re only rare in stan ces of inaccura cies th at b ear po - tential to h in der learnin g, while two po ints a re sco re d if only few an d m i no r in- accu ra cies occur tha t do no t potentially im ped e learn ing. The item Profes sional accuracy is o peration alized sim ilarly, b ut as erro rs in pro fessionality a re co nsid- ered to n ecessarily lea d to lear nin g im pediments, two po ints a re o nly score d if no errors ar e made. On e point is sco red i f the pa rticipan t is pr edo m inantly cor- rect, while zero poin ts are sco red if in accur a cies o ccur consistently. The a ccur acy items thus sligh tly devia te with rega rd to their op eration alization o f fre qu ency to acco un t f or the importan ce of providin g co rrect infor mation to the lea r ner. The scor ing in strum ent, as presented in its fina l version h ere, does n ot di- rectly a ddr ess several a spects from the fr a mework. The aspect o f Ta sk is n ot distinctly a ddressed as an even t- ba sed item like Process, Self- reg ula tion or Self, becau se it is addressed in severa l o ther items, especially in the items tha t focus on the dim ension s o f the text a s a product o f the ta sk. Simila rly, Fe ed Back an d Fe e d Forward a re a lso n ot op erationalized as even t- ba sed items like F eed Up , as the focu s is pu t on the frequ ency o f q ua litative events. With rega rd to the for mer, the decision wa s ma de beca use, sim ilar to the ta sk -level, the distinct way in which feed ba ck is provided on the text is differen tiated in o ther items like tha t 15 M ain Su rvey 242 necessar y for the co di ng p rocess. In the second co di ng cycle, the indu ctively developed categories tha t refer to t he scoring instru ment in g eneral , b u t do not fit to the g uiding qu estions a re a pplied to the who le ma terial . Coding un its ar e then co nso lid ated by p a raphra si ng a nd a them atic matrix is c rea ted. Paraphras- ing i s u sed as a metho d to consolida te t ext fra gments and m ake the expert judgem ents m ore com par a ble (M ayring, 2022, p. 70) . Ba sed on pa r a phrases, code su mmar ies are cr eated that co n dense the experts’ judgem ents an d ar e sub sequently used to mo dify the scoring instrumen t. Prelim i nary scoring i nstru ment The sco ring in str um ent tha t is the fo cus in the expert in terviews (see App endix D.5 ) differs su bstan tially fro m the final versio n pr esented in Cha pter 8.3. In ord er to con textualize the expert judg ements a nd the r esults, ma jor differences will be sum marized. Mo st im por tantly, the prelimin ary versio n differed with regar d to the actua l sco ring. First, the ma ximum amoun t of points is three. This allo ws fo r mo re differentiation , especially, fo r the f requ ency - ba sed items. Th e ma ximum o f three poin ts is u sua lly sco red if beh avio r is sho wn a s alway s , e.g. , “ TP always invo lves the learner in the feedback co nversa tion, e.g ., through quest ion s or pro mpts . ” ( see Ap pendix D.5), providing a n add ition a l level of mastery. Also, cr i- teria a re weighted acco rdin g to their co ntribu tion a nd the perceived difficu lty to the feedback co nversa tion. For exa mple, t h e item Self-evalua tion is sco red with three po ints, Posit iv e feedb ack with two points a nd Self with o ne poi nt. O ther deviation s relate t o p reliminary it em n am e s and specific o perationalization s. F or con sistency, related it em titles o f the fin al sco ring instru ment will be pro vided in pa rentheses in the resu lts section . 15.3.3 Results of the Qua litative Expert Intervie ws In the followin g, the r esults of the expert in terviews will b e pr esented. First ly, the focu s will be on the eva lua tive co mm ents the experts m ad e o n the perfo r- ma nces, i.e. the fir st part. Second ly, the evaluation of the scoring instru men t will be focu sed o n, i.e., th e second part. Experts’ Evalua tive Comm ents on the Perform an ces T he r esults of the con tent a na lysis of exp erts’ eva lua tive com men ts o n perfo r- ma nces are presented in th is c ha pter . Fir st, expert- specific su mmar ies will b e pro vided. Seco nd, an overview o f t he ind uct ively developed codes , which repr e- sent the criteria expert s u se, wi ll b e descri bed. The co ding manu al for the inter- views is fou nd in Appendix F.3. 