SIG Writing Conference 2026 – Thursday June 4, 2026

Bursted! A tool for extracting bursts of writing from keystrokes logging "idfx" files

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Bordes, Caroline , CNRS/Université de Poitiers, France
Co-author: Olive, Thierry , CNRS/Université de Poitiers, France
Co-author: Cislaru, Georgeta , Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, France
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;keystroke logging;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;writing processes

Abstract

We present Bursted!, an application that facilitates the extraction of bursts of writing from keystroke logging files when writing (Bordes, Olive & Cislaru, 2025). Keystroke recording is a widespread technique for studying computer writing and its dynamics. Keylogging applications record all keystrokes and mouse movements as well as their chronology. In addition, they often offer pre-analyses of raw data. However, few options to analyse bursts of writing are available. In this framework, Bursted! is designed to automate the extraction of bursts of writing, according to either a fixed or individualized threshold, with associated variables (pause duration before each burst, duration of burst, number of characters…) from “idfx” format keystrokes logs. The processing of a writing session log is divided into two modules: the first module cleans up and prepares the keylogs while the second aggregates the stored events into writing bursts. Each module creates a “csv” output file. Bursted! categorizes the bursts of writing according to their textual function: production bursts increment the text on its right edge, and revision bursts intervene on the text already produced. It distinguishes two types of revision bursts: immediate revision bursts that revise the latest production burst, and delayed revision bursts, which require a return to the text beyond said burst. Bursted! therefore facilitates the analysis of keystroke logging files when writing texts by providing a file of bursts and associated variables ready to be used for visualization, to calculate secondary variables, to prepare statistical processing, or for the automatic analysis of the content of text streams.

Inputlog: New perspectives on keystroke logging

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Van Waes, Luuk , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Co-author: Van Horenbeeck, Eric , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;keystroke logging;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;on-line writing and digital media

Abstract

Inputlog is a widely used keystroke logging tool for observing and analyzing writing processes. This demo introduces the major new features of Inputlog 9.6.0 and outlines planned future developments.Versioning and Diary Function A new automatic versioning option allows users to save intermediate Word document versions at fixed intervals (e.g., every three minutes). Researchers can compare these versions to track document changes throughout the writing session.
An optional diary prompt in the closing wizard invites writers to comment on their session, facilitating the combination of process data and self-report.Expanded Logging Environments Because writing increasingly takes place outside MS Word, the logging environment has been expanded. Inputlog now offers dedicated logging modules for Google Docs and LibreOffice, broadening the range of authentic writing contexts that can be captured.Feedback Reports Inputlog generates student-centered feedback reports that visualize key process indicators, including process graphs and source interaction. Users may rely on the default template or customize report formats to meet instructional or research needs, such as the use of AI.Multilingual Logging New beta versions introduce preliminary support for logging Korean and Chinese script (via Pinyin). This extends Inputlog’s previous focus on Latin-based scripts and broadens its applicability in multilingual writing research. Copy-Task Dashboard Inputlog includes a standardized copy task designed to assess typing skills in thirteen languages using sentences, word triplets, and letter clusters. We also present a corpus of more than 5,000 anonymized copy-task recordings, accompanied by an interactive R-Shiny dashboard that allows researchers to explore the corpus, download data, and benchmark their own results.

Learning to write: Toy examples using the progressive graph tool.

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Leblay, Christophe , University of Turku, School of Languages and Translation studies, Finland
Co-author: Caporossi, Gilles , HEC Montréal, Canada
Co-author: Usoof, Hakim , University of Peradeniya/ Dept. Statistics & Computer Sciences, Sri Lanka
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Keywords

data visualisation;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;learning to write;writing at school

Abstract

Approaches to writing based on keystroke logging are becoming increasingly prevalent and are contributing to a more profound understanding of the writing process. A plethora of software programs facilitate the recording of keystrokes, thereby enabling the analysis of both the temporal and spatial dimensions of writing, from a recording file called a log. However, the interpretation of the information contained within these logs is challenging, due to the atypical nature of the data. The GIS representation has been utilised extensively (Becotte et al. 2019). Ggxlog is a recently developed software program that aims to combine text genetics (Leblay & Leblay 2019) and graph theory with keystroke logging (Caporossi & Leblay 2011; Doquet & Leblay 2014). This ggxlog software offers a specific feature, designated 'progressive graph', which enables researchers or educators to visualise the various stages of a writing session that has taken place (Usoof et al. 2020). This innovative feature enables the text being written to be displayed simultaneously, as in a word processor, alongside the real-time construction of the corresponding graph. The objective of this study is to collect a common pilot corpus between Finland, France and Quebec in a school context, with a focus on brief pieces of writing, referred to as 'toy examples'. This study will examine how young learners use keyboards to facilitate their acquisition of writing skills, thereby marking a pivotal transition from the conventional paper-and-pencil medium (Auriac-Slusarczyk et al., 2013; Cogis & Leblay, 2010). This would facilitate a more profound understanding of the utilisation of technological resources in the acquisition of written French and written Finnish as first languages.

THEtool: A software application for linguistic modeling of writing

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Ulasik, Margo , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

keystroke logging data processing and analysis;natural language processing (NLP);writing models;writing processes

Abstract

We present an open-source tool for analyzing writing process data in relation to linguistic structures: THEtool(https://github.com/mulasik/wta; Mahlow 2024; Ulasik and Miletic 2024; Ulasik et al. 2025). Although linguistic modeling of the writing process has gained importance in recent years, existing approaches, whether rooted in linguistic theory or writing research, remain insufficient to explain how writers actually produce and revise text at a linguistic level. THEtool enables writing researchers to investigate the writing process with a particular focus on sentences and their interaction with writing bursts and revisions. Because the software operates fully automatically and requires no manual intervention, it facilitates the efficient processing of large datasets. THEtool processes keystroke logging data in the XML-based IDFX format generated by Inputlog and ScriptLog, the de facto standard for storing and exchanging writing process data, thereby ensuring seamless integration with existing tools and workflows.To support a wide range of research applications, THEtool offers configurable key features, including language selection (currently German, Greek, French, and English, with straightforward extensibility to additional languages), the minimum pause duration that triggers the extraction of text and sentence versions within a writing burst, and relevance parameters for filtering text versions.THEtool is a fully functioning implementation of a model of text production based on the concept of layers: writing bursts, revisions, and sentence production are conceptualized as three distinct yet interacting layers that share a common timeline. Bursts may be interrupted by revision episodes or, in an abstract sense, by final punctuation marks signaling sentence completion. Revision processes can be interrupted by pauses or segmented by final punctuation. Likewise, sentence production may be interrupted by pauses or revisions. Projecting these layers onto one another enables new insights into the writing process from a linguistic perspective.We conducted exploratory studies in German, Greek, French, and English using THEtool. The results demonstrate both the feasibility and the analytical potential of the proposed approach.

Measuring the Quality of AI-generated Feedback? From Theoretical Modelling to Empirical Evidence

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Chair: Gerth, Sabrina , University College of Teacher Education Tyrol, Austria
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;research methodology;writing at school

Abstract

AI-generated feedback is widely used in schools without sufficient research having been conducted into its quality, particularly with regard to German students. This study therefore examines the quality of AI-generated feedback on German student texts, as well as how this quality is measured, from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. First, a theoretical model is developed based on international research (e.g. Fong, 2025; Jansen et al., 2025; Weidlich et al., 2025) which includes different producers and products. This model establishes the terminology used throughout the paper and illustrates that operationalising feedback quality poses a methodological challenge for empirical studies. Subsequently, a study compared feedback on three student texts in the form of a criteria-based assessment, an overall grade, and a short comment. This feedback was provided by 75 highly experienced Bavarian teachers and four AI systems. Finally, eight trained meta-reviewers assessed the quality of the human and machine feedback. In terms of overall grades, there was high inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.7–0.9) between teachers and AI systems (with ten iterations). On average, AI models graded texts more leniently, but in the same order of ranking. The criterion-based assessment differed significantly. Regarding meta-feedback, an ordinal logistic model identified three criteria (explanation, concreteness and accuracy) as the strongest predictors of perceived usefulness, with the source (AI vs. teacher) having no significant influence. The results of the empirical study expand the area of research on real German pupils. The theoretical model helps to better systematise future studies and demonstrates the complexity of operationalising the central phenomenon of interest: the quality of AI-generated feedback. The many challenges involved in operationalising feedback quality are relevant for future studies. Fong, C. J. (2025). A renaissance in feedback science? Reviewing and reimagining feedback research methods. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 83, 102414.Jansen, T., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2025). Feedback from Generative AI: Correlates of Student Engagement in Text Revision from 655 Classes from Primary and Secondary School Proceedings of the 15th LAK.Weidlich, J., et al. (2025). Teacher, peer, or AI? Comparing effects of feedback sources in higher education. Computers and Education Open, 9, 100300.

Promoting digital text production competences in primary education

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Heller, Kathrin , University of Education Karlsruhe, Germany
Co-author: Anskeit, Nadine , University of Education Karlsruhe, Germany
Chair: Gerth, Sabrina , University College of Teacher Education Tyrol, Austria
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

instructional design in writing;intervention study;on-line writing and digital media;writing at school

Abstract

The digital production of texts is considered a key competence in today's information and communication society (Frederking & Krommer, 2019). Familiarity with the writing medium is of great importance here, as it systematically influences text quality: fast typists produce better texts (Connelly et al., 2007; Gong et al., 2022). Initial pilot studies show that, in addition to keyboard typing, digital text production skills (e.g. simple word processing functions, navigation) are fundamental prerequisites to produce digital texts (Anskeit, 2022). Nevertheless, there is still a lack of comprehensive studies on the development of digital writing skills, especially in German-speaking countries and for primary school pupils (Gahshan & Weintraub, 2024; Schneider & Anskeit, 2017; Schüler et al., 2023). Addressing this gap, the project aims to develop instructional measures for digital writing and examine their effects on third-grade students’ text production.Building on a diagnostic laboratory study (n=16) using keystroke logging, the intervention study (n=121) investigates the effectiveness of a specially developed interactive learning pathway for promoting digital text production competences (keyboarding and word-processing functions) and compares it with a touch-typing course (focus on keyboarding). To evaluate both support measures, the typing behaviour (including speed and skills in simple word processing functions) of the learners will be assessed in a pre-post-test design using a procedure developed in the diagnostic study. In addition, effects on text quality (Lindauer, 2024) and text revision (Held, 2006) are analysed based on students’ independently written texts responding to a profiled writing task (Bachmann & Becker-Mrotzek, 2010).Initial results show that learners benefit from even short training sessions in terms of typing behaviour (see also Grabowski et al. 2007, Anskeit, 2022) and that the promotion of digital text production skills enables learners to utilise word processing functions. The extent to which this influences text quality and text revisions in the production of their own texts is determined using variance analyses (ANOVA with repeated measures) including covariates as reading comprehension and previous digital experience. The presentation will outline key findings from the diagnostic study, provide insights into the support material, and discuss the results of the intervention study.

Teaching narrative writing in grade 2: first findings from FiSBY

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Schilcher, Anita , University of Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Wild, Johannes , Universität Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Knott, Christina , University Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Pronold-Günthner, Friederike , University of Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Dick, Mirjam , University of Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Nöske, Lea , University of Regensburg, Germany
Chair: Gerth, Sabrina , University College of Teacher Education Tyrol, Austria
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

design-based research;instructional design in writing;intervention study;writing at school

Abstract

Meta-analyses indicate that young writers benefit when strategies are taught explicitly, modelled, practised with scaffolding, and linked to transparent quality criteria (Graham & Harris, 2017; Graham, Harris, & Santangelo, 2015). However, translating these findings into everyday classroom routines remains challenging (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, & Gardner, 2017; Wild, in press).This contribution reports early findings from FiSBY-2-narrative, a narrative strategy module embedded in the multi-genre writing strategy project FiSBY (www.fisby.de). In FiSBY over 2 400 elementary students take part in a longitudinal survey from grade 2 to 4. The FiSBY-2-narrative module operationalizes narrative strategies and is compared with business-as-usual writing instruction.The present study analyses a random subsample in grade 2 (n = 87; 173 texts). Children were on average 8.36 years old (SD = 0.48). About 82% reported German as their first language. The business-as-usual group included slightly more boys than the training group (33% vs. 18%). For writing assessment, we used a standardized story-starter at the beginning and end of the school year. The narratives were rated with RANT (Wild, 2020) for genre-specific elements (event representation, character description, situational description) and more general stylistic features (vocabulary and figurative language).Analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team, 2025) using linear mixed-effects models appropriate for longitudinal intervention studies (Hilbert et al., 2019). Models included time (pre/post), group (training vs. business-as-usual), and their interaction, controlling for gender, German language background, and socioeconomic status (questionnaire-based). Random intercepts accounted for repeated measures within students.Results show a selective intervention effect: the training group demonstrated significantly stronger gains in character description (time × group: β = .55, p = .026). In this small subsample, no reliable differential change emerged for event (p= .232), situational description (p = .123), or figurative language (p = .338). Vocabulary increased from pre to post across both groups (β = .31, p = .033). Socioeconomic status was positively associated with event (β = .26, p = .002). In sum, FiSBY-2-narrative appears to accelerate a specific, teachable narrative dimension in Grade 2. For the conference presentation, these patterns will be re-analysed in the large FiSBY cohort to obtain more robust estimates.

Long-Term Memory Resources and Essay Quality in ESL Ghanaian Students’ Writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Oblie, Emmanuel Lauren , University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Co-author: Lomotey, Charlotte , University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Chair: Nottbusch, Guido , University of Potsdam, Germany
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

assessment;EFL and ESL writing;writing skills;writing theory

Abstract

While existing literature establishes some relationships between language proficiency and the linguistic dimensions of essay quality, there is a dearth of research on the links between long-term memory resources as a whole and the non-linguistic aspects of essay quality. The current research, therefore, examined the influence of linguistic, genre and topic knowledge on the content and organisation quality of students’ essays in senior high schools in Ghana, from the lenses of a conceptual framework primarily drawn from Flower and Hayes (1981) and Hayes (1996). The study used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, and was based on 262 randomly sampled students, who took a pre-writing test of linguistic knowledge, wrote an argumentative essay, and responded to a post-writing questionnaire for genre and topic knowledge. Data were analysed using regression analyses and comparative content analysis procedures. The findings show that the three resources jointly made statistically significant positive contributions to both content and organisation quality of the essays. Among them, linguistic knowledge emerged as the strongest positive predictor of content quality, while genre knowledge made the strongest contribution to organisation quality. The qualitative findings also substantiated the quantitative results, showing marked differences between essays written by high- and low-resource participants across introductions, body paragraphs, and conclusions. The overall convergence of the qualitative and quantitative results confirms that students’ content and organisational performance in ESL writing is strongly shaped by the interaction of linguistic, genre, and topic knowledge resources. These results extend L2 writing theory by foregrounding the crucial role played by long-term memory in L2 writing performance. The findings also call for pedagogical approaches that simultaneously scaffold language use, model genre-specific rhetorical structures, and support learners’ access to relevant content knowledge before and during writing.

