A Systematic Review on Argumentative Writing Evaluation Frameworks in Cefr-Aligned Esl Contexts

Abstract

The study of argumentative writing and argumentative strength in ESL settings has grown significantly over the last two decades. However, the literature is still disjointed with respect to theoretical orientation, operational definitions and methodology. Specifically, the systematic synthesis of the analytic argument models, rubric-based assessment frameworks, and computational models applied to measure the strength of arguments in ESL writing among students are lacking. This systematic literature review integrates existing studies on the evaluation of argumentative strength in ESL writing, focusing on how argumentation is conceptualized, operationalized and assessed across contexts. Following PRISMA guidelines, qualitative research synthesis was used to analyse peer-reviewed studies published between 2010-2024. Findings highlights trends in evaluation frameworks, operational definitions of argumentative strength, methodological approaches and existing limitations. Analytical-model frameworks, particularly those based on Toulmin’s model, provide mode explicit and transparent representations of argumentative reasoning for diagnostic and explanatory purposes. In contrast, rubric-based and computational approaches offer less detail regarding internal reasoning processes. The review also identifies limited alignment between CEFR writing descriptors and structural argumentation models, as well as a shortage of research conducted in the Malaysian ESL context. Implications for future research and assessment practices are discussed.