15 M ain Su rvey 243 Expert 1 Expert 1 co nsistently mention s the u se of t he tar get languag e as a cr iterion , but is un sur e ho w strong it shou ld be weighted in the ass essment : E: Also eig entlich/ Ich war i rr itie rt, dass es jetzt auf Deut sch stattgef un- den hat und ich nehme an, die a ngehen d en Lehr perso nen die m üssen sollten da s eigentli ch in der Zielsprac he E n glisc h du rchf ühren. Also da- von bi n ic h jet zt au sgega ngen, d a s s sie das t un sollten und das h at sie nicht g emacht. (E1) (E: S o actual ly/ I wa s con f use d that it to ok place in Germ an an d I assume that the p r ospecti ve tea cher s hould d o thi s i n th e t arget la nguage Eng- lish. S o , that wa s my ass umpti on that they have t o d o it and sh e did not do it.) In the sta tement, the e xpert men tions bei n g surp rised tha t the m a j ority of the con versation took pla ce in Ge rm an , as they assum ed t ha t it was supposed t o be con ducted in Eng lis h. Th e expert also m e ntion s dialogue orien tatio n a s a n im- por tant cr iterion, which is ro oted in r ecent resear ch on feedba ck. Furtherm or e, the potential effect on the lear ners is highlighted in two rega rds. First, the r e- cency effect is discuss ed, especially in the context o f the writing pr ocess, a nd th e fina l m essag e th a t learn ers t ake in . Secon dly , the exp ert discuss es h o w learn ers can a ctua lly use the inform ation tha t w as pre sented to them in the conversa tio n. Also, a deficit orientation is ad dressed negatively, whereas a focu s o n lea r n er pro gression is preferred. Ad d itionally, the expert re fers to erro neou s st a tements that the p ar ticipants m ake in terms of la nguage u se (explicit/implicit ) by the p ar- ticipants, bu t they do no t seem to be weigh ted imm ensely. Also men tio ned are text-specific a spects tha t a re a ddressed in the co nversa tion : Text sur face- level elements d o not seem to be i m por ta nt, whereas an o verall focu s on the genre an d deep-level fea tures seem to be mo re imp ortan t an d a contextualization of mistakes and the task a lso seem to be im por ta nt. La stly, activa ting prio r kno wledge a nd using learning object ives a re a ddressed. Expert 2 Expert 2 consistently men tions deep - a nd su rfa ce-level feedba ck of the text a s two fa cets tha t sh o u ld be a ddr essed an d suff iciently d ifferentiated in the con- versation : E: [ … ] die L e rnende w urde an verschie denen Stellen mit einbezog en, um den Text zu ve rbesse rn, d as ist also ein deu tlic he s P lus , u n d zwar wa r das s ow ohl i n Bezu g auf d eep lev el f eature s als auc h auf Eb ene der surface lev el featur es. Ich fa nd auc h die str ukturiert e Darstellu ng über- zeugend, weil wi r si nd von den deep level fea tures dann zu de n s urface level featu r es ge gangen. (E 2) (E: [ …] the lear ner was included at diffe rent points t o i mprove the text, so t his is a clear p lu s an d this was bo th in rel ation to de e p- level featur es as well as sur fac e-level featu res . I a lso think tha t that the str ucture d 15 M ain Su rvey 244 depictio n wa s c onvincin g becau s e we move d from dee p -level featu res to s ur fac e-l evel feat ur e s.) In the statement, the expert pr aises the fa ct that the resp ective pa rticipan t ad - dressed b oth levels a nd did so in a stru ctu red m an ner. The expert also refers to select ive erro r corr ection as a criterion throu ghout the in terview. Furtherm or e, the im po rtance o f a structure, like u sing th e three aim s o f feedba ck a s describ ed in the mo del of Hattie a nd Timperley (200 7), a nd focu si ng especially on the im - por tance o f the feed forwa rd is m entioned. Also, the expert states th at revisio n of th e text is im portant a n d should be a d vo cated for . It is a lso positively h igh- lighted when the lea r ner is integra ted in the co nversa tion (e.g., in a dia logic wa y ) an d wh en the participan ts are p recise in their feedback . Expert 3 Expert 3 pu ts a stro ng