Strategies for Open Writing Tasks in the fide Test at CEFR Levels A2 and B1

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kowalska, Emilia Anna , UZH/UniFr, Switzerland
Chair: Nottbusch, Guido , University of Potsdam, Germany
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

assessment;cognitive processes;education;L2

Abstract

“Strategies for Open Writing Tasks in the fide Test at CEFR Levels A2 and B1: An Exploratory Study”The goal of this study is to reconstruct the writing process in German as a second language and to analyse which goal-directed cognitive and procedural operations are activated. It includes a process-oriented approach to writing in the L2 – a perspective that is underrepresented in writing research (Arras 2013: 75, Heine 2014: 123). The research question is, “What strategies are elicited by the specific requirements/demands of the three open writing tasks in the high stakes fide model test (CEFR A2/B1)?” Three hypotheses were formulated:the type of writing task influences the use of specific strategies;individual differences emerge in the breadth and configuration of strategy use;construct-irrelevant strategies are activated during writing.A between-method triangulation (Denzin 1970: 308–309) was used to answer the research questions, combining the think-aloud method during task performance with retrospective interviews to get a holistic view of the writing process and strategies. Transcripts with six participants (out of a total of thirteen) with Polish as their L1 were analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker 2022: 129). The dataset consisted of 18 think-aloud protocols and 6 interview transcripts. The analysis revealed a repertoire of four strategies that predominated across all open writing tasks: a) formulating or translating from the L1, b) detailed reading of task instructions, generating detailed plans, and c) paraphrasing (H1). The study revealed inter- and intra-individual variation in the scope, configuration, and sequencing of strategies (H2). Moreover, the results indicated that participants incorporated extended verbatim passages from input texts and task instructions into their own texts to improve their text quality. This led to a reduction of their own formulations, and to an increasingly reproductive character (Peresisch 2025: 224) (H3). The results provide possible implications for writing pedagogy in L2 contexts. These include fostering learners’ orientation towards the task environment, fostering process awareness, and promoting a learning-supportive integration of artificial intelligence into the writing process. The results also include a critical reflection on the construct and test validity of the fide test.

The Working Memory-Writing Connection: Meta-Analytic Evidence

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kim, Young-Suk , University of California Irvine, United States
Co-author: Cao, Yucheng , Middle Tennessee State University, United States
Chair: Nottbusch, Guido , University of Potsdam, Germany
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;meta-analysis;writing skills;writing theory

Abstract

The Working Memory-Writing Connection: Meta-Analytic EvidenceAim: This meta-analysis examined the relation between working memory and written composition and whether this relation is moderated by several factors.Theoretical Framework: Writing requires simultaneous management of idea generation, organization, sentence construction, word selection, transcription, and evaluation. Theoretical models—including the cognitive model of writing (Hayes & Flower, 1981), the not-so-simple view of writing (Berninger & Winn, 2006), and the Direct and Indirect Effects Model of Writing (Kim, 2020)—consistently identify working memory as critical for writing. However, the magnitude of this relation and potential moderators remain unclear.Method: We searched five electronic databases (e.g., APA PsycInfo, Academic Search Ultimate, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global). Inclusion criteria: (1) participants aged 5+ years without severe sensory, behavioral, cognitive, or intellectual disabilities; (2) assessment of both working memory and written composition at sentence and/or paragraph level; (3) zero-order correlations, standardized regression coefficients, or sufficient data to compute effect sizes; (4) published in English.Findings: We analyzed 84 studies with 975 effect sizes from 16,747 participants. The overall weighted correlation between working memory and written composition was .27. Two key moderators emerged: (1) the relation was significantly stronger in secondary schools than elementary schools, and (2) verbal working memory showed stronger relations than visuospatial working memory with writing outcomes.Relevance: Although working memory's theoretical importance for writing is widely recognized, this is the first comprehensive meta-analysis quantifying this relation and identifying moderators. Findings have implications for writing theory and instruction.ReferencesBerninger, V. W., & Winn, W. D. (2006). Implications of advancements in brain research and technology for writing development, writing instruction, and educational evolution. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 96–114). Guilford Press.Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1981). A cognitive proces theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. Kim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Structural relations of language, cognitive skills, and topic knowledge to written composition: A test of the direct and indirect effects model of writing (DIEW). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 910-932.

Explicit instruction and rubrics for argumentative synthesis writing: Effect of Collaboration

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Gutiérrez-Bermejo, Eugenia , Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Cuevas, Isabel , Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Mateos, Mar , Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Martín, Ana , Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Luna, Maria , Universidad a Distancia de Madrid (UDIMA), Spain
Co-author: Martínez-Álvarez, Isabel , Madrid Open University, Spain
Chair: Stukker, Ninke , Groningen University, Netherlands
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

collaborative writing;instructional design in writing;intervention study;reading and writing

Abstract

Explicit instruction and rubrics for argumentative synthesis writing in Secondary Education: The effect of CollaborationGutiérrez-Bermejo, E.*, Cuevas, I.*, Mateos, M.*, Martín, A.* Luna, M** & Martínez, I**UAM*, UDIMA**Secondary education students must develop key competences to address current challenges, such as critical thinking and argumentative skills (European Commission, 2019). Writing an argumentative synthesis based on different texts presenting opposing perspectives on a topic is a complex task with great potential for promoting the development of these competences (Mateos et al.,2018). However, students struggle with identifying, contrasting, and integrating opposing perspectives, especially through weighing and synthesizing strategies, thus they require specific instructional support (Casado-Ledesma et al., 2021). The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of an instructional program for learning to write argumentative syntheses in the first year of secondary education, across different task settings (individual vs. collaborative writing). Instructional program includes learning activities based on explicit instruction (EI) and practice using an instructional rubric (PR), each adapted from Cuevas et al. (2024). Forty-nine students were assigned to two conditions (EI+PR vs EI+PR+C) and wrote three argumentative syntheses (pretest/mid-test/posttest syntheses). Results show that both conditions were effective in improving students’ synthesis quality. Additionally, in the practice session, students who wrote collaboratively achieved better results, although these differences were attenuated in the posttest. Findings are discussed, and we conclude with educational implications regarding the adaptation of task settings based on students’ profiles.Keywords: Argumentative Synthesis, Explicit Instruction, Rubric, Collaborative Writing.References.Casado-Ledesma, L., Cuevas, I., Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G.,Mateos, M., Granado-Peinado, M.,& Martín, E. (2021). Teaching argumentative synthesis writing through deliberative dialogues: Instructional practices in secondary education. Instructional Science, 49(4), 515-559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09548-3Cuevas, I. Mateos, M., Casado-Ledesma, L.,Olmos, R., Granado-Peinado, M.,Luna, M., Núñez, J.A. & Martín, E. (2024). How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39, 4573–4596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00890-xMateos, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I.,Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction, 36, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300

Rubrics for Planning and Revising Argumentative Syntheses in Collaborative and Individual Settings

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Medina-Gutiérrez, María , Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Cuevas, Isabel , Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Olmos, Ricardo , Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Van Steendam, Elke , KU Leuven, Belgium
Co-author: Rijlaarsdam, Gert , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Mateos, Mar , Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain
Chair: Stukker, Ninke , Groningen University, Netherlands
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

collaborative writing;intervention study;reading and writing;writing processes

Abstract

Using Instructional Rubrics for Planning and Revising Argumentative Syntheses in Collaborative and Individual Settings: Effects on Text QualityMedina-Gutiérrez, M.*, Cuevas, I.*, Olmos, R*, van Steendam, E.**, Rijlaarsdam, G.*** & Mateos, M.*UAM*, KULeuven**, UvA***Integrating sources to write argumentative syntheses is a key academic skill, yet many undergraduates struggle, particularly during planning and revision (Vandermeulen et al., 2024). The current study examines the impact of an instructional rubric on the quality of students' argumentative synthesis tasks, with a special focus on reaching integrative conclusions, given their difficulties in integrating opposing perspectives through synthesizing strategies (Cuevas et al., 2024; Mateos et al, 2018). The effect of the rubric was analyzed after its use in two learning sessions focused on different stages of the writing process (planning and drafting and reviewing and revising) and delivered either individual (R+I) or collaborative (R+C) settings. A total of 101 undergraduates were assigned to three conditions (R+I, R+C, control) and wrote three argumentative syntheses, each based on two texts presenting opposing views on a topic (pretest-synthesis, intermedia-synthesis’ draft, revised intermediate-synthesis, and posttest-synthesis.). The rubric improved students’ learning, and these effects were already evident in the drafting phase and increasing marginally during the revision phase in individual settings. However, these effects were not greater under collaborative learning. Findings are discussed, and we conclude with recommendations for future research and educational implications.Keywords: argumentative synthesis, instructive rubric, collaborative setting, writing processes.ReferencesCuevas, I. Mateos, M., Casado-Ledesma, L., Olmos, R., Granado-Peinado, M., Luna, M., Núñez, J.A. y Martín, E. (2024). How to improve argumentative syntheses written by undergraduates using guides and instructional rubrics. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39, 4573–4596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00890-xMateos, M., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Villalón, R., Martínez, I., & González-Lamas, J. (2018). Improving written argumentative synthesis by teaching the integration of conflicting information from multiple sources. Cognition and Instruction, 36, 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2018.1425300Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., De Maeyer, S., Lesterhuis, M & Rijlaarsdam, G (2024). Learning to write syntheses: the effect of process feedback and of observing models on performance and process behaviors. Reading dand Writing 37, 1375–1405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10483-7

Supporting peer feedback conversations during argumentative writing: rubric vs. conversation chart

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Landrieu, Yana , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: De Wever, Bram , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: Van Keer, Hilde , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: De Smedt, Fien , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: Bouwer, Renske , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Chair: Stukker, Ninke , Groningen University, Netherlands
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

collaborative writing;intervention study;speaking and writing;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

Research topic/aim This dialogic writing study investigates how students’ peer feedback conversations can be supported during the revision phase of the collaborative writing process. Our research questions focus on whether providing students with a rubric or a conversation chart stimulates dialogic interaction and how these conversations relate to subsequent text revisions.Theoretical framework Grounded in Mercer and Wegerif’s (2002) and Bouwer’s and colleagues (2024) frameworks on exploratory talk, the study builds on research highlighting the collaborative potential of peer feedback during argumentative writing. While guidance is widely acknowledged as essential for effective peer feedback, little is known about which forms of support work best. This study examines the transition from oral peer feedback to written text revisions and explores whether provided peer feedback is (or is not) actually reflected in the subsequent text revisions.Methodology An intervention study was conducted with 102 students (aged 16–18) across eight lessons on argumentative writing. Using a pre-test post-test design, two conditions were compared: a rubric and a conversation chart condition. Data included peer feedback conversations analysed through content analysis and statistical tests: ANOVA, MANOVA, chi-square, and binary logistic regressions.Findings During peer feedback conversations, students primarily discussed quality of (counter)arguments and rebuttals. The conversation chart appeared to be most effective in fostering exploratory talk, particularly when combined with teacher intervention. However, transfer from dialogue to text revision was limited, indicating that peer feedback alone does not guarantee effective text revisions.Relevance This research addresses underexplored dimensions of writing: the collaborative nature of peer feedback and its connection to subsequent text revisions. Findings offer practical guidelines for integrating scaffolds and teacher support to enhance dialogic interaction and improve writing outcomes.ReferencesMercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2002). Is exploratory talk productive talk? In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning with computers: analysing productive interaction (pp. 79–101). Bouwer, R., van Braak, M., & van der Veen, C. (2024). Dialogic writing in the upper grades of primary school: How to support peer feedback conversations that promote meaningful revisions. Learning and Instruction, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101965

Differential Effects of a Tablet-Based Writing Intervention on Text Quality: An Intervention Study

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Michels, Viktoria , TU Chemnitz, Germany
Chair: Fitjar, Camilla , University of Stavanger, Norway
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

intervention study;text composition;writing instruction;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

Differential Effects of a Tablet-Based Writing Intervention on Text Quality: An Intervention StudyStudents with weak writing skills struggle with text production and content learning, underscoring the need for early support (Becker-Mrotzek et al., 2014). Digital writing environments, such as those offering spell-checking and text-to-speech functions, may provide such support, particularly for weak writers (Graham & Harris, 2018). Yet despite their growing use in schools, little is known about which learners benefit most and how digital tools differentially affect the development of text quality.This study, conducted within the BMBF-funded EdToolS project, examines differential effects of a tablet-based writing intervention on text quality among 7th-grade students (N = 153) using a pre–post–follow-up design with a control group. Text quality was assessed using keyboard-written texts. The intervention comprised strategy instruction and training in the use of a word processor (spell-checking in EG1/EG2; text-to-speech in EG2), followed by a practice phase in which students wrote multiple texts (EG1/EG2: using tablet and tools, CG: handwritten). A language competence score derived via PCA was used to classify students into high- and low-performance groups.Linear regression models revealed that low performers in EG1 showed significantly greater short-term gains in text quality (pre–post) compared to the control group, whereas no differential effect emerged for EG2. Among high performers, text quality in EG2 remained more stable from pre to follow-up than in the control group.These findings provide insights into learner-specific benefits and limitations of digital writing tools. Given the increasing role of digital literacy, the study highlights the urgent need to align digital tools with differentiated writing instruction. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2018). Evidence-Based Writing Practices: A Meta-Analysis ofExisting Meta-Analyses. In R. Fidalgo, Raquel, Harris, Karen R., & Braaksma, Martine (Hrsg.), Design Principles for Teaching Effective Writing (S. 13–37). Brill. https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004270480/B9789004270480_003.xmlBecker-Mrotzek, Michael, Joachim Grabowski, Jörg Jost, Matthias Knopp, und Markus Linnemann. „Adressatenorientierung und Kohärenzherstellung im Text -Zum Zusammenhang kognitiver und sprachlich realisierter Teilkomponenten von Sprachkompetenz“. Didaktik Deutsch, Nr. Jg. 19. (2014): 21–43.

