Assessing Argument Quality in L2 Argumentative Writing: Integrating Argument Elements and Intellectual Standards

ABSTRACT Many existing rubrics for L2 argumentative writing prioritize form‐based linguistic accuracy and complexity while insufficiently addressing substantive argumentative rigor and effectiveness. This limitation is further complicated by cross‐cultural variation in rhetorical conventions and educational practices, which challenge the direct adaptation of predetermined assessment frameworks. This study developed and preliminarily validated an analytic rubric designed to assess argument quality. The rubric was refined using two batches of EFL essays: 54 texts produced through a writing–revision–transfer procedure and 50 texts from students with varying proficiency levels across diverse topics. Guided by an iterative development approach and an argument‐based validation framework, the rubric demonstrated acceptable inter‐rater reliability, strong discriminative power across proficiency levels and rhetorical varieties, and generally positive perceptions among teachers and students regarding its practicality and fairness. The final version integrates five core argument elements with critical intellectual standards to evaluate logical coherence, relevance, and depth of reasoning on a six‐point scale (0–5). Implications for rubric‐assisted writing instruction and feedback are discussed, along with directions for developing context‐sensitive and collaboratively constructed approaches to L2 writing assessment.