fo cus o n the dia logic asp ect of the feedback co nversa tion , e.g., a ski ng question s, engaging the learn e r a nd adapting to their n eeds : E: [ … ] Also gerad e i n dem Gespräch wird ja auch d e r dia logische C ha- rakter v o m Fe edbac k zi emlich deut lich, den man oft dan n NI C HT so hat viellei cht in and eren Situa tio nen od e r dieje nigen, die n och einem alt en Feedbac kverstä ndnis f olgen. Und ich fin de, si e hat das F orma t auch in der Hi nsicht gut genutzt, a lso, das s sie F ragen gestellt ha t an die Schü- lerin und sie auc h aktiv eingeb unden h at und, d ass sie, j a, auf ih r e Rück- fragen dann a uch ei ngegan g en ist und/ Also d a s jetzt zu d er Gesp rächs- führun g. (E3) E: [ … ] So especia lly in t he c on ve rsatio n t he dialogic c ha racter of feed- back is evi dent, w hich y ou often DO N O T see, may be in other situati ons or those that fo ll o w a n old under standing o f fee dback. An I think, she has also used the forma t well, so, sh e asked the lea r ner q ue stions an d ac tively includ ed h er a nd s he ad dr e ssed questi ons f rom the lea rner / s o this f or conver sational skills. ) In the statement, the expert po sitively h igh lights the d ialog ue in th e con versa- tion, e.g ., a sking questions, adapting to lear ner pro mpts a nd engag ing the learn er in the co nversation. Furthermo re, the emotion al- mo tivational level and student- teacher relation ship is often men tio ned as a fa ctor. It is also positively evalu ated when participan ts refer to the m a terial, e.g., the m od el text o r other exam ples an d fur ther r eso u rces like d ictionar ies , especially as a mea ns to su p- por t learners. The e xpert a lso positively a ddresses the instan ces when p ar tici- pa nts r efer to the overa ll lea rner p ro gressi on , including th e revision of the text, as well a s refer to o bjectives. The in formation in the feedba ck convers ation sho uld focus on sur f a ce-level a nd deep- le vel a spects , b ut n ot be provided in a strictly chron olog ical order. When it comes t o the com mu nicative aspect, the expert focu ses on an overall structure or frame for the conversation a nd prefers a b al a nced approach betwee n d irectly addressing err ors a nd hedg ing of fee d- ba ck. Also, participants’ s pecificity and accuracy are men tioned. 15 M ain Su rvey 245 Expert 4 The ex pert o ften focu ses o n deep- level fe a tures o f the text tha t p rimarily refer to the genr e (e.g., stru cture, register, tense , a n d a ud ience o rientation ) wh en eval- ua ting the feedback perfor mances and c o nsiders t hese more important tha n feedback o n l a nguage. Expert 4 a lso puts an emphasis on the l an guage of the pa rticipan t, as a la c k o f technica l terms an d u se of meta la nguag e a nd sp ecificity are r eason s for fa ilure a s learners wou ld not kno w wha t the mistakes were . Par- ticipants ’ feedback sh ould thus be specific, precise an d provid ed in a structured ma nn er . Expert 4 positively evalu ates t he p rovisio n of positive feedba ck and the requirem ent for revision. The expert also c o mm ents negatively if sel f- evalu ation is initiated: E: [ … ] Now, and I did not like the notio n , I mean, it i s a ll about us and student s an d it wa s n o t a rh et o rical q ues ti o n, l i ke what i s yo ur vi ew, are you hap p y wit h the text? What d o yo u think ab o ut this? If they are happy with it, how a r e they goi ng to b e open f o r fee dba ck? ( E 4 ) Expert 5 Expert 5 focu ses mostly on three aspects . First, the inclusio n and b al a nce of lower a nd h igher -level info rmation in the fe edba ck co nversa tion, c om parab le to surfa ce- and deep- level featur es o f a t ext, in cludin g po sitive feedba ck is m en- tioned. Second , pr ovid ing specific feed forward , so that th e learn er ca n m ove forwa rd in their learn ing progression, especia lly with r egard to the lear ners’ fina l impr ession o f the conversa tion is noted. Third, crea ting a dialo g u e, establishin g a relation s hip with the lea rner, and checking on the learners’ understand ing so that the pa rticipa nts know whether the feedba ck is understood is discussed: E: She