Writing Fluency in Primary School: An Evaluation of a Training Programme in Challenging Contexts

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Michels, Viktoria , TU Chemnitz, Germany
Presenting author: Wanka, Rebekka , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Co-author: Kaplan, Ina , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Chair: Fitjar, Camilla , University of Stavanger, Norway
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

evaluation and assessment of writing competence;intervention study;writing at school;written language competence

Abstract

Writing fluency is understood as the coordinated interaction of graphomotor automatization, rapid retrieval of phonographic and orthographic patterns, and the formulation of coherent linguistic units (Stephany et al., 2020). Automatization is central, as it reduces demands on working memory and enables learners to engage more deeply with higher-level planning and revising processes (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hayes, 2012). The present study therefore investigates the effectiveness of a structured, training-based writing-fluency programme for mono- and multilingual primary school students, comparing its impact to regular instruction within the German federal initiative Schule macht stark (SchuMaS). All participating schools (N = 3) were SchuMaS schools in challenging contexts and voluntarily joined the study following data-protection approval and parental consent. The sample comprised pupils in primary grades three and four (N = 151) in 2023–2024 from two German federal states: North Rhine–Westphalia and Rhineland–Palatinate. The intervention followed a quasi-experimental pre–post design with a control-group. During seven to eight weeks, students in the experimental classes (n = 105) engaged in daily 15–20-minute sessions using a training booklet focusing on routine, time-limited repetition of hierarchically lower writing processes, consistent with principles for effective fluency training (Sturm, 2017). Participating teachers completed a fourteen-hour blended-learning qualification to implement the training independently. Pupils in the control classes (n = 46) continued regular writing instruction without additional training. To evaluate training effects, three short performance-based tests were administered immediately before and two to three weeks after the intervention: an Alphabet Task, a word-writing task, and a picture-based writing prompt, capturing multiple dimensions of writing fluency (speed, accuracy, productive output). Additionally, a C-Test assessed lexical–grammatical competence at pretest, and a questionnaire gathered background information (language acquisition history, grade repetition). Linear mixed-effects models are being implemented for the statistical analyses, which are currently in progress. By linking a theoretically grounded fluency model with a scalable, teacher-delivered programme, the study provides empirical evidence on how automated writing routines develop in primary school children. The results will inform instructional design for heterogeneous classrooms and support writing development in socially challenging educational contexts.

Writing on Paper or on Tablet? Error Patterns and Processing Time in Digital and Hybrid Formats

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Wörfel, Seda Yilmaz , Universität Hamburg, Germany
Co-author: Krelle, Michael , Universität Hamburg, Germany
Chair: Fitjar, Camilla , University of Stavanger, Norway
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

evaluation and assessment of writing competence;spelling issues;writing at school;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

Writing on Paper or on Tablet? Error Patterns and Processing Time in Digital and Hybrid FormatsRevised educational standards in Germany highlight the increasing relevance of digital competencies in school learning. The planned transition of standardized comparison tests to technology-based assessment (TBA) raises the question of how shifts from paper-and-pencil to digital formats affect orthographic performance. Given that handwriting and typing engage different cognitive and motor processes, digital formats may elicit distinct error types and correction strategies (Frahm, 2012; Jung et al., 2021). This underscores the need to examine how students adapt to these demands and how performance is influenced.To address this, two complementary studies were conducted. The first (HYBRID) investigated third- and fourth-grade students’ processing of orthographic tasks in a combined tablet–paper format. The second (DIGITAL) analyzed fully technology-based cloze tasks completed on tablets, with a focus on error patterns and processing time. Data from 100 primary school students were collected, drawing on synchronized screen and overhead video recordings to capture processing behavior.The comparison reveals systematic differences across formats. In the digital condition, students exhibited more comprehension-related hesitations and engaged in more orthographic correction attempts, whereas in the hybrid condition they more frequently undertook retrospective review of their written responses. Error frequency in the digital mode showed a positive correlation with processing time (rₛ = .33, p = .029), while no significant association emerged in the hybrid condition (rₛ = .14, p = .339). Quantitative analyses further indicate a higher overall error count in the hybrid mode.These findings underscore the need for closer examination of digital test formats. Beyond ensuring technological accessibility, schools must ensure didactic and diagnostic compatibility when integrating digital procedures into teaching and assessment.Literatur:Frahm, Sarah. 2012. Computerbasierte Testung der Rechtschreibleistung in Klasse Fünf - eine Empirische Studie Zu Mode-Effekten Im Kontext des Nationalen Bildungspanels. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin.Jung, Stefanie, Korbinian Moeller, Elise Klein, und Juergen Heller. 2021. «Mode Effect: An Issue of Perspective? Writing Mode Differences in a Spelling Assessment in German Children with and without Developmental Dyslexia». Dyslexia 27 (3): 373–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1675.

A Hero's Journey? Advancing Expressive Writing and Literacy Development in Middle School

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Adin-Surkis, Abigail , Atid Network if Schools, Israel
Presenting author: Harush, Yamit Tarin , Haifa University, Israel
Co-author: Katzir, Tami , University of Haifa, Israel
Co-author: Barak, Matan , The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Chair: Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Keywords

motivational and emotional factors in writing;writing and linguistics;writing at school;writing skills

Abstract

Middle school students frequently disengage from literacy instruction when pedagogical approaches emphasize technical skills while marginalizing emotional engagement (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). This intervention study examines whether integrating the Hero’s Journey narrative structure (Campbell, 1949) with dialogic teaching can simultaneously foster literacy skills, writing quality, and writing identity. The framework positions the Hero’s Journey as eliciting emotional investment in characters’ transformative journeys. When engaging authentically in dialogic pedagogy (Nystrand, 1997; Alexander, 2020), students can connect the archetypal patterns of the Hero’s Journey to their developmental experiences (Erikson, 1968). The framework distinguishes between writing-to-learn—analytical writing regarding textual meaning—and writing-to-express—reflective writing exploring students’ own transformative experiences—integrating academic writing development with identity construction (Graham & Perin, 2007; Pennebaker & Seagal, 1999).Following year-long teacher professional development, the “Journey Through Words” intervention was implemented across 13 classrooms in four Israeli middle schools (N = 240). Pre–post assessments measured writing quality using benchmark rating procedures and reading comprehension through text-based tasks. Students reported writer self-efficacy, achievement emotions, and teacher–student relationship quality. In-depth interviews with nine teachers provided implementation insights.Response-to-intervention analyses demonstrated significant improvements across all writing dimensions—content, organization, and linguistic expression—as well as in reading comprehension. Baseline performance negatively predicted improvement trajectories (β = –.48 for writing; β = –.54 for reading), indicating that initially lower-performing students achieved the largest gains. Relational–emotional analyses showed that positive teacher–student relationships predicted elevated pride, which significantly enhanced both writing and reading performance, with indirect effects through pride (95% CIs excluding zero). Despite these performance improvements, students’ writing self-efficacy did not significantly change, suggesting a divergence between skill growth and self-perceptions as writers. Teacher interviews confirmed that integrating analytical and reflective writing around the Hero’s Journey enabled simultaneous development of critical writing skills and authentic personal expression. Grounding writing instruction in emotionally resonant narratives, combined with dialogic teaching, advances writing competencies and writer identity, with particularly robust effects for struggling learners. Positive teacher–student relationships operate through pride as an emotional pathway supporting literacy growth.

A systematic review of the role of motivation in digital multimodal composing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Yu, Nan , Beijing Normal University, China
Chair: Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Keywords

learning and learner characteristics;meta-analysis;motivational and emotional factors in writing;multimodality

Abstract

AbstractIndividual differences (IDs) have been shown to account for a substantialproportion of variation in learning outcomes in second language acquisition (SLA). Specifically, as L2 writing is a cognitively complex and challenging endeavor, it isimperative to explore the role of IDs in this domain. Among them, motivation hasreceived particular attention, since “L2 learning is fundamentally a motivationalpursuit” (Li et al., 2022, p. 113). Digital multimodal composing (DMC) has emerged as a popular pedagogicalpractice in SLA, offering learners and teachers new opportunities for engagement andmeaning-making. Among the IDs mediating L2 students’ participation and success inDMC, motivation plays a crucial role. Understanding how motivation isconceptualized and measured, and how DMC shapes or is shaped by students’ motivational states, can provide deeper insights into how DMC tasks could be betterdesigned and integrated to facilitate L2 writing development. Following the PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review investigates howmotivation has been conceptualized, measured, and influenced in DMC research. Drawing on 30 empirical studies, this review addresses three research questions:(1) What constructs of motivation in DMC research are examined?(2) What effects of DMC on L2 students’ motivation are found?(3) What influencing factors of motivation in DMC are identified?Thematic synthesis revealed that (1) most studies focused on a limited set ofmotivational constructs, namely, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, task value, andself-efficacy, often measured by general educational instruments without cleartheoretical justification or task-specific adaptation; (2) DMC tasks, particularly digitalstorytelling, were generally found to enhance motivation, although the effects variedin magnitude and durability by learner profiles, task designs, and learning contexts; (3)a combination of intertwined factors were identified: learner-related features (e.g., curiosity, identity), task-related conditions (e.g., genre, duration), and context-relatedfactors (e.g., audience, collaboration). Taken together, these findings underscore the potential and complexity ofintegrating DMC in a meaningful way to support and sustain learner motivation. Thispaper calls for more theoretically-grounded, task-specific, and context-sensitive futureresearch on this line of inquiry.ReferenceLi, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (2022). The Routledge handbook of second languageacquisition and individual differences. Routledge.

Motivational Beliefs and Writing Achievement in Peruvian Secondary Students: Latent Profile Analysis

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Villegas, Frank , Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru
Chair: Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Keywords

learning and learner characteristics;motivational and emotional factors in writing;writing at school;writing beliefs

Abstract

Writing motivation is based on a set of beliefs that individuals develop from their diverse experiences with writing and that, in turn, influence how they initiate, sustain, and complete a writing task. Drawing on the Writer(s)-within-Community model, which conceives writing as a practice situated in writing communities, this study focuses on three motivational beliefs: self-efficacy, achievement goals, and writing malleability beliefs. In this way, the study seeks to deepen our understanding of beliefs that play a key role in the interaction between writers and the communities in which they participate.The study has two aims: (1) to identify motivational profiles of students based on specific patterns in these three beliefs and (2) to examine differences in writing achievement across the identified profiles. To this end, we analyzed data from 5,968 second-grade secondary students in Peru, who completed a constructed-response writing test and motivational scales as part of a large-scale assessment implemented by the Ministry of Education.Using latent profile analysis, five groups were identified, ranging from a highly adaptive profile (high sense of efficacy, predominance of mastery goals and a growth mindset) to a clearly less adaptive profile (low sense of efficacy, predominance of performance goals and a fixed mindset), along with three intermediate profiles. The most adaptive profile obtained the highest mean score in writing (577.5), whereas the least adaptive profile showed the lowest mean score (473.8). Overall, more adaptive profiles were systematically associated with higher levels of writing achievement. This trend was consistently observed across different strata (boys and girls, public and private schools, urban and rural schools).The findings highlight the importance of motivational beliefs for students’ writing achievement and the need to implement intentional efforts to foster adaptive beliefs with the aim of developing motivated writers. The study of profiles in writing is an emerging field that has gained prominence in recent years. In this context, the results of this research constitute a contribution by drawing on a large sample from a country that has not previously been represented in the field of writing motivation.

Assessing argumentative writing through students’ interactions with generative AI

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Co-author: Oliveira, Manuel , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Co-author: Zednik, Carlos , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Co-author: Bombaerts, Gunter , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Co-author: Sadowski, Bert , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation
Related Symposium: The future of writing education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;assessment;Generative AI;writing processes

Abstract

As generative artificial intelligence (genAI) increasingly produces text that is indistinguishable from human work, conventional assessments that focus solely on the written product are becoming an unreliable measure of student learning. In this presentation, we therefore introduce an assessment method that focuses on the writing process. We focus on two components of student–genAI interaction during argumentative writing. First, directive reasoning interaction, which captures how purposefully students steer the AI. This is important because passive acceptance of AI output is often associated with lower-quality writing. Second, visible expertise, which reflects the extent to which course-related conceptual knowledge becomes apparent in the interactions.Student–genAI interaction data and final essay grades were collected from 70 graduate students who wrote argumentative essays using a self-chosen genAI tool. All 1,450 prompts were annotated using our taxonomy, developed from the course learning objectives combined with indicators of directive reasoning interaction and visible expertise. The taxonomy contains three main categories: writing, content, and argument, and 35 subcategories.The results showed that students most often prompted genAI to improve or evaluate their writing, such as grammar and style (41%). GenAI was used less frequently to evaluate or improve content (29%) or argumentation (22%). Interactions indicative of high directive reasoning interaction and visible expertise were positively related to performance. For example, prompts asking genAI to revise a specific argument, based on a clear, conceptual critique; or to integrate information from a source into a premise, were associated with higher essay grades. In contrast, interactions showing low directive reasoning or low visible expertise, such as “write an essay on topic X” or requesting a summary to be inserted into the essay, were related to below-average essay grades.To conclude, evaluating the writing process through student-genAI interactions may be used to complement and even replace traditional essay assessment methods. Future work should examine the generalizability of our findings to other argumentative writing assignments and explore how the assessment approach might apply to other types of written assessment. Finally, as genAI evolves, it needs to be considered whether any interactions from our taxonomy might become obsolete.

Text Features Associated with Students’ Generative AI Use: Norwegian Teachers’ Assessments

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Skar, Gustaf , Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Co-author: Jeffery, Jill , Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Netherlands
Co-author: Kvistad, Anne Holten , Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway
Co-author: Graham, Steve , Arizona State University, United States
Domain: -
Related Symposium: The future of writing education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;assessment;Generative AI;writing instruction

Abstract

The release of generative AI (genAI) tools has changed the way that many educators interact with student writing, as they grapple with assessing how students use this technology for writing and how their uses may support or detract from learning. This paper draws from a survey of 530 Norwegian teachers designed to examine teachers’ perspectives on genAI, including their uses of AI to teach writing, their beliefs and ethical concerns about students’ AI use for writing, their preparedness to use AI, and, the focus of the current paper, the text features they associate with students’ AI use. GenAI presents new challenges for teachers’ writing assessment practice as it complicates their construction of the student author. Although written communication as academic assignment is skewed toward language performance to be assessed (Smagorinsky et al., 2010), a key aspect of the assessment process involves teachers’ interpretations of what a student is working to express in writing. Given that human communication is co-constructed, “it must follow that even when we don’t know the person who generated the language we are interpreting, we build a partial model of who they are and what common ground we think they share with us, and use this in interpreting their words” (Bender et al., 2021, p. 616). Many teachers are compelled to consider the extent to which their model of “the person who generated the language” is genAI-mediated. This paper focusses on a qualitative content analysis of an open survey item in which a subset of 129 teachers shared their perceptions of the text features that signal students’ use of generative AI and their stances toward these text features. We analysed teachers’ responses to investigate how they adapt their writing assessment practices in the context of students’ genAI use. We found that teachers viewed AI-associated text characteristics negatively, and they focused on language features indicative of voice and style when identifying aspects of student text that suggested AI use. Our results suggest that teachers’ individualized knowledge of students’ development vis-a-vis academic writing tasks and subject-matter learning factors into their judgments of whether a text is student-composed or AI-generated.

