Hannah Pünjer
Research Interests
Hannah Pünjer has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Lars Höft
IPN Kiel
3 shared publications - Thorben Jansen
Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN), Kiel, Germany
3 shared publications - Nils-Jonathan Schaller
Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN), Kiel, Germany
2 shared publications - Jennifer Meyer
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria and Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (IPN), Kiel, Germany
1 shared publication Mira Tanz
1 shared publication- Mira Tanz1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 27 August 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Learning and Individual Differences
- Vol. 131
Exploring the mechanism of technology-enhanced formative assessment through students' behavioral and cognitive task engagement
- 27 August 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Learning and Individual Differences
- Vol. 131
Open AccessExploring the mechanism of technology-enhanced formative assessment through students' behavioral and cognitive task engagement
- Open Access
- 12 August 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Learning and Individual Differences
- Vol. 131
AI feedback effects on argumentative writing: The role of secondary students’ feedback receptivity and writing skills
- 12 August 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Learning and Individual Differences
- Vol. 131
Open AccessAI feedback effects on argumentative writing: The role of secondary students’ feedback receptivity and writing skills
- Open Access
- 4 June 2026
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Who benefits from AI feedback? The Moderating Role of Students’ Achievement Goals and Argumentative Writing Skills
Background: Argumentative writing is a key competence for academic success. Feedback can foster competence development, yet the associated outcomes show considerable heterogeneity among students. Students’ achievement goals and argumentative writing skills moderate the effectiveness of feedback in classroom settings. However, it is unclear whether these individual differences explain variations in feedback effects within AI-supported classroom contexts.Objective: We examine individual differences in the effectiveness of AI feedback on argumentative writing performance by assessing how the feedback condition (AI feedback versus generic revision prompt) interacts with students’ achievement goals (mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance) and their argumentative writing skill to predict text revision quality.Method: In a classroom-based experiment, secondary school students (N = 805) wrote and revised argumentative texts. Students were randomly assigned to receive either immediate, individualized AI feedback or a generic revision prompt. The quality of the revised argumentative text was the outcome variable.Results: Mastery goal orientation moderated feedback effects. The benefit of AI feedback compared to the revision prompt was highest for students with low mastery goals. Furthermore, argumentative writing skill moderated the interaction between performance-approach goals and the feedback condition in a three-way interaction. For students with higher baseline argumentative writing skill, the benefit of AI feedback on revision quality was positively associated with a stronger performance-approach. Conversely, for students with lower baseline skills, a stronger performance-approach orientation was associated with higher revision quality in the control condition than in the AI feedback condition.Conclusion: AI feedback effects on text revision quality are conditional. Explaining differences in its effectiveness requires the simultaneous consideration of feedback conditions, students’ achievement goals, and their baseline argumentative writing skills.
- 4 June 2026
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Open AccessWho benefits from AI feedback? The Moderating Role of Students’ Achievement Goals and Argumentative Writing Skills
Background: Argumentative writing is a key competence for academic success. Feedback can foster competence development, yet the associated outcomes show considerable heterogeneity among students. Students’ achievement goals and argumentative writing skills moderate the effectiveness of feedback in classroom settings. However, it is unclear whether these individual differences explain variations in feedback effects within AI-supported classroom contexts.Objective: We examine individual differences in the effectiveness of AI feedback on argumentative writing performance by assessing how the feedback condition (AI feedback versus generic revision prompt) interacts with students’ achievement goals (mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance) and their argumentative writing skill to predict text revision quality.Method: In a classroom-based experiment, secondary school students (N = 805) wrote and revised argumentative texts. Students were randomly assigned to receive either immediate, individualized AI feedback or a generic revision prompt. The quality of the revised argumentative text was the outcome variable.Results: Mastery goal orientation moderated feedback effects. The benefit of AI feedback compared to the revision prompt was highest for students with low mastery goals. Furthermore, argumentative writing skill moderated the interaction between performance-approach goals and the feedback condition in a three-way interaction. For students with higher baseline argumentative writing skill, the benefit of AI feedback on revision quality was positively associated with a stronger performance-approach. Conversely, for students with lower baseline skills, a stronger performance-approach orientation was associated with higher revision quality in the control condition than in the AI feedback condition.Conclusion: AI feedback effects on text revision quality are conditional. Explaining differences in its effectiveness requires the simultaneous consideration of feedback conditions, students’ achievement goals, and their baseline argumentative writing skills.