vi rtually n ow, with few exce ptions, s he neve r liste ned t o t h e stu- dent at all. It was a st r aight mo no l o gue wit h ver y few exceptions a nd given my knowl edge of f eed back, it is about, no t even, the quality o f what is given b ut th e natu re of w hat i s hea r d an d u nders tood a nd t her e wa s very little ch ecking to see w hethe r the s tu dent u nderst ood. (E5) A sole fo cus o n memo rization and pro viding very detailed inform ation on error s is criticize d. Overview of c riter ia The experts mention a va riety of different a spects when co mm enting o n the perfor mance s. A n overview is pro vid ed in Table 32 . All experts refer to the n e- cessity o f addressing text d eep- level features in the feedba ck conversa tion , fo u r also m ention surface -level featur es. Four experts also explicitly deem it to b e positive when the te a cher and learn er enga ge in a d ialogue , e.g ., w hen the teacher ask s q uestions a nd a ppropria tely reacts to the lear ner’s q uestions. The specificity of the in form ation is mentioned b y fou r experts a s a criterion , too, a s 15 M ain Su rvey 246 is the necessi ty of pr om pting the revision of the text. Three experts a ddress the pro vision of le a rnin g ob jective s as fee d up, the overall st ru cture of the feedba ck con versation a nd the mention ing o f po siti ve a sp ects. Som e criteria h ave b een ad d ressed by fewer tha n three of th e experts. They focu s mo re on the learn er to a certain extent: the fin a l m essa ge th ey receive, th e genera l sup port o f the learn er, their a bility to use the f eedback an d the teach er ensur ing tha t the foc us is o n learner pro gressio n , a n d the emo tional-m otiva- tiona l level. Other a spects tha t a re a ddr es sed b y two experts refer m ore to th e teacher b ehavio r : a voiding a deficit o rientat ion , pro vidi ng feed forward, p rovid- ing accu r a te in formation , a nd usin g th e m aterial or r eferring to other externa l ma terial like textbooks a nd dictionaries . A spects men tioned once a re the u se of target langua ge, co ntextualization, activa tion of pri or k no wledge, selecting errors, b alancin g h edged communication , usin g m eta- lingu istic lan g u age , an d initiating self -eva lua tion . Ta b l e 32 : Cr iteri a fo r th e ass e s sment of fe e db a ck p erfor manc e mentio ned by th e ex p erts . Code Code de scription n Text de ep -l evel feat ur es Expert addres ses text dee p -level feat ures. 5 Dia logue Expert addres ses the engage ment o f the lear ne r in a di alogue . 4 Text surfa ce-level feat ur es Expert addres ses text surface-level f eatures. 4 Revision Expert addres ses the adv o ca cy of revi sion . 4 Specif icity Expert addres ses s pecifici ty. 4 Learni ng objectives Expert addres ses lear ning objectives (Fee d Up) . 3 Struct ur e of t he feedback conve rsation Expert addres ses the s t r uctu re of the feed back c onvers ation . 3 Menti oning pos itive aspect s (first) Expert addres ses me ntioni ng positive aspec ts (first ) . 3 Final m essa ge (Recency ) Expert addres ses the finale message that lea rn e rs have of th e fe ed back conve rsation . 2 Learner suppo r t Expert addres ses the s upport of t he l earn er . 2 Learners ability t o use the informa tion / Checkin g understan d in g Expert addres ses the lear ner ’ s ability t o use the feedbac k and participa nts making sure of it. 2 Defi cit orienta tion Expert addres ses deficit orientat ion, i.e., a deta iled focu s on mistakes and errors. 2 15 M ain Su rvey 247 Code Code de scription n Learner prog res si on Expert addres ses the refere nce to learner progr essi on , ei ther to past or future. 2 Acc uracy (P artic ipa nt) Expert addres ses pa rticipa nts ac curacy , either wit h rega rd to langua ge or othe r pr ofessio nal as pects. 2 Emotional- motiva tional l evel Expert addres ses the emotio n al-motivati onal level an d r elati on shi p . 2 Use of (exte rnal) mat erial Expert addres ses the use of (exte rn al) material. 2 Feed f o rwar d Expert addres ses the provi sion of f eed fo rwar d . 2 Use of targ et languag e Expert addres ses the use of target lan gu age . 