The future of writing education

Type: Symposium
Chair: De Smedt, Fien , Ghent University, Belgium
Organiser: Vereecke, Alix , Ghent University, Belgium
Organiser: Skar, Gustaf , Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Discussant: Bouwer, Renske , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology
Related Symposium: The future of writing education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;assessment;Generative AI;writing instruction

Abstract

Writing has long been a cornerstone of education, serving both as a means of learning and as a key indicator of students’ understanding, reasoning, and communicative competence. Today, this foundational role is being challenged by the rapid emergence of generative artificial intelligence. From compulsory education to higher education, generative AI tools are increasingly influencing how learners engage with writing tasks, raising fundamental questions about authorship, originality, assessment, and the purposes of writing instruction itself. Rather than signaling the end of writing education, these developments invite a critical rethinking of writing education in an AI-rich educational landscape.This symposium brings together three research studies that collectively examine current developments in writing education in contexts where generative AI is increasingly embedded in educational practice. The first paper examines teachers’ detection of AI-generated text by exploring which textual features teachers associate with students’ use of generative AI. Drawing on survey data from Norwegian teachers, the study analyses how teachers interpret student writing and make judgments about authorship in contexts where generative AI is increasingly present. The second paper shifts attention from writing products to writing processes by examining how students’ interactions with generative AI can be used to inform the assessment of argumentative writing. It explores the potential of process data, such as prompts, revisions, and AI-mediated decision-making, as complementary evidence in writing assessment. The third paper focuses on higher education and investigates how generative AI can be integrated responsibly into students’ writing processes. It examines students’ existing uses of these tools and the role of instructional guidance in supporting critical, reflective, and autonomous writing practices.Taken together, the symposium offers a coherent and forward-looking view on the future of writing education, positioning generative AI not merely as a challenge, but as a resource that can inform and support writing processes.

Using Generative AI for Academic Writing: Students’ Practices and the Role of Explicit Instruction

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Vereecke, Alix , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: Bouwer, Renske , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Co-author: Van Keer, Hilde , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: De Wever, Bram , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: De Smedt, Fien , Ghent University, Belgium
Domain: Higher Education
Related Symposium: The future of writing education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;Generative AI;writing instruction

Abstract

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT are now widespread in higher education and are often presented as promisingforms of support for academic writing, a complex skill that many students find challenging. While concerns about misuse and authorship persist, considerably less is known about how students actually use generative AI during the writing process, or about whether instructional guidance can support more responsible and effective use.This study adopts a two-phase design. In the first phase, a questionnaire study with 170 higher education students examined whether and how students use generative AI during writing, focusing on self-reported moments of use and the specific aspects of the writing process targeted. In the second phase, a pilot intervention study with 20 students explored students’ actual AI use in greater depth by comparing writing processes with and without explicit instruction on responsible AI use and prompting. Data sources included students’ prompts, generative AI conversations, and final texts, which were analysed using quantitative content analysis and comparative judgement to assess changes in prompt quality, revision practices, and overall text quality.Results from the questionnaire show that the vast majority of students (92%) report using generative AI during the writing process. However, students tend to use these tools in a limited manner, primarily for relatively straightforward tasks such as correcting language and spelling or reformulating existing text, rather than for more substantive support throughout the writing process. Moreover, self-report data provided only limited insight into students’ responsible use of AI. Findings from the pilot intervention study suggest that, in the absence of instruction, students do not consistently engage with generative AI in a responsible manner. Following explicit instruction, students formulated significantly higher-quality prompts and interacted more critically with AI-generated output. Although text quality improved for all students, no significant difference was found between students who did and did not receive instruction.Overall, the findings suggest that although generative AI is already widely used in academic writing, responsible and effective use cannot be assumed. Brief, targeted instruction on prompting and responsible AI use may therefore play a key role in supporting more meaningful integration of generative AI into students’ writing processes.

Cognitive and Ethical Alignment of LLMs with Humans for Writing Research and Instruction

Type: Keynote Presentation
Presenting author: Chukharev, Evgeny , Iowa State University, USA
Chair: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed the study of writing. In linguistics, they catalyzed a shift from the generative grammar paradigm that dominated the latter half of the 20th century. Beyond their practical utility, LLMs provide strong empirical support for connectionist theories of human language processing, showing that complex linguistic behavior can emerge from statistical learning and distributed representations rather than relying solely on (innate) symbolic rules. At the same time, LLMs raise serious questions about alignment with human values, interpretability, and their impact on writing instruction and assessment. Constructing AI systems that simulate human linguistic behavior while aligning with human intentions, reasoning, and values offers both practical and research advantages. This keynote presents two projects that illustrate how LLMs can be aligned with human cognition and ethical principles in writing research and instruction. The first project leverages eye-tracking data, specifically writers' lookback fixations on text produced so far, to guide sentence completions in the emerging text. This approach operationalizes a long-standing hypothesis that writers look back at the text they have produced to support planning of what to say next. By conditioning LLM-based sentence completions on lookback fixation patterns, LLMs produce text that is more closely aligned with a writer's evolving intentions. This work provides empirical evidence for the cognitive function of lookback behavior and establishes a foundation for AI systems for writing support that operate in alignment with human cognitive processes. The second project introduces a hybrid neurosymbolic AI framework for evaluating student argumentative writing. In this framework, LLM-driven inferences from source texts and student essays are constrained by symbolic reasoning that captures ethical norms, logical standards, and pedagogical criteria. By integrating the transparency and reliability of symbolic AI with the flexibility of LLMs in natural language understanding, this approach produces interpretable, robust evaluations of student writing that align with human ethical values. Together, these projects demonstrate that aligning LLM behavior with human cognition and ethical principles can advance both the science of writing and instructional practice. By incorporating cognitive signals and symbolic constraints, AI systems can support and evaluate writing in ways that reflect human intentions, uphold reasoning standards, and promote responsible, interpretable applications of technology.

Building bridges between subjects: Using genre pedagogy for writing across the curriculum

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Bouwer, Renske , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Presenting author: Stukker, Ninke , Groningen University, Netherlands
Presenting author: van Drie, Jannet , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Oudheusden, Emma , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: van Gulik, Jan , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Co-author: Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

design-based research;L1;text genre;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum

Abstract

Reading and writing instruction in secondary education is often highly fragmented, and does not always generate the desired results (OECD, 2023). Opportunities for turning the tide lie with language arts ánd language-rich subjects such as history and biology. Although benefits of a cross-curricular approach to reading and writing instruction are widely recognized, teachers struggle to put this into practice. Transfer between subjects is minimal, and teachers lack instructional materials and pedagogical content knowledge to promote it (Penuel et al., 2007).Based on a literature review and other insights from our educational design research project on Dutch language arts and History in Dutch secondary education, we propose that genre pedagogy offers a solution, as it provides a common language for discussing and working with genres across subjects (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010). We will start this Roundtable Session by sharing design principles and learning materials aimed at fostering students’ understanding and use of language as a strategic communicative and social tool in various subject contexts through reading and writing.Based on this, we will start a discussion about the role of genre pedagogy in promoting students’ writing skills and writing across the curriculum, and about ways of bringing genre pedagogy into classroom, raising the following questions:Regarding instructional focus: What knowledge about genre do secondary students need to foster transfer of writing skills across subjects?Regarding instructional mode: Which teaching and learning activities are suitable in a cross-curricular genre pedagogy for writing?What methods can be used to assess the effectiveness of a cross-curricular genre pedagogy for writing?ReferencesBawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press.OECD (2023). PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. PISA, OECD Publishing. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.

Enhancing academic writing through Systemic Functional Genre Pedagogy in Higher Education

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Yegblemenawo, Stella Afi Makafui , Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Co-author: ISSAKA, MOHAMMED , UVIVERSITY OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Ghana
Co-author: DEBRAH, CECILIA OWUSU , University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana
Chair: Torkildsen, Janne von Koss , University of Oslo, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;L2;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction

Abstract

Academic writing remains a persistent challenge in Ghanaian higher education, particularly for first-year students transitioning from secondary to tertiary education. This paper examines how Systemic Functional Genre Pedagogy (SFGP) can enhance academic literacy by explicitly teaching the genres through which disciplinary knowledge is constructed and communicated. Grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics, the study conceptualizes academic writing as a socially situated and meaning-making practice rather than a set of decontextualized skills. The study reports on a six-week classroom-based writing workshop implemented at an African university. Using a pre–post intervention design, student texts produced before and after the workshop were analyzed to trace changes in discourse-level control, with particular attention to Theme–Rheme organization, transitivity patterns, and cohesive resources. Classroom observations and lecturer reflections complemented the textual analysis, offering insight into pedagogical processes and shifts in instructional assumptions. Findings indicate noticeable improvements in students’ organization, thematic development, argumentation, and textual cohesion. Students reported increased awareness of academic conventions and greater confidence in structuring disciplinary texts. Lecturer reflections further reveal a shift from deficit-oriented explanations of student writing difficulties toward more scaffolded and explicit teaching approaches informed by genre awareness. By situating SFGP within multilingual higher education context, the study demonstrates how genre-based pedagogy can function as a developmental rather than remedial approach to academic writing instruction. The findings have implications for communication skills curricula, lecturer professional development, and ongoing debates on academic literacies in Global South higher education. Overall, the paper illustrates how writing research can be translated into reflective and scaffolded writing practice in higher education, aligning empirical inquiry with pedagogical innovation.

Multi-genre pedagogy: fostering transfer, metacognition, and rhetorical agility in doctoral writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Negretti, Raffaella , Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Co-author: Wingrove, Peter , Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Co-author: McGrath, Lisa , Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom
Co-author: Feak, Christine , University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, United States
Chair: Torkildsen, Janne von Koss , University of Oslo, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;metacognition;writing instruction;writing skills

Abstract

As scientists and academics increasingly communicate beyond academic contexts, adapting writing to diverse audiences and genres has become crucial (Negretti et al., 2023). This project addresses how writing pedagogy can promote such adaptability by designing and evaluating a multi-genre pedagogy approach for doctoral writing instruction. Theoretically, the study builds on Swales’ (1990) question of whether and how skills acquired from one genre transfer to another. Tardy et al.’s (2020) framework conceptualizes genre knowledge and metacognition as key to effective recontextualization: genre-specific knowledge relates to genre awareness, interacting with metacognitive processes when writers face unfamiliar communicative demands—a relationship that remains underexplored in research. Methodologically, we adopt Swales and Feak (2023) to design in-class task sequences combining academic and popularization genres. Qualitative data were collected in Scandinavia and the UK through students’ written texts and interviews and analysed to explore students’ strategies for transfer and recontextualization. Preliminary findings show that students recontextualize knowledge for different audiences by engaging in reformulation—shifting register through lexical and grammatical choices—but also in more complex adaptations such as rhetorical adjustments, storytelling, and unpacking. Interviews indicate that these shifts are metacognitive and deliberate, linking genre-specific knowledge, broader genre awareness, and metacogntive awareness of themselves as researchers and writers. We provide evidence of the interaction between genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness in students’ metacognitive decisions about rhetorical and linguistic features across genres. Our study pushes the boundaries of genre-based instruction beyond reproducing traditional academic genres, to include tasks that emphasize rhetorical adaptability and transfer.Negretti, R., Sjöberg-Hawke, C., Persson, M., & Cervin-Ellqvist, M. (2023). Thinking outside the box: senior scientists’ metacognitive strategy knowledge (MSK) and self-regulation of writing for science communication. Journal of Writing Research, 15(2), 333–361.Tardy, C. M., Sommer-Farias, B., & Gevers, J. (2020). Teaching and researching genre knowledge: toward an enhanced theoretical framework. Written Communication, 37(3), 287–321.Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. CUP.Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2023). Task evolution in English for Academic Purposes writing materials: The case of “Information Transfer” to “Critical Commentary”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 61(101017).

Teaching Reasoning in Argumentative Writing through Explicit Heuristics

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Mitchell, Thomas D. , Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, Qatar
Co-author: Laich, Maria Pia Gomez , Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar
Co-author: Pessoa, Silvia , Carnegie Mellon University Qatar, Qatar
Chair: Torkildsen, Janne von Koss , University of Oslo, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction;writing skills

Abstract

This presentation explores how a linguistically informed reasoning heuristic can enhance the teaching and learning of argumentative writing in multilingual higher education. We focus on a first-year writing (FYW) course at an American university in the Middle East, where most students write in English as an additional language. Drawing on systemic functional linguistics (SFL) genre-based pedagogy (e.g., Dreyfus et al., 2016; Authors, 2024), we investigate how the heuristic I know, I see, I conclude (adapted from Hao, 2020) helps students connect conceptual knowledge, textual evidence, and evaluative reasoning.The research centers on a Case Analysis assignment in which students analyze a real-world case related to taste and distinction through the lens of Bourdieu’s (1984) theory. To scaffold the assignment, we used the I know, I see, I conclude heuristic to make explicit how writers move between reasoning positions: drawing on disciplinary frameworks (I know), applying them to case details (I see), and developing interpretive claims (I conclude). To document student uptake of the heuristic, we coded paragraphs for reasoning positions and logical relations to examine how novice writers connect ideas.Findings indicate that explicit reasoning instruction helps students balance theoretical abstraction and contextual specificity, leading to more effective analytical writing. However, many struggle to sustain logical coherence when shifting between reasoning positions. We discuss how these findings inform refinements to instructional materials that explicitly teach common effective patterns that successful students use to structure their paragraphs and logically connect their ideas as they move between the reasoning positions. By linking linguistic analysis to pedagogical design, we show how SFL-based frameworks can enhance writing instruction in multilingual higher education.Keywords: academic writing; argumentative writing; reasoning; systemic functional linguisticsReferencesAuthors. (2024).Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.Dreyfus, S. J., Humphrey, S., Mahboob, A., & Martin, J. R. (2016). Genre pedagogy in higher education: The SLATE project. Palgrave Macmillan.Hao, J. (2020). Analysing scientific discourse from a systemic functional linguistic perspective: A framework for exploring knowledge building in biology. Routledge.

Chinese Students’ Implicit Beliefs about Writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Galbraith, David , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Co-author: Hao, Jiachen , University of Southampton, China
Chair: Knoph, Rebecca , University of Oslo, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

education;L1;writing beliefs;writing to learn

Abstract

The way in which an individual approaches writing and prioritises goals influences the cognitive processes involved in writing. Five writing beliefs have been identified--transmissional, transactional, revision, audience, and planning--and have been found to contribute, to varying extents, to the development of ideas and content, as well as to the overall quality of the text (White and Bruning, 2005; Sander-Reio et al., 2014). This research employed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM) to evaluate the goodness of fit of three hypothesized models (five-factor model, two-factor model, and high-order factor model) based on theses beliefs when applied to Chinese students writing in Mandarin Chinese. The participants were 312 international students aged 18 or over, whose native language is Chinese, and who are accustomed to studying in Chinese educational settings. The results show that ESEM is a more substantive method of interpreting students' beliefs about writing. Chinese students hold all five of these beliefs, which are distinct from one another. However, the strongest correlation was found between revision and planning, which differs from the Transmissional-Planning (TMP) and Transactional-Revision (TARA) structures (the high-order factors model) suggested by Baaijen and Galbraith (2025). This study suggests that writing belief models could be developed by introducing types of revision (Galbraith & Torrance, 2004, p. 65): (i) reactive revision (or editing), which relates to planning and involves refining the text to align with pre-established goals, and (ii) proactive revision, which the TARA model assumes involves identifying potential ideas in the initial draft and developing them in later iterations.

Language choice in master's thesis writing: a motivational perspective

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Mendoza, Laura , University of Helsinki, Finland
Co-author: Kleemola, Katri , University of Helsinki, Finland
Chair: Knoph, Rebecca , University of Oslo, Norway
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;L1;L2;motivational and emotional factors in writing

Abstract

Research topic / aim and theoretical frameworkAcademic writing in English is increasingly common in master’s theses in non-anglophone countries. This dominance of English has raised research concerns about preserving local languages as languages of science, while the student perspective within these multilingual tensions has been limited. In this scope, it is important to investigate students’ motivational rationales for choosing the language of their master’s thesis where a genuine choice exists. This study investigates master’s thesis writers’ motivational rationales for language choice in a Finnish multilingual university context.Methodological designWe conducted qualitative content analysis of open-ended survey responses gathered from 213 master’s students of engineering with Finnish or Swedish as their native language (language of thesis n=154 English n=62 Finnish). In the first, data-driven analysis phase, we focused on identifying common categories in the motivational rationales provided for their thesis language choice. In the second phase, guided by self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020), the identified categories were linked to the motivational spectrum, ranging from external to introjection to integration/identification. The purely intrinsic motivational category was not identified in the present research. FindingsPreliminary findings indicate that language choice is shaped by a multifaceted mix of (1) external motivation (supervisor preferences, perceived institutional norms or company needs); (2) introjected motives (anticipated visibility, career benefits, wider audience); (3) integrated/identified motives (attachment to language, ease of writing, proficiency). The choice of language (English / Finnish) is encountered across categories. We aim to provide crosstabulation and frequencies of the categories and choice of language to indicate group level and individual level variation. Relevance to domain of writing The study offers new understanding of the qualitative variation within motivational rationales for language choice of multilingual thesis writers from a self-determination theory perspective. These findings have implications for thesis supervision practices, higher education policies, academic writing instruction and motivational research on writing in multilingual university contexts.ReferencesRyan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective : Definitions , theory , practices , and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61(April), 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Student teachers’ self efficacy for academic writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Co-author: Magnusson, Petra , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Co-author: Persson, Jenny , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Chair: Knoph, Rebecca , University of Oslo, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;motivational and emotional factors in writing;proficiency;writing skills

Abstract

University students need to develop their academic writing skills to enhance success in their studies and future professional lives. Confidence in one's own writing ability, self-efficacy, has proven to be an important factor both for writing individual texts and for developing general writing skills (Bruning & Kauffmann, 2016), and studies have shown that self-efficacy can vary depending on the task and area (Bandura, 1997) and that writers who demonstrate stronger self-efficacy are more likely to complete their tasks and increase their text quality, regardless of how good their actual skills are (Grenner et al., 2021; Raedts et al., 2007; Sehlström et al., 2023; Schunk, 1991). This study aims to investigate how student teachers’ confidence in coping with the task of writing academic text develops during their studies, and is guided by these questions: 1. Which skills do student teachers rate as high and low? 2. How does the estimation develop during the study period? In a cross-sectional study, student teachers (n≈100) from different semesters of the Primary School Teacher Programme answered 19 statements in a self-assessment scale developed for academic writing. The assessment responses were analyzed based on the engagement in planning, translation, and revision processes (draing on the Hayes and Flower (1980) model). Initial results indicate that student teachers have a high level of self-efficacy for aspects of writing related to translating (e.g., good skills in transcription, grammar and spelling), slightly lower self-efficacy for revision aspects (e.g., reading and revising the text, identifying what works, and determining what help is needed). Student teachers report the lowest self-efficacy for aspects related to planning (e.g., identifying goals before writing, drafting, or coming up with ideas) and motivational aspects (e.g., continuing to work on the text even if you get stuck). In the next step, the results will be differentiated between the student teachers in different semesters. The study contributes to an understanding of how writing develops in young adults, and how teaching about academic writing at university level can be conducted.

Bilingualism modulates the relationship between spelling skills, grade and handwriting kinematics

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Zuo, Yitong , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Co-author: Alhaddad, Gaëlle , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Co-author: Spieser, Laure , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Co-author: Mirault, Jonathan , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Co-author: Frey, Aline , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Co-author: Longcamp, Marieke , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Chair: Linnemann, Markus , University of Koblenz, Germany
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

acquisition;fluency;handwriting;spelling issues

Abstract

Learning to handwrite remains a crucial and laborious process for children, especially considering the challenge of simultaneously managing its spelling and graphomotor demands. Previous research has well established that spelling skills impact handwriting performance. However, most studies have focused on global parameters such as legibility and average speed, without disentangling the impact of spelling skills on fine-tuned kinematics, in age groups often limited to primary school. Additionally, how bilingualism modulates these effects has never been examined. To address these gaps, we collected data from 234 French-speaking children from grade 3 to 8, who performed various handwriting tasks from word to text levels on a digitizing tablet. We extracted multiple kinematic indexes reflecting velocity, fluency, numbers of pen lifts and stops, as well as pen holding and its variability. Spelling proficiency was assessed with a standardized dictation test, and participants were categorized as mono- or bilingual. We then used general linear mixed models (GLMM) to assess the effects of grade and spelling skills. Preliminary results show that grade has significant effects on most parameters, with the average velocity and pen holding parameters only modulated by grade, whereas spelling skills selectively impact the number of pen lifts and stops and fluency. We further examined the role of bilingualism by including linguistic profiles in GLMM. We found significant interaction effects of grade, spelling skills and bilingualism for several parameters, notably the number of stops and fluency. Higher spelling errors accompanied higher numbers of stops and higher dysfluency, indicating less optimal performance. This impact of spelling difficulties on handwriting decreased with grade, suggesting increasing automatization of graphomotor processes in older children. Finally, bilingual children are more sensitive to spelling errors at younger ages but showed higher writing fluency in later stages, suggesting the potential conflicts between linguistic systems may temporarily affect handwriting kinematics when they are not yet stably consolidated, but these effects progressively resolve with development. Altogether, our results suggest that spelling difficulties impact various handwriting kinematics differentially, and that these effects are magnified for younger bilingual children.

The handwriting movement: Linking motor processes and mastery

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Fitjar, Camilla , University of Stavanger, Norway
Presenting author: Maurer, Michelle N. , University of Stavanger, Norway
Presenting author: Rønneberg, Vibeke , University of Stavanger, Norway
Chair: Linnemann, Markus , University of Koblenz, Germany
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

fluency;handwriting;writing processes;writing skills

Abstract

Learning to write can be considered a gatekeeper skill to academic achievement. Being able to express one's thoughts and opinions in writing requires generating ideas, finding words to communicate those ideas, structuring them, and expressing the ideas through transcription (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003). For years, handwriting was the primary mode of transcription in schools. Today, despite increasing digitalization, and keyboarding is emerging as the dominant modality for transcription, handwriting still holds a strong position in education. In this presentation, we address three questions: 1) What role does handwriting play in learning to write? 2) Why is handwriting more challenging for some students? 3) Is handwriting merely a motor task? We synthesize findings from studies we conducted with Norwegian and Swiss children. Study one draws on a sample of 572 Norwegian first graders learning to write by hand, typing on a computer, or a combination of both. We performed linear mixed-effects analysis of the relationship between instructional modality and performance in spelling, narrative text production, and handwriting. Results indicate that it is possible to learn to write without handwriting, but that handwriting plays a role in gaining knowledge of written letters.Study two draws on a Swiss sample of primary school children to examine individual differences in handwriting skills. Girls outperformed boys in fine motor skills, visuomotor integration, and handwriting legibility, but not in fluency. Furthermore, cross-sectional analyses showed a steep increase in fluency across Grades 1–6, while legibility plateaued earlier.Study three draws on a sub-sample from study one: 176 Norwegian first graders completed letter and symbol copying tasks, selected pen-control tasks, and letter-knowledge tasks. Results from a linear mixed-effects analysis showed that pen-movement fluency in the copy task was associated with letter knowledge. To our surprise, good letter knowledge was also associated with better fluency in copying unfamiliar symbols. Synthesizing findings from several recent studies, we critically address these questions. A solid understanding of handwriting as a skill is essential for designing effective instruction. Our results offer insights for researchers and teachers seeking to support children who struggle with handwriting.

Self-feedback scaffolding through AI in online writing tasks

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Luna, Jose , University of Barcelona, Spain
Co-author: Guasch, Teresa , Open University of Catalonia (UOC), Spain
Co-author: Espasa, Anna , Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain
Co-author: Mayordomo, Rosa M , Open University of Catalonia (UOC), Spain
Co-author: Melo, Montserrat Martinez , Fundació per a la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (FUOC), Spain
Co-author: Martinez Melo, Montserrat , Fundació per a la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (FUOC), Spain
Domain: Higher Education
Related Symposium: University students’ reflections on academic writing with genAI; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;feedback;Generative AI;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

Students need to critically assess AI-generated feedback to avoid superficial learning (Bearman et al., 2024), particularly in writing processes where writing plays an epistemic role. A promising solution to enhance feedback practices with AI is to promote self-feedback processes. This is a process of cognitive change in which students generate new knowledge through comparing their current understanding or performance with external references, and its effectiveness relies on structured activities and scaffolding (Nicol, 2021). This study explores to what extent AI-supported self-feedback can effectively scaffold students’ writing in asynchronous environments. A total of 107 online students participated in a quasi-experiment. Students first completed an assignment. Immediately after submission, they accessed a timed online space. Following a reflective scaffolded process, students generated self-feedback while revising their initial assignment with AI insights. The quantitative analysis showed a significant improvement in students' scores from the first to the second submission (Z = -6.804; p < .001). Qualitative analyses of both students' interviews and writing reflections during the scaffolded process show that GenAI-mediated self-feedback is enacted through a set of recurrent actions. The reported self-feedback actions by students were: students primarily use GenAI to identify areas for improvement, revisit their understanding of key concepts, detect aspects they had overlooked, and connect their revisions to new knowledge. Interviews additionally reveal emergent topics that help to explain how students use GenAI. These include experimenting with prompting strategies to obtain more relevant feedback; directing corrections purposefully depending on their objectives; questioning GenAI’s reliability; experiencing uncertainty; and showing different levels of GenAI literacy. These results offer insights into the concrete mechanisms through which teachers can scaffold self-feedback process with GenIA in academic writing and contribute to the ongoing discussion on the potentials and dilemmas of GenAI in higher education. Bibliography Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321 Nicol, D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in higher education, 46(5), 756-778. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314

Students' reflections on using GenAI as a tool for cognition when writing an argumentative text

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Luna, Jose , University of Barcelona, Spain
Co-author: Fuertes-Alpiste, Marc , Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
Co-author: Castells, Núria , Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Spain
Co-author: Molas-Castells, Nuria , Universitat de Barcelona; Institut de Recerca en Educació (IREUB), Spain
Co-author: Alcaraz, Silvia , Universitat de Barcelona; Institut de Recerca en Educació (IREUB), Spain
Co-author: Lozano, Paula , Universitat de Barcelona; Institut de Recerca en Educació (IREUB), Spain
Co-author: Miño, Raquel , Universitat de Barcelona; Institut de Recerca en Educació (IREUB), Spain
Domain: Higher Education
Related Symposium: University students’ reflections on academic writing with genAI; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;Generative AI;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze undergraduate students’ perceptions of the usefulness of Copilot as a tool for cognition (Fuertes-Alpiste, 2024) when writing argumentative texts. From this perspective, students are encouraged to use it as a mediational tool that supports problem solving in writing, to find new ideas, reviewing their texts in terms of content and language conventions, or helping them check citation formats when writing an argumentative text based on sources.A total of 152 undergraduate students from two education-related degree programs participated in a didactic sequence that included reading multiple texts, whole-group discussions, and the use of instructional guides with examples on how to write an argumentative text and how to employ different prompts with Copilot for this purpose. Students completed a questionnaire both before and after the didactic sequence.In the final questionnaire, students responded to Likert-scale items addressing the perceived usefulness and limitations of Copilot in supporting task completion, as well as items related to potential technical issues encountered when using the tool. Students were also asked open-ended questions about how using Copilot influenced their writing process, including ways in which it was helpful, unhelpful, or may have affected their autonomy, and were invited to provide examples.Preliminary results indicate that students value Copilot primarily as a tool for identifying ideas, revising their written texts, and including references. However, they also acknowledge the risk of becoming overly dependent on the tool when producing written documents, which they perceive as a potential threat to their creativity. These results can shed light on how generative AI tools can afford writing processes when used as tools for cognition and not as a substitute of students' cognition, eliciting their writing affordances and associated critical thinking skills. ReferenceFuertes-Alpiste, M. (2024). Framing Generative AI applications as tools for cognition in education. Pixel-Bit. Revista De Medios Y Educación, 71, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.107697

Students’ reflections on academic writing in higher education: GenAI as sociomaterial actor

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Jusslin, Sofia , University of Helsinki, Finland
Co-author: Hort, Sofia , Mälardalen University; Åbo Akademi University, Sweden
Domain: Higher Education
Related Symposium: University students’ reflections on academic writing with genAI; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;Generative AI;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