1 Context u aliza tion of error s a n d mista kes Expert addres ses the contex tualiza tion of error s a n d mi stakes i n t he t ext context. 1 Act ivati ng prio r knowle dge Expert addres ses the activa tion of prio r knowl edge . 1 Selec ting e rro rs Expert addres ses the s el ecti on of e rrors . 1 Bala ncing hedged communica tio n Expert addres ses balanc ing hedge d c o mmu nica tion wit h m o re direct feedback. 1 Self-eva luation Expert addres ses the initiati on of self -evaluat i on . 1 Metaling u istic languag e Expert addres ses the use of metali nguistic languag e . 1 In con clusion, three ma i n a spects a re a d dressed by a ma j or ity of experts when confronted with the p erformances . The first asp ect refers to the content of t h e feedback con versa tion , wit h a clear focu s on providing bo th su rf a ce-level feedback an d d eep- level feedba ck. It is cri ticized when on ly the su rfa ce- level is add ressed, tho u gh a fo c us o n only deep -level feedback is no t ad dressed by the experts. T h e fact th at in form a tion sh ould b e pro vided with specificity , so tha t learn ers kn ow wh ere exactly the gap is , and what precisely they ha ve to do in order to clo se th a t g ap, and that they inclu de statements with rega rd to wha t the learn er ha s a lready achieved is a lso addressed by fou r experts . Also , m ost experts ad dress t he n ecessity o f a revision of the text, usi n g t h e feedback i n that pro cess to achieve the desired level. The second a spect is reflective o f the gen- eral a pproach to feedba ck, for which experts clear ly fa vor a dialo gic a pproach. The lear ner sho uld be inclu ded in the co nversation , e.g. , by a ski ng qu estions a nd establishin g a relationship betwee n the tea cher and learner th a t is c on ducive to learn ing is enco uraged. The t hird a spect re fers t o structure , as three exper ts ad - dress the n otion of a n o vert con vers a tional structure, i .e., fo llowi ng the model by Hattie and Timperley (2007) an d sta ting learn ing obje ctives. 15 M ain Su rvey 248 Evalua tion o f the S corin g Instrumen t In the followin g, the results of the stru cturi n g content a nalysis with regard to the evalu ation of the sco ring instru ment a re pre sented. Item -specific su m ma ries ar e presented first , fo llowed by the su mmaries o f the rem ain i ng codes that r efer to the gu iding questions or the sco ri ng instrument in gen eral. The cod ing m anual for the interviews is fo un d in Appendix F.3. Self-evaluation This cr iterion is discu ssed by four out of five experts. O verall, those experts ar e in fa vor of in cluding this notion in the evaluation sh eet : E: Ja, al so ich finde ganz zent ral auc h a uf j ede n Fall dies e den Ein bez ug von d e n Lern enden durch d ie Self -Evalua tion, also S elbstevaluat ion gleich am Anfa ng . Al so wi rklich, d a s s e s ein die Lernende n auch kog nitiv auch aktivi ert wer de n und ih nen nicht einf ach nur Feed b ack (lac hen) ja gegebe n wird ohne, dass die das n ur a ufnehmen und nic ht selb e r mit- denken. ( E1 ) (E: Yes, I t hink thi s is r eall y key this incl usio n of t he l earn e rs by self - evalua tion, s o self-evalua tio n at t he begin n in g. So tha t t he l earner i s really co gnitively act ivated and they do n o t ( la ughs) ju st recei ve fe ed- back wit hout taking it i n and thinki ng alo ng .) Expert 1 e mp ha sizes the re levan ce of self- evalua tion occ ur ring at t he beginning as a means of co gnitive a ctivation. Expert 3 p ositively remar ks on the higher weighting of this criterion with three po int s. On the con trar y, expert 2 wond ers whether this criterion should b e sca led rather than operationa lize d as a d ic ho t- om ous item so that the va rian ce with which the criterion ca n be fulfilled is de- picted in a m ore nua nce d way. Exp ert 4 also com men ts that the exa ct form ula- tion of the self -eva lua tio n pr ompt cou ld b e co nsi dered an d a rgu es a gain st the high weighting of this item. Posit iv e feedbac k This criterion is a ddr essed b y th ree o f five exp erts a n d is gen erally no t a rgued aga inst. Expert 2 q uestions wh ether this no tion sho uld receive less poin ts