This presentation addresses undergraduate students’ reflections on GenAI technologies and their role(s) in their academic writing, drawing from data from workshops with undergraduate students across scientific disciplines at a university in Finland. The study aims to explore how students conceptualize their academic writing in relation to GenAI technologies, drawing theoretically on sociomaterial frameworks using, for example, actor-network theory to understand writing as a process in which both human and non-human actors participate in shaping it (e.g., Clarke, 2002; Gourlay, 2015). The data encompasses audio-recorded conversations and mindmaps from four workshops (2,5 h each) with a total of 30 students in educational sciences, political science, and caring sciences. During the workshops, the students were tasked with mapping and discussing what they use in their academic writing, how, when, and why. No question was asked explicitly about GenAI. Nevertheless, the students discussed GenAI technologies in all workshops, sharing that they use various AI technologies, such as ChatGPT, co-pilot, and Gemini. Preliminary analyses indicate that the students use them, for example, as support when their writing processes become stalled, when needing to expand the amount of text or generate new perspectives, and to orient themselves in relevant literature. A prominent use of GenAI technologies is that they, in similar manners as for example dictionaries and thesauruses, can be used in the writing to adapt the text to the linguistic and stylistic norms that apply within their disciplines. As such, GenAI technologies often have, according to the students, other, more central functions than merely a text generator. This presentation will unfold the results of the study and discuss implications for writing with GenAI in higher education. ReferencesClarke, J. (2002). A new kind of symmetry: Actor-network theories and the new literacy studies. Studies in the Education of Adults, 34(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2002.11661465Gourlay, L. (2015). Posthuman texts: Nonhuman actors, mediators and the digital university. Social Semiotics, 25(4), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2015.1059578

University students’ reflections on academic writing with genAI

Type: Symposium
Chair: Jusslin, Sofia , University of Helsinki, Finland
Organiser: Jusslin, Sofia , University of Helsinki, Finland
Discussant: Van Steendam, Elke , KU Leuven, Belgium
Domain: Higher Education
Related Symposium: University students’ reflections on academic writing with genAI; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;Generative AI;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

The aim of this symposium is to address and discuss undergraduate students’ reflections on academic writing with generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). Academic writing is central to studies in higher education, and since OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, the possible potentials and challenges of using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies in writing have been increasingly discussed and explored across scientific fields (e.g., Khalifa & Albadawy, 2024; Nguyen, 2024). Previous research has shown that GenAI has been described in different ways; in addition to a text generator, also as an assistant, tutor, teacher, and conversation partner, which makes a difference for students’ performance and constitutes an affective support (Kim et al., 2025; Ou et al., 2024). Several studies have explored undergraduate students’ perceptions on GenAI in writing, soliciting responses through interviews and surveys (e.g., Kim et al., 2025; Ou et al., 2024). Adding to this body of work, the presentations in this symposium offer other perspectives on undergraduate students’ academic writing with GenAI, using various theoretical perspectives, research designs, and methods. First, focus lies on students’ peer-reflections on academic writing, where they discussed GenAI as part of their academic writing without being specifically asked about GenAI. Second, focus lies on students’ reflections on engaging in academic writing tasks using GenAI, more specifically, self-feedback scaffolding through GenAI in online writing tasks and GenAI as a tool for cognition when writing argumentative texts. Thus, the symposium adds to ongoing discussions of potentials, challenges, and dilemmas that GenAI technologies present for academic writing in higher education. ReferencesKhalifa, M., & Albadawy, M. (2024). Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine Update, 5, 100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpbup.2024.100145Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025). Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 1265–1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7Nguyen, A., Hong, Y., Dang, B., & Huang, X. (2024). Human-AI collaboration patterns in AI-assisted academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 49(5), 847–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2323593Ou, A. W., Stöhr, C., & Malmström, H. (2024). Academic communication with AI-powered language tools in higher education: From a post-humanist perspective. System, 121, 103225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103225

Becoming Writers, Becoming Teachers: Student Teachers’ Literacy Attitudes Across Contexts

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Aptoula, Nur Yigitoglu , Bogazici University, Türkiye
Presenting author: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Presenting author: Lindgren, Eva , Umeå University, Sweden
Presenting author: Sturk, Erika , University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Presenting author: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Chair: Wanka, Rebekka , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

reading and writing;writing beliefs;writing processes;writing skills

Abstract

This study explored how student teachers in their first semester of teacher education conceptualized writing and broader literacy practices. The aim was to identify the attitudes, beliefs, and orientations that future teachers bring to writing before receiving formal instruction in teaching writing. Understanding these early conceptualizations is essential for informing the design of effective writing pedagogy within teacher education programs. The study was grounded in research on writing attitudes and writer identity, particularly work emphasizing the multifaceted nature of writing as an affective, cognitive, and socially situated activity (Ivanič, 2004). This framework guided our investigation of how student teachers position themselves as writers and how these orientations vary across educational contexts. We employed a questionnaire-based design using the Writing Attitude Survey for Teachers and Pupils (WASP), complemented by additional items targeting broader literacy practices. Participants were drawn from multiple universities in Türkiye and Sweden, ensuring diversity not only across countries but also across institutional contexts. Factor analyses were conducted to identify underlying dimensions of writing attitudes and to generate profiles of student teachers’ orientations toward writing. We identified four factors: creativity in writing, digital tools, personal writing and writing for school. There was a cross-country difference regarding creativity and digital tools. These profiles point to differing levels of confidence and investment in writing, highlighting the need for teacher education programs to address variation in incoming literacy attitudes. The study contributes to the writing research domain by offering cross-national evidence on how student teachers conceptualize writing at the outset of their training. These insights can inform curriculum design, support the development of writer identity in teacher education, and contribute to a broader comparative framework for studying writing-related attitudes across educational systems.

Bursts of writing and their relation to text quality in children’s writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Houssein, Tatiana , CNRS/Université de Poitiers, France
Co-author: Bordes, Caroline , CNRS/Université de Poitiers, France
Co-author: Olive, Thierry , CNRS/Université de Poitiers, France
Chair: Wanka, Rebekka , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

acquisition;text composition;writing at school;writing processes

Abstract

Writing acquisition requires the progressive coordination of transcription, linguistic formulation, and monitoring processes. Burst-based analyses offer a fine-grained approach to capture how children temporally organize their writing across learning (e.g., Alves et al., ; Cislaru & Olive, 2018 ; Olive, 2014). Process coordination indeed develops through the progressive automatisation of transcription simultaneously to growing skills in higher-level processes such as planning and revision. In this framework, we examined how the duration and length of production and revision bursts change across 3rd, 5th, and 6th graders who typed narrative and expository texts. We also analyzed the relations between process and product measures. Grade differences appeared in both process and product measures. Younger students produced longer-duration bursts but shorter texts, whereas older students showed shorter bursts and produced richer written products. Burst dynamic was only marginally influenced by text type, suggesting that the temporal organization of transcription and higher-level processes remains relatively stable across genres. Narratives were longer in size and syntactically more complex than expository texts. Orthographic spelling, however, did not follow a linear pattern: 5th graders made the most errors overall, and narratives elicited more errors than expository texts, with this genre difference being strongest among younger writers. Correlations indicated that short duration and larger bursts were associated with higher writers’ productivity and higher syntactic complexity, particularly among younger students, supporting the view that gains in lower-level fluency contribute to more developed written products. Together, these findings show how improvements in fluency facilitate the emergence of more complex and productive writing, illustrating how temporal and textual dimensions of writing evolve during learning to facilitate the emergence of more complex and productive writing.

Effective Revision in Upper-Primary Writing: Strategy Use and Text Quality

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Arias-Gundín, Olga , University of León, Spain
Presenting author: Lopez, Paula , University of León, Spain
Presenting author: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Limpo, Teresa , University of Porto, Portugal
Chair: Wanka, Rebekka , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

L1;writing at school;writing processes;writing skills

Abstract

Producing written texts that meet genre conventions and readers’ expectations is a cognitively demanding activity, particularly for developing writers. Revision plays a central role in improving text quality, as it allows writers to evaluate and modify their texts beyond initial formulation. However, revision effectiveness depends not only on detecting problems, but also on the strategic operations used to address them. Despite its importance, less is known about how specific revision strategies contribute to text quality during the later years of primary education.The present study examines the use of revision strategies in upper-primary students and analyses how different strategies relate to writing quality. Participants were 834 typically developing students from Grades 4 to 6 (10-12 years old). Students completed two tasks: (a) writing a narrative text, and (b) revising a researcher-created narrative text containing six mechanical and six substantive problems. Writing quality was assessed using anchor texts, considering textual structure, lexical diversity, coherence, and overall discourse quality. Revision strategies were identified by analyzing the changes made by students and classifying them into eight categories: edit, add, delete, transform, replace, permute, distribute, and consolidate according to previous studies (e.g., Chanquoy et al., 2009).Results showed that students relied predominantly on editing and permutation strategies, being the most frequently used across grades. A clear developmental trend was observed, with older students employing a greater variety of strategies than younger students. Importantly, strategies involving the addition and reorganisation of information emerged as the strongest predictors of text quality, regardless of grade level.These findings highlight the functional value of specific revision strategies in writing development and suggest that instructional practices should move beyond error correction to explicitly support more substantive forms of revision. Implications for models of writing development and educational practice will be discussed. This work is part of a project funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation and the European Union (ref. PID2021-124011NB-I00).

Effects of removing visual feedback on writing to learn

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Galbraith, David , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Co-author: Baaijen, Veerle , CLCG University of Groningen, Netherlands
Co-author: Peters, Amy , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Co-author: Prentice, Olivia , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Chair: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;cognitive processes;speaking and writing;writing to learn

Abstract

This study examined the effect of removing visual feedback while writing summaries of source texts on participants’ subsequent recognition memory for words contained in the source texts. Previous research has established a consistent writing superiority effect whereby words from the original text are recognised faster following a written summary compared to a spoken summary. The present study examined whether this advantage persists when visual feedback is removed during the production of a written summary. In a within subjects’ design, 32 university students were asked to read and then summarise text under three different conditions: (i) written summaries; (ii) spoken summaries and (iii) invisibly written summaries. Each condition contained 4 texts about randomly varying topics so that performance in the 3 different conditions was based on performance across 4 trials. In each trial, participants were asked to: (i) read a brief text: (ii) rate their understanding of the text; (iii) summarize the text; (iv) rate their understanding of the text again, before; (v) responding true / false to a recognition test of 30 words, 15 of which were taken from the original text and 15 of which had not been present in the text. The results showed that the writing superiority effect was preserved even when visual feedback was removed during writing. Participants in both writing conditions responded equally faster to words from the original texts compared to the participants in the spoken condition (F(2, 277) = 2.65, p

Exploring Keystroke Logging Behavior to Investigate Self-Regulated Writing of Undergraduate Students

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Outerbridge, Sierra , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Taub, Michelle , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Schneier, Joel , University of Central Florida, United States
Chair: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;cognitive processes;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;metacognition

Abstract

When supporting undergraduate students in a first-year writing course, we utilized Downs & Wardle’s (2007) evidenced-based model of writing-about-writing (WaW) to foster metacognitive monitoring and self-regulated writing (SRW) practices. After gaining IRB approval, 62 student volunteers (n=62) from a first-year writing course spent a 30-minute writing session in a lab setting. Students were asked to write about their writing process, and keystroke logging behavior (production, deletion, insertion, and pause time) was captured at the millisecond-level via InputLog (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013). Since the prompt is reflective in nature, we deductively coded participants’ sentences through the lens of self-regulated learning (SRL): planning, performance, and reflection (Zimmerman, 1998). Through the lens of Graham’s (2018) Writer(s)-Within-Community Model of Writing, a model that utilizes Zimmerman’s (1998) interpretation of SRL, we investigate how students may engage in keystroke logging behavior to investigate SRW strategies concurrently with behaviors enacted during the writing session by asking two research questions: (1) Are there distinct keystroke logging behavior patterns when responding to a self-reflective writing prompt? (2) Does the frequency of coded SRL sentences relate to the patterns that emerge? We investigated these research questions via Markov Chain Analysis to analyze the nominal keystroke logging behavior to identify patterns students enacted while writing; 6 common patterns suggested students engaged in metacognitive monitoring or revision behavior (e.g., delete → insert → insert). For the second question, we anticipate a logistic regression will demonstrate that students with a higher frequency of reflection codes will have a positive likelihood of enacting a pattern of metacognitive monitoring and/or revision. These results inform how students are engaging with the writing process when reflecting on their writing, a tool that might help us better understand students’ writing behaviors towards adapting pedagogical practices. Selected References Downs, D., & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re)envisioning “first-year composition” as “introduction to writing studies.” College Composition & Communication, 58(4), 552–584.Graham, S. (2018). A revised Writer(s)-Within-Community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406

Prompt – write – revise – repeat: a writing-process study of AI-assisted writing in higher education

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Chair: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;cognitive processes;writing processes

Abstract

With the widespread adoption of generative AI for (academic) writing, established models of the writing process such as Hayes (2012) need to be re-conceptualized. It has been suggested that writing could be viewed as a “co-activity of humans and machines” (Steinhoff 2023, Brommer & Rezat in print).To date, extensive survey-based research documents students’ AI use in higher education based on self-reports (cf. Ravšelj et al. 2025), whereas observational studies examining how students shape and appropriate human-AI co-activity in writing processes remain scarce (cf., however, Jelson et al. 2025).This study aimed to investigates writing strategies students use in AI-assisted writing, in particular, how students adapt and combine sub-processes, such as prompting, treatment of the AI output, AI-assistant revision, and their own revisions, and how different strategies impact the characteristics and quality of texts. To this end, several data-collection instruments were used: screen capture (OBS Studio) and keystroke logging (Leijten & Van Waes 2013) to record text production processes and the interaction between human input and AI output; stimulated recall (Gass 2000) to capture (meta-)cognitive processes; and a short questionnaire on AI-supported writing strategies and participants’ self-efficacy beliefs.The paper reports on a study comprising 12 writing sessions with students of German studies who varied in their experience with academic writing and AI use, testing the combination of methods and exploring writing processes and strategies with the aim of developing a category system for their description and analysis. ReferencesBrommer, S., Rezat, S. (pre-print). Mensch-KI-Interaktion beim Schreiben – Theoretische Überlegungen zur Modellierung des Schreibprozesses. In: Weder, M., Bubenhofer, N. (eds.): Schreiben mit KI. transcipt.Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and Remodeling Writing. In: Written Communication 29, 369–388. Leijten, M., Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze Writing Processes. Written Communication 30(3), 358-392. Ravšelj, D., et al. (2025). Higher education students’ perceptions of ChatGPT: A global study of early reactions. In: PLOS ONE, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315011.Steinhoff, T. (2023): Der Computer schreibt (mit). Digitales Schreiben mit Word, Whatsapp, ChatGPT & Co. als Koaktivität von Mensch und Maschine. In: MiDU-Medien im Deutschunterricht, IDSL II. (1), 1–16.