tha n self-eva lua tion, as it is sc ored with two points . Expert 1 a nd 4 are rather in favor of inclu ding this a spect, b ut a dd so me caveats. For expert 1, th is a spect h as to be con sidered wit hin the whole con text and structure, discussin g p o tential neg- ative effects from the feedba ck sa ndwich an d r ecency effect. Expert 4 emph a- sizes the impo rtan ce of sp ecifically m ention ing wha t has been don e well an d no t pro viding generic praise : E: […] I d o n ot ca re ab out the positive, I t h ink ( inaudible ) for alway s t r y- ing to / pe op le tha t a lway s tell ki d s they ar e do i ng well, b ut ment i on i ng specific ally what yo u have d on e well i s good. (E 4) 15 M ain Su rvey 249 Lear ni ng objectives (Feed Up) Two out of t h e five experts address this crit erion. Expert 1 generally rega rds this criterion po sitively. Expert 4 question s the d ifferent p oint distribu tion between feed back and feed u p, as the fo rmer is the key comp on e n t of the scen ario. The expert fu rther a rgues th at it is m ore import a nt tha t feedba ck is g iven a gainst the objectives than to sim ply state them : E: I would have given, f o r t he stat e the lear nin g obje ctives one, i.e., knowi ng what they ar e, beca use t h ey shoul d have k no w n t hem alrea dy and t hen they giv e fe ed back agai ns t t hem as b ei ng the BATTLE t hing you kn ow rathe r tha n / yo u k no w, that j ust s eem s very odd. […] E: If you a re go in g to g ive them diffe rent po i nts, I thin k fr o m my per- spective t h ese are not wei ghte d t hey I w ou l d wei ght t h em. I w o uld n o t put so muc h emp hasis on just sta ting w hat the learni n g objec tives are, may be revi siting b riefly but t he I MPORTANT th in g is, the lea rner r e- ceives f eedba ck about perf or ma nce AGAINS T th e lear ning o bjecti ve s, because y o u are stati ng the l earning o bjecti ve an d the n y ou o nly g ive them hint fo r lea rning o bjecti ve. Th e re a re severa l o bj ec tives, we n e ed to kn o w how we are g o ing against t hem. For me, the impo rtant thi ng, it is ofte n the fee dback is not related to w hat the aims were, what the learnin g objec tives w e r e, b u t you g ot t o give t h re e fo r fe ed forwa rd . (…) Anywa y. (E4) Fe e d Back The co mm ents fo r this cr iterion resemble t ha t o f the previo usly described Learn- ing obj ectives (Feed Up ) . Two o ut of the five exp erts a ddr ess th is criterion a nd do so gen erally positively. Expert 1 a ddresses this criterion positively a s a facet of relevant theor y: E: [… ] [e s ist] eu ch gelung en, a us mei ner Sic ht, s eh r viele Aspekte abz u- bilden, die releva nt sind in diesem K o ntext. A u ch mit B ezug a uf die re- levant en Theori en. Ich denke jetzt gerade an zum Beis piel an Feed Up, Feed Back, Feed Fo r ward. ( E 1) (E: [… ] you really ma nage d, in my point of view, to d epic t many as pects that are relevant in the c o ntext. Als o t he refere n ce t o t he releva n t the- ories. I am thi n king a b out fe ed u p, fe ed back, feed f orw ard .) Expert 4 q uestions the different p oint distribution b etwe en feed b ack and self - evalu ation : E: I am also loo king at the left-ha nd c olumn, here y ou have the points all o ca ted and those vary f r o m one to th ree. Three f or self -eval u ati on and only one for fe edbac k. ( laugh s) That s eems very od d to me. I s that based o n what is on the next s lide or /. ( E 4) As stated a bove, expert 4 a lso a rgu es that fee db ack is suppo sed to be given aga inst specific lear ni n g objectives. 15 M ain Su rvey 250 Fe e d Forward Four ou t of five experts a ddress this crite rio n. Three experts regard this a spect genera lly positively. Exp ert 4 also emph asiz es the ap pro pria teness of the high weighting o f thr ee points. Expert 2 is gen erally in f avo r of i nclu din g feed for ward , but propo ses tha t points should be awarded for each i n stance in which a ‘ goo d ’ feed forwa rd is provided, sto ppin g a t thre e feed forwa rd insta nces to en s ure focu s: E: Oka y. Wa s für mich nicht ganz klar i st, ist wa rum manche Sa chen mehr P unkte bek o mmen als a nd e re. Also wäre e s n ich t eig entlich so, dass jede s Mal , we nn ei n gutes feed forwa rd g ege ben wü rde, ei nen Punkt bekomm en muss. Als o da i st ja so z us age n s o ein e Schwe rpunkt - setzung in den Punkte n u n d da gibt e s vielleic h t ei nen Gr u nd für, abe r das fällt mi r jetzt erstma l auf. Also d a w ü rde ich mich fr agen, aha wies o bekommen wir d a, als o es kan n ja sei n, d ass d a jema nd nur ein feed forwar d g ibt, ist vielleic h t n ützli ch, a b er der an der e ha t vielleic ht zwei gute feed forwa rds un d a b ei ner bestim mten Zahl geht es ja a ber auch wieder runter, w eil wenn wir z u viel fee d forwa rd g eb e n, dan n g i bt es einfac h k eine n F okus mehr, keinen Feedbackfo ku s u nd da nn ist der Ler- nende überf orde r t. Da müsste man sic h viellei cht ein bisschen was ei n- fall en lass en, also was ist hi e sozusa gen da s optima le Level, ich fi nde immer so drei Pu nkte i s t siche rlich was, was man ganz gut s a gen kann, ich habe jetzt four aspect s oder thre e as p ects, tw o in a deep level und viellei cht two in a surfa ce level od e r so, d ass man das i rgendwie deutlich mac ht und für sich selber müsst e man dann a uch irge ndwie klar krie- gen, wa s wär e eige ntlich zu viel fü r so ein Feedbac k. (E2) (E: Okay. What i s n o t quite clear to m e i s w hy some things get more points than ot h ers. So, wo uld it n ot a ctual ly b e the c ase that ever y time a goo d f eed f or war d wa s given, it has to g et a point. S o , t his is kind of an emp hasis in the scori ng a nd may be there is a r eas on f or t hat, b ut this is what I am no tic ing. S o , I wo uld ask myself, aha, why do we get, well, it could b e that some o n e only gives one fee d f or w ard, whic h may be u seful, but t he ot her pers on may have two go od fee d forwa rds an d from a certain n um ber it g oe s down again, becaus e if w e give to o muc h feed forwar d , then t here is just no mo r e focus, no fee dbac k f ocus a nd then t he lea rner is overwh elmed. One mi ght have t o thi nk o f somet hing, so what is th e mo st o ptimal level he r e, so to spea k, I al ways thin k th ree aspects is certainly somet hing that you can say qu ite well, I no w have four aspects o r th ree as p ects, two on a dee p-level and maybe two on a surface-le vel or somet hing, so that it is clear a nd then on e w o uld als o have to som ehow make clear w hat wo uld ac tually b e to o muc h for such feedback. ) Tas k & Proc ess None of the experts a dd ressed these criteria explicitly. 15 M ain Su rvey 251 Self-Regulation Two ou t of five experts a ddr ess this cr iteri o n. Expert 2 criticiz es that th e qua lity of self- regula tive fee db ack is n ot a ddressed in this crit erion , u sing exa mp les from the pr evious ly shown p erf orman ces : E: […] A uch bei der Sel bst r eg ulation, wie h ilfreic h ist es jetzt im Oxford dicti on ary nachzu gucke n, wenn wir im Zeital ter von Digi talisierung sind, ja machen wir einen tick Strategie, aber ist diese wirkli ch noch so der Brenner. Oder de r H i n weis, guck mal wir hab en hier a m Ende des Bu - ches nochma l die Liste der ir r e gular verb s, das fi nde ich ist ei g entlic h eine ganz gute Sa che, geh d ie nochma l d urc h und viell eicht gibt e s die dann auch auf irgen deiner App was a uch im mer, wo ma n die da nn nochmal lernen kön nte . ( E2 ) (E: […] Als o with the self -re gulatio n, how useful i s it t o l oo k somet hing up in the Oxford dictio n ary, whe n w e a re in the age of digit aliza tion, yes we tick st rategy, but is this really wo rking. Or the hi nt, look here, at the en d o f the bo ok is the list of irreg ular v erbs agai n, I act ually think this i s a good thi n g, lo ok at them one more time may be the re i s a n ap p or whateve r , i n whic h one co uld lear n them a gain.) Expert 4 also views this critica ll y, a s this a spect is ra rely seen in the seen sam ple videos a nd the quality of in formation o n se lf- regu lation can differ. Self One expert addresses this notion. E xpert 4 discusses the ch alleng es when it com es to differentiating perso nal praise fr om po sitive feedback on the text: E: O h, this is somet hing nega tive. Yo u g et a point if yo u do no t say it (laughs). O kay, sorry, I misi nterpret ed that enti rely. So it does no t ad - dress t he learn er’s / the re is no gene ric fe edbac k ab out, on a / I: Yes, no gene ric prais e. E: Altho ugh, so m e say, in the vide o s that it was a goo d text . I: Yeah, this i s a gr ey area right. It is some h ow rela ted to the task be- ca use the ta sk was the text but it is still ge ner ic, so. E: It h as to n ot r elat ed to th e text. A goo d text is al right but all good effort w hich s o me one / effo rt like i n vide o f o ur, he mad e a good effo rt, that is a p ersonal thing i s it n ot? I: That i s t r ue. (E 4) Furthermo re, the e xpert states that a le arner’s affective d imensio n is n ot in - cluded in the set of cr iteria which Self could a ddr ess: E: […] So, what is missi ng is, yes mayb e, somet hing t hat has t o do with the eff ect o f a spec ts of b ot h self- evalua tin g, of g etting f eedb ac k, of t he self o f the w r iter or ev en, I mean, s o me st udents may find t his r eally engagi ng and othe rs s o rt of was no t, I do not know. (E4) 15 M ain Su rvey 258 the con sidera tion of the wr iting p ro cess , as the pla nning asp ects o f writing do no t seem to be a problem in the presented scena rio : E: […] u n d bei d e r p r oce ss o rie ntation das fin de ich gu t, als o das klar wird, d ass man es a uf jeden Fall übera rb eite n m uss. Jet zt müsste ma n sich nat ürlich fr ag en, ob ma n auc h f ragen soll, wie di e Le rn e nde d en Text gepla nt hat, als o we n n man jetzt proze s s or ie nt iert v orgehe n würde, k önn t e man a u ch nochmal sage n in dies en Ber eich Plan ung zu gehen, a b er ich fi nde es auch legit im, sich nur auf die revision zu stür - zen, weil wi r ja sehen, dass eige ntlich das Planen n ic ht das Pr o ble m ist, das ma che n ja a uc h L ehrkr äfte häufi g im Unte rr icht, abe r sie fo r de rn zu wenig Üb er ar beitung ein . (E 2) (E: […] and wit h p roces s or ie n tat ion that I thin k is g ood, so that it is clear that yo u have to w o rk on i n i n any cas e. N o one would ha ve t o wonde r whethe r one shoul d as k, how t h e l ea rner has planne d t he t ext, so wh en you tak e a process-o riented a p proac h, yo u co uld incl ud e the area of plannin g, but I t hink it i s legit imate to only rely on revisi o n becau se w e see t h at the plan ning is n o t re ally the problem, teach er s do that fr e - quentl y in cla sses, b ut they deman d to f ew revisi o ns. ) They a rgu e th at, ba sed on empirical find i ngs, the r evision a spect is an issue in the cla ssroo m wh ile plannin g does occur, le gitimizing the focu s on r evision here. Expert 3 positively mention s this a spect when ask ed which aspect s sto od out to them, add i ng that this sh ould be c on sidere d aga inst th e back dr o p of the series of lesso ns . Error pattern Four experts add ress this a spect. Expert 1 a nd 3 are genera lly po sitive towar ds this no tion: E: Ja auf jeden F all mit der I dentifizie r ung von den Mustern, das fi nde ich wic htig, w eil das hilft ja am meist en u nd das an d ere sind e her error, mista ke, nur diese Unte rschei dung, das s das hie r a u f jeden F all auch Stell enwert hat. (E3 ) (E: Ye s, a b s o lutely with the identi fica tion of pattern s, I t hink this is im - portant b ecau se this help s t h e most and t he r est are rat her err ors, mis- takes, ju st this distincti on, t hat this als o ha s val ue.) Expert 3 sta tes tha t the id entification o f p at terns is im por tant a s it is most h elpful an d add s th a t it must b e ensured tha t the distinction betwee n errors a nd m is- takes is repr esented. Exp erts 2 an d 4 a re not g enerally a ga inst the idea of u sing or focusing o n err or patterns . However, t hey strong ly criticiz e the frequen cy - ba sed sca ling a nd the operationa lization of exclusiv ely fo cus ing on pa tte rn s, as this wo uld exclude o ther potentially mor e relevant a spects o f the text tha t can- no t be grou ped into certain patterns : E: Why w ould they get th r ee p oints if they d o tha t exclu sively? Whic h is really p oor-qualit y fe edbac k if y ou d o that exc lusivel y (la ug hs ). [Document text truncated for crawler view.]