An Innovative Strategy for Improving Undergraduate Low Writing Fluency

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Long, Goldberry , University of California, Riverside, United States
Presenting author: Lussier, Catherine , University of California, Riverside, United States
Co-author: Atit, Kinnari , University of California, Riverside, United States
Chair: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;fluency;intervention study;writing instruction

Abstract

Low writing fluency, or writer’s block (WB) is common among all students from all backgrounds, and is often experienced when generating first drafts. Students experiencing WB may turn to AI to write their draft for them as a solution. This raises concerns about academic dishonesty and more importantly may undermine the development of students’ writing skills and writing self-efficacy. Thus, in the growing age of AI, identifying evidence-based cognitive strategies to help students manage WB should be a critical priority. However, most writing interventions often focus on planning and revising, offering few self-regulation strategies for starting and continuing to generate ideas when writing a first draft. This pre-post quantitative study examines the efficacy of Powerwriting, an instructional intervention for improving writing fluency in undergraduates. This intervention involves students answering an open-ended backbone question scaffolded by three cognitively supporting sub-strategies (e.g., use linking words, allow tangents, and type questions/type answers) aimed at enhancing word generation and writing self-efficacy. Students (n = 100) generated weekly ten-minute Powerwriting samples across a ten-week creative writing course. Writing fluency, self-efficacy, and writing apprehension were measured pre- and post- instruction. Results from Wilcoxon-Signed Rank tests comparing pre- and post- assessment outcomes show that fluency (V = 4517, p < .001; rw = .83) and self-efficacy (V = 3433, p < .001, rw=0.40) increased, but writing apprehension did not change (V = 1921.50, p =.73, rw=0.03). Moreover, students showed large gains for writing fluency and moderately large gains in self-efficacy, as indicated by their Wilcoxon effect sizes (rw). These findings demonstrate that Powerwriting can support students in overcoming WB, even when they are apprehensive about starting a first draft. They further suggest that providing students with effective strategies for managing WB may reduce the likelihood of AI misuse as a workaround for early drafting difficulties.

Does seeing writing as changeable matter?

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kraft, Sanna , Linnaeus University, Sweden
Co-author: Wengelin, Åsa , University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Co-author: Thurfjell, Fredrik , Habiliteringen Stockholm, Sweden
Co-author: Rack, John , Linnaeus University, Sweden
Chair: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;experimental approaches;keystroke logging;writing beliefs

Abstract

Students’ beliefs about writing ability—whether they view it as changeable or fixed—affect how they engage with writing instruction (Limpo & Alves, 2014). Those believing that writing ability can improve are better positioned to develop their skills, whereas seeing it as fixed may be problematic, especially for those who struggle (e.g., those with dyslexia), as this perspective risks placing all blame on their own competence. Beliefs about competence have also been linked to text quality (Grenner et al., 2021), and students with low self-efficacy in relation to writing tend to write less frequently (Waldmann et al., 2022). However, the link between viewing writing ability as changeable and actual performance remains unclear. In school, where writing serves both as an assessment tool and a means of learning, understanding how perceptions differ between students with and without writing difficulties is crucial. Such knowledge can inform instruction that supports writing. This quasi-experimental study examines the relationship between middle school students’ beliefs about writing ability and their text production. The study includes 58 students (ages 10–13), of whom 38 have reading and writing difficulties. Participants completed a questionnaire on writing habits and beliefs about writing and wrote descriptive texts. Both writing processes and final texts were collected and analysed linguistically. Comparisons between students’ beliefs, writing processes, and texts will be presented. The study contributes knowledge to inform teaching practices that support writing—particularly for students needing additional support. Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2014). Implicit theories of writing and their impact on students' response to a SRSD intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 571-590.Grenner, E., Johansson, V., van de Weijer, J., & Sahlén, B. (2021). Effects of intervention on self-efficacy and text quality in elementary school students’ narrative writing. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 46(1), 1-10.Waldmann, C., Ranjkesh, R. Malmström, A., Lindgren E. & Levlin, M. (2022). Ungdomars skrivpraktiker på fritiden. In: P. Sundqvist, C. Waldmann, B. Straszer and B. Ljung Egeland (Reds.) Språk i skola, på fritid och i arbetsliv. ASLA:s skriftserie 29, 187–212.

Writing deceit: The influence of veracity on writing processes in personal narratives

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Co-author: Gullberg, Kajsa , Lund University, Sweden
Co-author: Johansson, Roger , Lund University, Sweden
Co-author: Frid, Johan , Lund University, Sweden
Chair: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;eye tracking;keystroke logging;writing and linguistics

Abstract

Distinguishing lies from truths has long been of interest across psychology, linguistics, and forensic research. Studies of written deception have traditionally focused on finished texts, examining lexical or stylistic features associated with veracity (e.g., Newman et al., 2003; Johansson et al., 2025). These studies have identified systematic differences between truthful and deceptive texts but fail to describe how writing processes unfold during deceitful writing. More recently, process-oriented methods such as keystroke logging have shown that deception affects writing behaviour – particularly pausing and revision – but that these effects depend on task characteristics and the demands imposed on the writer (Banerjee et al., 2014; Gullberg et al., 2025).The present study extends this line of research by examining how deceptive modifications of personal narratives based on autobiographical memories shape the writing process. Rather than relying on experimentally provided material, the design targets a situation common in everyday and forensic contexts: altering a well-established, personally meaningful narrative. This allows explorations of how deception unfolds when writers must modify a stable memory representation while maintaining coherence.The study addresses two questions: (1) How does altering elements of a personal experience influence narrative production? (2) How does deceptive intent affect planning, revision, and monitoring processes during writing?Participants (n = 18) wrote personal narratives both truthfully and deceitfully in an experiment using ScriptLog combined with eye-tracking. Results showed that deceptive narratives were characterized by significantly longer initial pauses, more frequent pausing, a higher proportion pause time, and more extensive deletions than truthful narratives, indicating increased processing demands both before writing begins and throughout text production. By contrast, no clear differences were observed between conditions in global measures of reading and visual processing of the emerging text.Overall, the findings suggest that deception in personal narratives primarily manifests in temporal and revision-related aspects of writing. They highlight the importance of narrative familiarity and personal relevance for understanding cognitive demands in writing processes and point to the potential value of process-based measures for identifying deceptive production in applied and forensic contexts. It also furthers our understanding of how potentially cognitively demanding tasks impact the writing processes.

Integrating ChatGPT into EFL Writing Instruction: Effects of Teacher Modelling and Autonomous Use

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Van Steendam, Elke , KU Leuven, Belgium
Co-author: Le Thanh, Thao , KU LEUVEN, Belgium
Co-author: Sercu, Lies , Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Co-author: Hoang, Yen Phuong , Can Tho University Vietnam, Vietnam
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;intervention study;writing instruction

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer peripheral to writing education; it is embedded in learners’ everyday composing practices, yet a key question remains: how should AI be effectively integrated to support complex genres such as argumentative writing? While prior research highlights AI’s potential for localized feedback and revision, intervention studies comparing integration designs for producing full essays within established instructional frameworks are scarce. In EFL contexts, where linguistic and rhetorical demands compound cognitive load (Hyland, 2019), teacher modelling, making expert strategies visible across planning, drafting, revising, and self-regulation (Graham & Perin, 2007; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998), offers a benchmark for evaluating AI-supported instruction. What remains unclear is whether AI can serve as a productive modelling partner, how it compares to modelling without AI, and whether autonomous AI use fosters sustained gains in text quality.To address this question, we set up a pretest-posttest experimental study with 130 Vietnamese EFL undergraduates completing a four-lesson sequence on argumentative writing aligned with Schunk and Zimmerman’s (1998) self-regulated skill acquisition model. Three conditions were implemented: (1) Teacher Modelling + ChatGPT (TM+GPT), where the teacher thought aloud while prompting and critiquing ChatGPT output; (2) Teacher Modelling only (TM), replicating strategy instruction without AI; and (3) Autonomous Learning + ChatGPT (AL+GPT), where students engaged ChatGPT independently as a writing coach. A mixed-method design captured (a) screen-capture and keystroke logs for processes, (b) writing products for text quality, and (c) questionnaires on perceptions. This paper focuses on the product-level question: What is the effect of ChatGPT-integrated instruction on text quality? Results show that TM+GPT produced the highest text-quality scores, outperforming both AL+GPT and TM. These findings suggest that AI yields the greatest benefit when embedded within explicit teacher modelling that scaffolds prompt design, critical evaluation of AI output, and alignment with rhetorical goals, rather than when students use AI autonomously or when instruction excludes AI. implications for integrating AI as a mediated modelling partner in EFL writing curricula will be discussed.

Morpheme and syllable boundaries in adult handwriting

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Nottbusch, Guido , University of Potsdam, Germany
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;handwriting;keystroke logging;writing processes

Abstract

Studies of handwriting movements (as well as keyboard logging studies) have shown that writers consistently pause at syllable and morpheme boundaries when writing words in different languages/writing systems. Syllabic processing in particular has been the subject of a considerable amount of research. Several studies (e.g. Kandel et al., 2011) have shown that adult writers slow down at syllable onsets. Regarding the impact of morphological structure on handwriting processes, the existing empirical evidence is rather limited. To fill this gap, we replicate various unpublished studies on keyboard logging using adult handwriting (collected with GetWrite on iPads) and then compare both results. The stimuli consist of words in which different linguistic boundaries occur in a bigram, e.g. for the bigram : Verkäuferin (saleswoman; prefix/stem, high frequency),verklingen (fade away; prefix/stem, low frequency)Wunderkind (child genius; stem/stem, hf),Sauberkeit (cleanliness; stem/suffix, hf),Biederkeit (conservatism, stem/suffix, lf)Kaiserkult (emperor worship; stem/stem, lf), Gurke (cucumber; syllable, hf), Forke (rake; syllable, lf),Werk (works; letter, hf),Quark (curd cheese; lf) All morphological boundaries are syllable boundaries as well. The data of approximately 100 adults are not analysed yet, be we expect longer pauses for the morpheme/syllable boundaries compared to the syllable boundaries and the letter boundaries (shortes pauses), if the pen is lifted between the two letters of interest. In addition, we compare velocity, duration and fluency of the first, the second and, if present, the connecting strokes, taking the frequency of the whole words and, if applicable, the second morpheme alone into account. References Kandel, S., Peereman, R., Grosjacques, G., & Fayol, M. L. (2011). For a psycholinguistic model of handwriting production: Testing the syllable-bigram controversy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1310–1322. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023094

The Use of Gender-Inclusive Writing : Insights from Writing Process Models

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Girard, Gabrielle , Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
Co-author: Foucambert, Denis , Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;writing models;writing processes

Abstract

This study investigates how and when gender-inclusive writing (IW) (écriture inclusive) is used during text production in French and how it affects writing processes. IW refers to strategies that make a greater number of gender identities visible in French, as opposed to the so-called “generic” masculine used as the default for describing mixed-gender groups.Practices include composite forms (e.g. les lecteur·trices, ‘the readersMASC·FEM’), epicene writing (words without gender variation, e.g. le lectorat, ‘the readership’, les spécialistes, ‘the specialists’), and rephrasing to eliminate gender markings.While IW is increasingly observed in educational and professional contexts, its integration into writing may impose additional cognitive demands and often appear through revisions rather than during initial burst – or not at all.Grounded in psycholinguistic models of writing, such as Flower and Hayes’ (1981) cognitive process theory, and Alamargot and Fayol’s (2009) work, this study examines how different stages of writing are affected by IW. IW may require writers to allocate additional resources between conceptual content and linguistic formulation, which could translate to longer pauses and revisions of the first burst (Alamargot et al., 2007; Cislaru & Olive, 2018). Our methodological design combines two phases of an image-description task. In the first phase, participants (N = 15) describe an image depicting a mixed-gender group without specific instruction. In the second, they describe additional images with explicit instruction to use IW strategies. Texts are typed in Genographix, enabling observation of real-time writing processes such as pauses, revisions, and reformulations. The resulting texts are analyzed using mixed models for IW presence or absence and process indicators of a higher cognitive cost (e.g., pauses, revisions).Early findings suggest IW is rarely used spontaneously. When required, writers exhibit longer pauses and more revisions, indicating increased cognitive effort and monitoring. These results suggest that IW is not yet automated and remains a controlled process requiring conscious attention.This study provides insight into how a relatively new linguistic resource affects writing processes. It also informs writing pedagogy and professional practice by highlighting the cognitive challenges that need to be addressed to make IW use more spontaneous and integrated into writing.

A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies on Secondary Writing Instruction from 1968-2023

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Buenker, Joe , Arizona State University, ASU Library, United States
Presenting author: Early, Jessica , Arizona State University, United States
Presenting author: Jeffery, Jill , Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Netherlands
Chair: Sturm, Afra , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

meta-analysis;pedagogy and instruction;writing at school;writing instruction

Abstract

This paper examines fifty five years of qualitative research in English on teaching writing in secondary (6–12) classrooms to address a critical gap in the field. Although scholarship on writing instruction has expanded across disciplinary, methodological, and geographical boundaries, the last review (Hillocks, 2008) focused specifically on qualitative studies of secondary writing and was not empirically grounded. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic, empirical synthesis of qualitative research on secondary writing instruction published between 1968 and 2023, offering historical and contemporary insights into how writing is taught, supported, and conceptualized in classroom contexts across the globe.Guided by a sociocultural theoretical framework, we investigate how writing instruction is shaped through social relationships, disciplinary expectations, and the contexts in which literacy practices occur (Bazerman, 2000; Brandt, 2001; Early, 2010). From this perspective, writing is contextual, purpose-driven, and developed through sustained practice and guided participation (Bazerman & Bonini, 2009). We conducted a systematic review in collaboration with content specialists and a research librarian. Using a three-part search strategy within a comprehensive academic database, we generated a keyword search aligned with our research questions and thereby identified studies published from 1968–2023. We developed screening criteria, established interrater reliability procedures, and completed three iterative rounds of analysis to examine theoretical orientations, methodological approaches, data collection practices, and reported findings. Through this process we reduced our initial result set from 1,471 publications by 86% to just 201 journal articles, dissertations, ERIC documents, etc.Our findings highlight major shifts in the theoretical and methodological landscape of secondary writing research, recurrent themes in effective writing instruction, and trends in how classroom writing has been conceptualized over time. The review also identifies persistent methodological challenges, including issues of discoverability, keywording, and documentation of research contexts. This paper contributes to the field by offering a descriptive overview of best practices in both the study and teaching of secondary writing and by outlining recommendations for conducting systematic reviews in writing research, particularly when constructing historical corpora.

Gender differences in self-reported audience awareness in middle schoolers’ argumentative writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Torkildsen, Janne von Koss , University of Oslo, Norway
Co-author: Hagelund, Silje , University of Oslo, Norway
Co-author: Knoph, Rebecca , University of Oslo, Norway
Co-author: Jerijærvi, Camilla Bøen , CREATE, centre for research on equality in education, University of Oslo, Norway
Co-author: Lervåg, Arne , University of Oslo, CREATE Centre for research on equality in education, Norway
Chair: Sturm, Afra , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Keywords

developmental aspects of writing ability;proficiency;social and cultural aspects of writing;writing processes

Abstract

Purpose:Girls consistently outperform boys on writing assessments (e.g. Reilly et al. 2019), yet the sources of these differences are not fully understood. One potential contributor is audience awareness during writing, a construct closely related to perspective-taking and theory of mind, where gender differences have been documented (e.g. Van der Graaff et al. 2014). However, few studies have examined students’ own judgements of audience awareness during the writing process. This study investigated gender differences in self-reported audience awareness among middle school students writing argumentative texts.Method:Participants were 137 sixth- and seventh-grade students (69 girls, 68 boys) in Norway. Students read a short dilemma involving a sustainability issue relevant to their age group and were asked to write an argumentative text advising the protagonist on what stance to take. Immediately after writing, students completed an online questionnaire assessing their thoughts about the audience at different stages during the writing process, as well as specific dimensions of audience awareness.Results:Fifty-five percent of girls, compared to 29% of boys, reported thinking about the audience often or very often while writing. In contrast, 49% of boys reported that they did so rarely, never, or did not know, compared to 22% of girls. These gender differences were consistent across pre-planning, drafting, and revision phases. When specific dimensions of audience awareness were examined, boys more often than girls reported focusing on making the language easy to understand for the audience. Conversely, more than twice as many girls as boys reported considering whether the content and arguments were appropriate for their audience.Conclusion:Substantial gender differences in self-reported audience awareness suggest that this construct may potentially be a meaningful factor in explaining gender gaps in writing performance. The findings also point to the importance of differentiating between surface-level (e.g. linguistic) and content-related audience awareness when designing writing interventions.References: Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000356 Van der Graaff et al. (2014). Developmental psychology, 50(3), 881. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034325

On-line spelling revision in elementary and middle school children: a focus on revision time

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Chanquoy, Lucile , Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Chair: Sturm, Afra , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

developmental aspects of writing ability;errors and error correction;experimental approaches;writing processes

Abstract

This research focuses on on-line detection and correction of lexical and grammatical spelling errors inserted in written sentences performed by primary and secondary school students. The objective was to determine, from temporal measures and revision scores, which errors produced the biggest difficulties for participants and, from a developmental point of view, how the revision process evolved with grade level. This study was based on the postulate that time taken for revising should be a good indicator of the difficulty encountered by participants to detect and to correct spelling errors. Thus, not only detected and revised errors were considered, but also the time needed by students to revise each sentence and the nature of the correction. Several types of surface spelling errors were introduced in 24 experimental sentences: (1) 10 sentences each containing a lexical error (consistent vs. inconsistent word, derivable finale letter vs. non derivable, contextual graphemes); (2) 14 sentences each containing a grammatical error (number and gender agreement errors on verbs, adjectives, nouns). There were equally 10 training and distractive (without error) sentences. The experiment took place online. We measured the number of errors detected, the number of errors detected and correctly (vs. incorrectly) and the number of non-corrected errors. We also measured the time taken by the participants to detect and correct the different types of errors. In a first analysis (e.g., Chanquoy, 2023, 2024), we only analyzed the various possible corrections (as mentioned above) based on the nature of the errors presented.In this second part, we want to compare the nature of correctly corrected errors with the time taken to make these corrections. Here only sentences whose errors have been both detected and correctly corrected are considered. Results showed that participants, regardless of their grades, took significantly less time to correct lexical than grammatical errors. There was an expected effect of school level: older children detected and corrected more rapidly than younger ones. As large inter-error and inter-individual differences had been highlighted, several analyses involving revising times and nature of revised errors are currently in progress.

Assessing Higher-Order Writing Skills: Development and Validation of a Diagnostic Instrument

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Hennes, Ann-Kathrin , Universität Kassel, Germany
Presenting author: Linnemann, Markus , University of Koblenz, Germany
Presenting author: Thamm, Alexander , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Jost, Joerg , Universiät zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Schabmann, Alfred , Universiät zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Schmidt, Barbara , Universiät zu Köln, Germany
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

evaluation and assessment of writing competence;text composition;writing at school;writing skills

Abstract

Writing competence is central to academic success and participation beyond school. (Becker-Mrotzek, 2014). Current models conceptualize text production as a multilevel process, with higher-order composing skills—such as coherence and cohesion, audience awareness, and information management—being particularly important for text quality (Hennes, 2020). To support individualized instruction, teachers must accurately assess these subskills and identify student’s strengths and weaknesses (Graham et al., 2012). However, existing diagnostic instruments rarely target these higher-order composing competences in a differentiated way (Hennes, 2020). This study presents the development and validation of a writing test designed to assess four key dimensions of composing: global coherence, local cohesion, audience awareness, and information management. The instrument was developed for students in grades 4 to 9 and comprises ten tasks, each targeting one dimension. An extended text production task served as the criterion variable, with text quality evaluated globally using comparative judgments. Validation data were collected from students in grades 4 (N = 91), 6 (N = 135), and 9 (N = 65) in Germany; grade 9 was excluded from the analysis due to ceiling effects. For grades 4 and 6, regression analyses identified tasks that significantly predicted text quality; together, these explained substantial variance. Subsequent exploratory factor analyses – conducted to examine whether the remaining tasks reflected the hypothesized multidimensional structure – yielded a single-factor solution for both grade levels. These findings raise important questions regarding the relationship between statistical dimensionality and diagnostic utility, particularly as current models of text production assume a multidimensional structure. Implications for educational practice and theoretical models of text composition will be discussed. References Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2014). Schreibkompetenz. In J. Grabowski (Hrsg.), Sinn und Unsinn von Kompetenzen: Fähigkeitskonzepte im Bereich von Sprache, Medien und Kultur (1. Aufl., S. 51–72). Verlag Barbara Budrich. Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 879–896. Hennes, A.-K. (2020). Schreibprodukte bewerten: Die Rolle der Expertise bei der Bewertung der Textproduktionskompetenz [KUPS (Kölner UniversitätsPublikationsServer)].

Effectiveness of single-case writing interventions (2008-2025): Preliminary meta-analysis findings

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Rønneberg, Vibeke , University of Stavanger, Norway
Co-author: Alves-Wold, Aline , University of Stavanger, Norway
Co-author: Camacho, Ana , University of Porto, Portugal
Co-author: McTigue, Erin , University of Stavanger, Norway
Co-author: Moeyaert, Mariola , University at Albany, State University of New York, United States
Co-author: Alves, Rui Alexandre , University of Porto, Portugal
Co-author: Solheim, Oddny Judith , University of Stavanger, Norway
Co-author: Van Keer, Hilde , Ghent University, Belgium
Co-author: De Smedt, Fien , Ghent University, Belgium
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

intervention study;meta-analysis;writing at school;writing instruction

Abstract

Research Topic and AimThis presentation introduces a pre-registered meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of writing interventions tested through single-case experimental designs from 2008 to 2025. This work is being conducted under an EARLI-funded network composed of writing researchers from three countries.Theoretical Framework Building on Rogers and Graham’s (2008) and Casola’s (2023) works, the meta-analysis targets school-based writing interventions for Grade 1-12 students to estimate their impact on writing performance while identifying student- and intervention-level moderators of effectiveness.Methodological DesignDatabase searches conducted in June 2025 using PsycINFO, Education Source Ultimate, and Web of Science initially yielded 4,753 records. Four raters screened the abstracts of these records (95-96% of interrater agreement) and retained 198 papers for full-text screening. Of these, 135 fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: single-case experimental design, grades 1-12 students, included a baseline with at least three data points, reported at least one quantitative writing or motivational outcome, and provided sufficient information to compute effect sizes. Once the database searches are complemented with hand searches, the raw single-case data of the selected studies will be extracted using WebPlotDigitizer 4.6 and coded for key moderators at the student (e.g., grade level, educational status) and intervention levels (e.g., type of writing intervention, provider). Multilevel modeling will be used to estimate intervention effects.Preliminary FindingsPreliminary coding of the 135 studies identified so far indicated a predominance of primary-school and special education samples; frequent use of multiple-baseline and multiple-probe designs; researchers as the main intervention providers; and a firm reliance on writing quality, length, and genre elements as outcome measures, with relatively few studies including objective motivational measures. Preliminary statistical results will be presented at the conference.Relevance to the Writing DomainThis work will provide updated guidance for evidence-based writing instruction in Grades 1-12 and inform the design of single-case literacy interventions across three countries. ReferencesCasola, M. A. (2023). Single-subject writing strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. The University of Western Ontario, Canada).Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 879–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.4.879

Modelling the Subskills of Writing in Instructional Texts

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kreutz, Rebecca Maria , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Wolf, Julie , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Schabmann, Alfred , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

evaluation and assessment of writing competence;writing at school;writing models;writing skills

Abstract

The Cascaded Model of Writing (CASMOW) – a current writing model – shows that in lower secondary school, where lower-level skills are largely automated, these skills only contribute indirectly to text quality via higher-level writing skills such as cohesion and lexical diversity, which in turn have a direct impact on text quality. To date, CASMOW has only been validated for narrative texts (Philippek et al., 2025). However, studies examining individual writing skills independently of the model suggest that their influence vary depending on the text genre (Beers & Naggy, 2009). The present study therefore investigated the applicability of CASMOW to instructional texts.The sample comprised 150 students in grades 5 to 7, aged ten to thirteen (M(age) = 11.21, SD = 0.93; 67 girls). Participants wrote an instructional text, which was analysed for lexical diversity and text quality. Executive functions, handwriting fluency, spelling, grammatical skills and cohesion were assessed using standardised tests. All variables were transferred to a structural equation model according to the CASMOW structure.Preliminary results showed that lower-level skills mainly influenced text quality indirectly, which is consistent with the results for narrative texts. In contrast to Philippek et al. (2025), however, spelling had a direct influence on text quality. Higher-level skills also showed a different pattern: lexical diversity only indirectly influenced text quality via text length, while cohesion had no influence. Overall, the model explained 35% of the variance in text quality. Since a large part of the variance remains unexplained, there must be other higher-level writing skills that are more relevant to writing instructions and should be added to the model. Furthermore, the results emphasise that effective writing instruction should be genre-specific and not generalised across all text types. References Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2009). Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11145-007-9107-5. Philippek, J., Kreutz, R. M., Hennes, A.‑K., Schmidt, B. M. & Schabmann, A. (2025). The contributions of executive functions, transcription skills and text-specific skills to text quality in narratives. Reading and Writing (38), 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10528-5

Eye-tracking recursivity in reading-writing integrated continuation tasks

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Yan, Xiaomeng , South China University of Technology; University of Groningen, China
Co-author: Michel, Marije , University of Groningen, Netherlands
Co-author: Yang, Mei , South China University of Technology, China
Co-author: Liu, Xiqin , South China University of Technology, China
Chair: Konstantinidou, Liana , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;EFL and ESL writing;eye tracking;L2

Abstract

Source-based writing is characterized by writers’ switches between reading source texts and producing their own texts, a self-regulatory process termed recursivity. The reading-writing integrated continuation task (RWICT), requiring learners to read and extend an incomplete text logically and coherently, naturally elicits recursivity. Such recursivity may foster intensive interaction with the authentic input and facilitate alignment with the source text, thereby enhancing textual cohesion and writing quality. Despite increasing attention to recursivity in L1 writing, its contribution to L2 writing and its relationship with working memory (WM) remain insufficiently researched. The present study adopts an eye-tracking methodology and addresses the following research questions: 1) What are the temporal and attentional patterns of learners’ recursivity in completing the RWICT? 2) What strategic functions underlie recursivity? 3) To what extent is WM related to the recursivity? 4) To what extent is recursivity related to the writing cohesion and quality?61 Chinese EFL undergraduates completed an RWICT, a reading-span WM test. A focus group of 14 participants took part in a stimulated recall. Three sources of data were analyzed: 1) writing outcomes, assessed via a holistic rubric and 8 cohesion indices; 2) fixation duration and visit count on the source text and paragraph prompts during writing as indicators of recursivity; 3) strategic functions underlying recursivity, captured through qualitative analysis of stimulated recall.Results showed that: 1) all participants engaged in recursive behaviors while writing, with the majority occurring in the source text, followed by paragraph 2 and 1 prompts; 2) recursivity served multiple functions, such as maintaining cohesion, planning content, reusing linguistic forms; 3) recursivity positively predicted both connective-based and semantic cohesion, though it didn’t predict writing quality; 4) no significant effects of WM on recursivity were observed. The findings are discussed in light of previous research on recursivity and continuation tasks.

Monitoring Strategies in ESL Timed Essay Writing: Insights from Ghana

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Oblie, Emmanuel Lauren , University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Co-author: Lomotey, Charlotte , University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Chair: Konstantinidou, Liana , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

assessment;EFL and ESL writing;metacognition;writing processes

Abstract

Monitoring has a central place in global models of writing; yet, its specific manifestation, particularly in Ghanaian ESL pre-university pen-and-paper writing contexts, has not received adequate published attention. As such, as part of a larger study employing a convergent parallel design, the current research used a conceptual framework derived from Abdel Latif’s (2021) model of writing to explore the monitoring strategies of 85 randomly sampled Ghanaian senior high school students who wrote an argumentative essay under think-aloud conditions. Data were analysed using protocol and descriptive analysis procedures. Quantitative results indicated that task management was the most common strategy, followed by evaluation and reasoning, whereas motivation regulation was the least frequent. Additionally, high variability across all strategies indicated considerable individual differences in strategy deployment. On the other hand, qualitative findings revealed that task management facilitated goal setting, organising the writing process, and monitoring time, although most participants did not strategically allocate time across different writing phases. Again, evaluation served to check appropriateness and review decisions, but was often shallow, reactive, and tentative, which signaled limited procedural knowledge for self-assessment. Reasoning contributed to task interpretation, idea development, rhetorical positioning, and metalinguistic awareness; however, its inconsistent and inefficient application led to a fragmented understanding of the task and poor rhetorical control. Motivation regulation appeared in forms of self-encouragement, emotional control, and sustaining effort, yet its sparse use suggests underdeveloped strategies for managing affect and perseverance. The findings validate aspects of Abdel Latif’s (2021) model and accentuate the need for explicit metacognitive instruction to strengthen strategic control and text quality in ESL timed writing contexts.

Thursday June 4, 2026

Presentations

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords