Tuesday June 2, 2026

This page shows all conference presentations scheduled for Tuesday June 2, 2026.

Presentations

Bridging Research and Classroom Practice: Improving Writing in Diverse Primary Classrooms

Abstract

Primary school lays the foundation for writing development, where teachers should help students acquire strategies to produce texts independently and foster confidence and motivation in their writing. However, many teachers feel underprepared to support children’s writing beyond spelling, and evidence-based practices often fail to reach the classroom. At the same time, research has shown that many primary children—particularly boys and students whose family language differs from that of instruction—struggle with text production, and writing motivation tends to decline toward the end of primary school. The keynote presents the project KommSchreib! (‘Let’s Write’), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, which aimed to address these challenges by bringing evidence-based writing practices into upper primary schools (Grades 3-4). We conducted a two-group quasi-experimental study comparing a business-as-usual control group with an experimental group whose teachers participated in a multi-component professional learning intervention. The intervention focused on evidence-based writing instruction and included teaching materials designed to support student motivation and address diversity. In total, 58 teachers and their 1174 students participated. In addition to the teacher-led intervention in regular classes, project members conducted small-group afternoon writing workshops for at-risk writers with extra practice at tablets, embedded in activities connected to students’ lives. We assessed writing and motivational outcomes, examined treatment fidelity measures, and conducted interviews with participating teachers. The keynote will highlight key findings, including positive effects on students’ writing, explore motivational trajectories, and discuss teacher-related and institutional factors influencing the implementation of evidence-based practices in classrooms.

A Direct Approach to the Study of Epistemic Decisions: Students Using AI for Thesis Writing

Abstract

Understanding how students make epistemic decisions when using AI technologies for academic writing requires methodological approaches that can capture the nuanced intellectual and rhetorical processes underlying their choices. While existing research has documented patterns of AI adoption and usage frequencies, there remains a significant gap in our understanding of the detailed thinking processes that guide students' decisions about when, how, and why to incorporate AI-generated content into their scholarly work. This study addresses this methodological challenge through a qualitative interview-based approach designed to access students' reflective accounts of their AI use experiences during thesis writing. As a contribution to get methodological access to AI use, this contribution reports from a larger study including three countries (Switzerland, Romania, Bulgaria) to interview students about their experiences with AI. The cross-national design allows for comparative insights into how different educational contexts and cultural backgrounds may shape students' approaches to AI integration in academic writing. The background problem of this is that we currently have many surface descriptions about AI use, but little understanding of the finer-grained thinking moves involved. Existing survey and usage data tell us what students do with AI, but not how they think through the complex decisions about knowledge construction, source integration, and authorial voice that AI use entails. Pilot interviews have been conducted with undergraduate and graduate students currently writing their theses. The interview protocol focuses on eliciting detailed narratives about specific instances of AI use, prompting students to articulate their decision-making processes, and exploring their conceptions of authorship, originality, and epistemic development in AI-assisted writing contexts. We will describe the questions that proved to be useful and summarize our experiences with this direct way of questioning students. Key results will be presented along with recommendations for interview strategies that successfully access students' epistemic reasoning in AI-assisted thesis writing.

Accessing the Epistemological Side of Writing: A Prolegomenon to the Era of AI

Abstract

Traditionally, the study of writing has focused on rhetorical, linguistic, cultural, social, and process-related dimensions. The epistemological side of writing, however, has been left to the disciplines as they oversee their respective fields of knowledge. Rarely do we directly consider students’ conceptions of truth and their understanding of knowledge or knowing in the way William Perry (1970) has addressed it. Even if academic writing may be seen as the best way of developing epistemic consciousness, the term itself not often the focus of research, and the broad range of intellectual skills behind it remains hidden. We are aware, however, that every topical sentence demands complex judgements about its appropriateness and needs justification of its assumed truth. Such epistemic activities demand understanding of what is considered valid knowledge, how it is produced, what epistemic conventions exist, and how epistemic authority is built in a certain discipline. Beyond all this, the conception of truth is a nut that is hard to crack, not only for our students but also for philosophy. We are used to confusing our students by insisting that they rely on facts but should not believe in absolute truth. How do these two demands go together?With the inclusion of generative AI in writing processes, a new algorithmic “voice” enters the field that also requires epistemic framing. However, this voice has different qualities and shortcomings compared to human epistemological consciousness during writing. Writers must evaluate their own thoughts against the AI-generated content, which presents new challenges, particularly for beginners.This symposium introduces the concept of epistemic consciousness in writing. It presents several methodological approaches, manifested in four specific research projects, to bring to the surface epistemic processes involved in academic writing. Presenters will explain the logic of the enquiry in each project along with some initial results. We intend for the symposium to stimulate new avenues for research, contributing to the exploration of human–AI interaction in writing and thinking.Project 1: Qualitative InterviewsProject 2: How Expert and Novice Academics Write with GenAI: Think-Aloud ProtocolsProject 3: Corpus Linguistic Methods

Corpus Linguistic Methods

Abstract

This study employs corpus linguistic methods to systematically investigate the linguistic and epistemic dimensions of academic thesis writing. Through the compilation and analysis of a specialized corpus of BA theses, the research seeks to identify patterns in how students construct knowledge claims and position themselves within their academic field.  The epistemic profiles of the students will be assessed through these focused corpora of BA theses. The corpora will be compiled from successfully defended theses across pre-selected disciplines, providing a representative sample of academic writing practices. The fact that the thesis writing has been guided by academic tutors in the respective area, ensures that the analyzed texts have undergone rigorous evaluation and represent successful models of scholarly argumentation as well as sufficient knowledge presentation of the topic from a BA-level perspective.  On the one hand, various linguistic indicators will be discussed with respect to their frequency, variance, and syntagmatic adequacy, such as hedges, modal expressions, markers of cohesion and coherence, linking words, references to reviewed literature, etc. The analysis will examine how these features pattern across different texts and authors, revealing underlying epistemic orientations and rhetorical strategies. Hedges and modal expressions, for instance, indicate how writers negotiate certainty and manage knowledge claims, while cohesion and coherence markers demonstrate how arguments are structured and connected throughout the overall thesis text. By analyzing frequency distributions and contextual deployment of these features, the study will identify the academic conventions and the individual variation in the epistemic positioning of the student.  On the other hand, the role of language corpora will be considered for ensuring better data extraction and observation in the analytical part of the thesis. Here also the inclusion of AI as a stand-alone tool, or in combined architectures with corpus search engines will be presented. This methodological approach explores how AI technologies can enhance traditional corpus linguistic methods, potentially offering new possibilities for pattern recognition and analytical depth in examining academic discourse.

How Expert and Novice Academics Write with GenAI: Think-Aloud Protocols

Abstract

Two related studies aim to track the infusion of GenAI into knowledge generation and diffusion processes among expert and novice academic writers across disciplines working on authentic revision tasks in writing. The first study examines experienced academic researchers and writers from diverse disciplinary backgrounds, including humanities, social sciences, and STEM fields. Using Zoom-based think-aloud methods along with keyboard tracking, the study captures real-time data on writers' cognitive processes and writing behaviors as they interact with GenAI systems. The think-aloud protocols highlight the ways in which and the degrees to which GenAI influences experienced writers' metacognitive and revision processes, epistemic development, and agency across domains of knowledge (Tardy, 2009; Kessler et al., 2026). By focusing on authentic revision tasks rather than artificial laboratory settings, the research ensures ecological validity and provides insights into actual scholarly practices. Results indicate the ways in which today's highly effective thinkers and knowledge producers incorporate (or don't) GenAI into their research and research writing practices. In the second study, undergraduate students used ChatGPT to assist them in writing 100-word literacy narratives focusing on a specific moment in their literate history. They then revised the output based on how effectively it captured their rhetorical, stylistic, and content-related intentions. Their entire process was recorded using screencast technology as they spoke their processes aloud. After finalizingtheir texts, they wrote a brief reflection on the experience. This contribution will present a thematic and code-based analysis of the epistemic decisions students made in their revisions of the outputs, with implications for reforming methods for supporting writing in the age of generative AI. Taken together, the two studies reveal differences between the epistemic processes of experienced and novice writers and suggest a developmental continuum for instruction in the use of generative AI in writing tasks.

Make Wraiting Great: Why Writing Still Matters in the Age of AI

Abstract

In an era dominated by artificial intelligence, the act of writing is often perceived as a skill that can be delegated to large language models (Pack & Maloney, 2023). Yet, writing remains essential for literacy development, cognitive development, and active participation in society. This roundtable invites researchers to explore why writing—also in times of generative AI – remains indispensable for fostering critical thinking, creativity, learning, and communication skills (Chang & Lee, 2025), while also discussing how writing with AI can shape our understanding of what writing is and can be, and how AI-supported writing may help struggling writers express their views in linguistic forms that would otherwise be inaccessible to them (Kasneci et al., 2023). We will discuss how writing cultivates deeper cognitive processes, such as reflection, revision, and synthesis – skills which are essential for participation in our complex literate societies. Writing empowers individuals to articulate ideas, engage in meaningful dialogue, and contribute to societal discourse. Hence, while AI tools can assist in generating and revising text, they should not replace the cognitive work of writing. Finally, this roundtable will examine the role of writing in promoting digital literacy and responsible use of AI, and suggest how writing with AI may change our theoretical descriptions of writing. Participants will share strategies for integrating writing into educational and professional settings, ensuring it remains a vital tool for cognitive and personal development. By highlighting the unique value of human writing, we aim to inspire a renewed commitment to nurturing writing as a fundamental skill in the AI age.

Encoding the Writing Process: TEI Between Research and Computational Use

Abstract

The Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) has long been used in digital humanities to encode manuscripts and historical documents, primarily focusing on textual products. More recently, TEI has been applied to the encoding of the writing process itself (Bekius, 2023), opening new possibilities for integrating genetic criticism, writing studies, and process-oriented research.As an open and extensible XML-based markup language, TEI is a promising candidate for encoding not only manuscripts, but also born-digital writing processes, shifting the focus from documents to writing sessions and dynamic trajectories of text production. Such an approach enables new and potential applications, including the visualization of writing dynamics (e.g. through tools such as Keystroke Loxensis (Bekius 2024) as part of the eXtant toolkit) or the creation of structured datasets for computational analysis and artificial intelligence systems.Even though TEI could ensure interoperability across projects and disciplines, its complexity and verbosity raise concerns when applied to large-scale or fine-grained writing process data, such as keystroke logs. Encoding long writing sessions at a micro-level can present problems related to elements over-lapping, as well as being time-consuming and cognitively demanding.This roundtable explores this tension by asking whether TEI can realistically function as a standard for writing process research, and under what conditions. Key questions for discussion include: Is TEI suited to represent writing dynamics captured through log files? What alternatives or hybrid solutions might exist? Can parts of the encoding process be automated? A central focus will be the selection problem: which process data is actually relevant to encode, particularly when studying creativity in writing? An additional perspective from computer science will consider whether TEI-based representations of writing processes can function as inputs for artificial agents designed to reproduce an author’s writing style and creative dynamics.Bekius, Lamyk. (2023). Behind the Computer Screens: The use of keystroke logging for genetic criticism applied to born-digital works of literature. [PhD Dissertation Antwerp University & University of Amsterdam]. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/139150661/thesis.pdf.Bekius, Lamyk. (2024). ‘Nanogenetic econarratology : where narratology meets keystroke logging data’, in Van Hulle, Dirk (éd.), Genetic Narratology: Analysing Narrative Across Versions, Cambridge, Open book publishers, 2024.Workgroup on Genetic Editions. (2010). ‘An Encoding Model for Genetic Editions’. https://tei-c.org/Vault/TC/tcw19.html.

Can Algorithm-based Feedback Help Students to Write Better? A Meta-analysis

Abstract

Against the backdrop of rapid developments of algorithm-based feedback tools - from older tools mainly providing feedback on grammar and spelling to more advanced tools based on generative artificial intelligence offering more comprehensive writing support - our meta-analysis examines to what extent algorithm-based feedback improves not only surface- (e.g., grammar and spelling) but also deep-level (e.g., structure, content, coherence) writing outcomes for different (language) learners (first, second, and foreign language learners) at secondary school and university. Algorithm-based feedback tools may be very useful for language learners as they can provide timely feedback and help with revision (Escalante et al., 2023), which can be particularly relevant for foreign language (FL) learners who often have limited contact with first language (L1) speakers outside the language classroom, as opposed to second language (L2) learners.For this meta-analysis, we reviewed experimental and quasi-experimental studies published between 2011 and the end of 2024, covering five European languages in four different databases. Results from the 33 included studies indicated that algorithm-based feedback was beneficial for improving writing in general (g = 0.36). Specifically, positive effects were observed for surface-level outcomes at post-test (g = 0.31), though no lasting effects were found at maintenance (g = -0.02). In contrast, deep-level writing outcomes showed sustained improvement, with positive effects both at post-test (g = 0.31) and maintenance (g = 0.54). No significant differences between secondary and university students were observed. However, L2 learners, in general, seemed to profit most from algorithm-based feedback, showing gains in surface- (g = 0.77, bordering on significance), and deep-level outcomes (g = 0.46). While no significant differences were found between the effects of specific types of algorithm-based feedback tools in moderator analyses, feedback from Grammarly and Pigai statistically enhanced students’ writing but effects of ChatGPT feedback were non-significant. We discuss implications for future research and educational practice, also in light of the small transfer of learning from algorithm-based feedback to new writing tasks.ReferencesEscalante, J., Pack, A., & Barrett, A. (2023). AI-generated feedback on writing: insights into efficacy and ENL student preference. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00425-2

Strong but Not Static: Reading-Writing Connections in Primary Grades

Abstract

Strong but Not Static: Reading-Writing Connections in Primary Grades Aim: This study examines the relations between reading comprehension and written composition and the predictors of these relations, using longitudinal data from U.S. primary grade children.Theoretical Framework: The Interactive Literacy Model (Kim, 2020, 2025) posits that reading and writing are related through shared underlying skills (shared skills hypothesis). However, the magnitude of this relation is not fixed; rather, it varies as a function of multiple factors (dynamic relations hypothesis). We investigated three research questions: (1) What is the relation between reading comprehension and writing quality? (2) Does this relation vary by grade level (a proxy for development)? (3) What shared predictors explain reading comprehension and writing quality?Methods: We analyzed longitudinal data from 263 children across grades 1 and 2. Reading comprehension and written composition were assessed using multiple tasks. Shared predictors included oral discourse skills and lexical literacy skills (word reading and spelling), also measured by multiple tasks.Findings: Reading comprehension and writing quality were strongly related across grade levels, though the correlation was stronger in grade 1 (.81) than grade 2 (.70), supporting the dynamic relations hypothesis. Both oral discourse skills and lexical literacy skills explained the reading-writing relation. Furthermore, the relative contributions of these predictors to reading comprehension and writing quality differed between grades 1 and 2.Relevance: Writing is not an isolated skill. Many writing tasks involve reading source materials, and effective revision requires reading proficiency. Understanding the nature of reading-writing relations has important implications for both writing theory development and instructional practice. This study contributes empirical evidence for the dynamic nature of literacy connections during early development.Keywords: Reading-writing relations, shared skills, dynamic relations, interactive dynamic literacy model ReferencesKim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading and writing relations. In R. Alves, T. Limpo, & M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science (pp. 11-34). Springer.Kim, Y.-S. G. (2025). The science of reading-writing connections. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The Handbook of Writing Research, 3rd Edition (pp. 109-124). Guilford Press.

The linguistic impacts of generative AI on L2 writing output

Abstract

In recent years, research on generative AI (GenAI) and its use for language learning has proliferated, highlighting affordances of the tools, while remaining conscious of potential limitations (Warschauer et al., 2023). Previous work on the use of GenAI tools for L2 English writing has explored the roles ChatGPT can fulfil by employing mainly (quasi-)experimental designs where AI training was provided (e.g. Fang & Han, 2025). However, there is a lack of work focusing on preexisting GenAI usage patterns in EFL students and their effect on L2 writing outcomes. While previous studies focus on the role of GenAI and its potentials, the impacts of such tools on linguistic factors, specifically in synthesis writing, remain underexplored (Yoo, 2025). This study aims to broaden our understanding of students’ preexisting GenAI practices and their impacts on synthesis writing. Participants in this cross-sectional study will complete a synthesis writing task twice (with and without GenAI). Screen recordings, semi-structured interviews, and measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) will be used to analyze their practices, engagement, and language. We expect to find improved performance on the GenAI-assisted task, potentially dependent on the methodical use of GenAI throughout the process, leading to more complex, accurate, and fluent texts. Theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study will also be discussed during the presentation. Keywords: GenAI, EFL learning, L2 writing development, CAF References Fang, S., & Han, Z. H. (2025). On the nascency of ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 253-273. Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob. S, Du, Q., Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 62, Article 101071. Yoo J. (2025). Reading-Writing Connections: A Systematic Review of Second Language Synthesis Writing. L2 Journal: An Open Access refereed Journal for World Language Educators, 17(1), 1-55.

Evaluating Writing Quality of Engineering Student Reports using Natural Language Processing Tools

Abstract

Research topic, area of investigation and aimIn higher education, writing instructors evaluate the quality of student texts and provide formative feedback on their writing. This laborious work could be supported using automatic Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools. Much research on the indices produced by NLP tools and the quality of writing has focused on essay writing. However, little research has explored report writing in science and engineering domains. To address this gap, this study investigates the association between the NLP indices and holistic human ratings of academic reports written by English as a Second Language (ESL) students in a master’s level computer science course.Methodological designData consists of 100+ academic reports (average length approx. 2800 words, excluding references), which were evaluated by writing instructors. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify NLP indices that predict the holistic instructor ratings of student reports.FindingsThe preliminary findings indicate that a regression model combining TAACO (Crossley et al., 2019), TAALED (Kyle et al., 2021), TAALES (Kyle et al., 2018) and TAASSC (Kyle, 2016) indices predicts nearly 45% of variance in holistic ratings.Relevance to domain of writingThe findings of this study extend earlier writing research to a new context and genre, i.e., longer engineering texts, and offers insights into the usability of NLP tools in writing instruction.ReferencesCrossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & Dascalu, M. (2019). The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Cohesion 2.0: Integrating Semantic Similarity and Text Overlap. Behavioral Research Methods 51(1), pp. 14-27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4Kyle, Kristopher, “Measuring Syntactic Development in L2 Writing: Fine Grained Indices of Syntactic Complexity and Usage-Based Indices of Syntactic Sophistication.” Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2016. https://doi.org/10.57709/8501051Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Berger, C. (2018). The Tool for the Analysis of Lexical Sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods 50(3), pp. 1030-1046. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Jarvis, S. (2021). Assessing the Validity of Lexical Diversity using Direct Judgements. Language Assessment Quarterly 18(2), pp. 154-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1844205

RATE THE RATER - Rater Agreement in English and German Text Assessments

Abstract

Grades play a crucial role in shaping students’ academic paths, influencing their self-confidence, future educational opportunities, and career prospects. Given this significance, it is essential to ensure that marking practices are fair, consistent, and reliable (Grausam, 2018; McNamara, Knoch, & Fan, 2019; Kunnan, 2000; Xi, 2010). This article investigates rater behaviour in the context of standardized competence assessment conducted by the Federal Institute for Quality Assurance in the Austrian School System (IQS) in Austrian secondary schools, focusing on the evaluation of written texts in English and German collected as part of the 2025 IKMPLUS assessments. The analysis combines evaluations of percentage agreement on multiply rated texts with statistical indices such as Cohen’s Kappa and intraclass correlation to quantify consistency and detect systematic rater effects. Additionally, the study explores how demographic and professional characteristics relate to rating accuracy and rater effects. Preliminary findings reveal that rater agreement on assigned marks falls below 80% for some texts, even with structured training, detailed rating guides, and expert support. While this may appear concerning, it reflects a well-documented international challenge: writing tasks are inherently complex to assess, and inter-rater reliability often remains problematic despite analytic or holistic scoring systems (Schipolowski & Böhme, 2016; Bouwer et al., 2024). Many-facet Rasch analyses confirm persistent rater effects such as severity, leniency, and central tendency bias, which can compromise fairness (Wind & Guo, 2021; Li, 2022). Importantly, the IQS addresses these challenges proactively. The IKMPLUS framework incorporates rigorous quality assurance measures and applies statistical scaling to compensate for rater variability, ensuring that reported results remain fair and comparable across students. These high standards position Austria among systems that prioritize equity and validity in large-scale assessments. Nevertheless, the findings have implications for classroom practice. Teachers often rely on non-standardized criteria and diverse training backgrounds, which may lead to inconsistencies in everyday grading. In subjects like German and English, where written performance is central, this raises questions about the validity of marks used for high-stakes decisions. Aligning classroom assessment practices more closely with standardized approaches – through updated training, clearer rubrics, and collaborative moderation – could strengthen fairness and transparency.

Implementing AI in a multilingual newsroom: The role of ethics and creativity

Abstract

Based on research with Laura Delaloye, University of Lausanne & Yulia Kukles, University of Fribourg
Writing tools and practices have developed together, influencing each other on material, cognitive, and social levels. In this co-evolution, the latest landmark is artificial intelligence (AI). AI has disrupted the professions focussing on text mediation, such as translation and interpreting. Now, AI is about to disrupt the professions focused on authoring text, such as journalism (Haapanen & Perrin 2024). In my presentation, I look into how a media company tackles this challenge, with a particular focus on ethics and creativity.
Drawing on document analyses of guidelines for the use of AI in newsrooms and on exploratory findings from progression analyses (Perrin, 2026), I identify and systematize ethical concerns raised and creative solutions explored. Comparing our findings with those from meta-analyses of studies on AI in the newsroom (e.g., Schaetz & Schjott 2025), I locate white spots and avenues of research-based organizational development of media which aim at navigating the storm in ways considered responsible and creative by themselves and their stakeholders.
Findings include a landscape of to-dos, organized into four layers of tools environments (Wasserman et al. 2009): a) instrumental – handling and understanding AI tools; b) operational – using the tools to get and have things done; c) economical – following and setting pace in competition; and d) societal – respecting and developing norms and ethics at the interfaces of the profession of journalism, text production research, and society-at-large. I conclude by highlighting some parallels between doing journalistic writing and doing research on it in an AI-shaped world.
Haapanen, Lauri, & Perrin, Daniel. (2024). Embracing the unexpected. Exploring the role of serendipity in newswriting. Discourse & Communication, 19(1), 25–45.
Perrin, Daniel. (2026). Visualising real-world writing processes with Progression Analysis. In Christophe Leblay, Gilles Caporossi, & Hakim A. Usoof (Eds.), An introduction to data visualisation of the writing process (pp. 178–192): Brill.
Schaetz, Nadja, & Schjott, Anna. (2026). AI hype and its function. An ethnographic study of the local news AI initiative of the Associated Press. Digital Journalism, 14(2), 220–237.
Wasserman, Jason Adam, Clair, Jeffrey Michael, & Wilson, Kenneth L. (2009). Problematics of grounded theory. Innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qualitative Research, 9(3), 355–381.

Intercultural encounters in supervising Master Thesis Writing at a Danish Business University

Abstract

Based on hermeneutic analyses (Gadamer 1989) of 30 semi-structured qualitative research interviews with supervisors (Ankersborg 2022) and Master Thesis students (Ankersborg & Pogner 2022) we have developed a three-dimensional “vejledningsmatrix” with the interrelated dimensions of supervision models, supervisor roles, and functions of texts (Ankersborg & Pogner 2026 in prep.).
This matrix serves as analytical framework for our investigation of student-centered supervision in inter-cultural encounters at a Danish Business University by focusing on experiences and expectations, which stem from non-Scandinavian educational backgrounds, in a Danish educational context. We are exploring how novices(students and/or supervisors) in the Danish educational culture (i.e., with non-Scandinavian educational backgrounds) manage student-centered supervision (‘vejledning’) in the context of the local Danish educational culture, when different supervision models are enacted. How do supervisors’ and students’ understandings of supervision enable and constrain supervision spaces when they come from different education-cultural backgrounds?
Our analyses show that Danish teaching and learning philosophies are based on dialogue and equality between student/s and supervisor emphasizing student autonomy. International students’ and supervisors’ ability to adopt this philosophy is essential for students’ learning outcome. Otherwise, differences in education-cultural backgrounds lead to misperceptions of expected behavior in the supervision spaces. Thus, the enacted supervision model has a direct impact on the role of students’ texts in supervision and their ability to acquire academic literacies.
Ankersborg, V. (2022). Specialevejledning fra studenterselvstændighed til vejlederdiktat, Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift 17, 37-52.
Ankersborg, V. & Pogner, K.-H. (2022). Conform, transform, resist: The Scandinavian way of Master’s Thesis supervision and its contribution to acquiring research literacy and practice. In Gustafsson M. & Eriksson. A. (Eds.). Negotiating the Intersections of writing and writing Instruction (pp. 95-231). The WAC Clearinghouse / University Press of Colorado.
Dysthe, O. (2006): Rettleiaren som lærar, partner eller meister? In Dysthe, O. & Samara, A. (red.): Forskningsveiledning på master- og doktorgradsnivå. Abstrakt: 228-248.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method. 2nd edition. London.
Pogner, K.-H. & Ankersborg, V. (2014). Master’s thesis students’ approaches to writing at Copenhagen Business School, EARLI SIG Writing 2014 Amsterdam, research meeting presentation.
Wirenfeldt Jensen, T. (2018): Det danske universitetsspeciale, Aarhus Universitetsforlag

Negotiating Authority through “Standard English”: Ideology and Voice in Multilingual Writing

Abstract

The discussion section of a postgraduate thesis represents a critical rhetorical space where multilingual writers assert authority while conforming to institutional norms of “Standard English”.In spite of the increasing recognition of multilingualism in academia, multilingual postgraduate writers tend to face pressure to conform to “Standard English” norms in their theses, especially the discussion chapters as they must balance objectivity with personal voice. This constrains their ability to express authority and identity in their writing. Prior research has examined the structural and functional roles of lexical bundles; however, little attention has been paid to how these bundles reflect students’ language ideology and how such insights can inform more inclusive identity-affirming academic writing pedagogy.Through the integration of identity theory (Ivanič, 1998), translingual practice (Canagarajah, 2013), and corpus linguistic perspectives, this study examines how recurrent lexical bundles reveal the ideological pressures that shape multilingual writers’ construction of academic voice and identity. A corpus of 30 discussion chapters from postgraduate theses in social sciences was analyzed using AntConc, identifying three-to five-word bundles occurring at least five times per 100,000 words. Findings show a dominant use of impersonal and cautious bundles such as “It was found that” and “The results suggest that,” contrasted with limited but meaningful use of evaluative bundles like “In this study, we argue that.” These patterns foreground objectivity and deference to disciplinary norms, reflecting internalized ideological expectations of “Standard English” but also subtle acts of resistance where students make deliberate efforts to assert authorial stance and intellectual ownership, illustrating a complex negotiation between conformity and resistance. This study concludes that by translating these insights into supervision and writing-instruction practices, corpus-based training can incorporate into supervisor training and writing instruction to promote critical awareness of language ideology and empower students to claim voice and agency without compromising language.

Emotions During Writing: A novel approach for understanding pausing during writing

Abstract

This study explores a novel method for understanding a writer’s writing process when they are not writing through their expressions of emotion. As evidenced by keystroke log-file data (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013), writers frequently pause during writing, and the duration of these pauses may reflect linguistic and compositional fluency, as well as cognitive and/or metacognitive processes (Leijten et al., 2014). While keystroke log-file analysis offers an unobtrusive manner to collect data (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013), it is a single data channel for a multimodal phenomenon, and therefore lacks data for what happens during pausing. Combining keystroke data with other multimodal/multichannel data, i.e., think aloud protocols or eye tracking, are therefore valuable for understanding a richer picture of writing (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013). Our study suggests an additional data channel: facial expression of emotion.Per Graham (2018), emotion plays a moderating role throughout the writing process, as emotional states impact writing and writers experience emotion during writing. This study therefore examines how college-level writing students (n=60) expressed emotion during pauses while completing a 30-minute reflective writing task. We collected keystroke data via Inputlog and analyzed facial expression of emotion via Affectiva (iMotions, 2018). We present ongoing analyses and visualizations (e.g., see Figure 1) to demonstrate how emotions modulate writing (Graham, 2018) and evidence metacognition during writing (Hacker et al., 2009).ReferencesGraham, S. (2018). A revised writer(s)-within-community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258-279. DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406.Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C. & Kircher, J. (2009). Writing Is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education, (pp. 154–172). Taylor & Francis.iMotions. (2018). Attention Tool (Version 7.1) [Computer software]. Boston, MA: iMotions Inc.Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692.Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5(3), 285.

Investigating Emotional Trajectories of Undergraduate Writing Students via Dynamic Time Warping

Abstract

Students’ emotions while writing are considered modulators of the process according to Graham’s (2018) Writer(s)-within-Communities model. This model inherently addresses the community aspect of writing, as writing is impossible to enact in a vacuum, even if you are writing alone. In a study conducted in a lab setting in the United States, 60 (n=60) students spent a 30-minute session writing about their writing process, a tool utilized to help undergraduate students reflect on their writing (Downs & Wardle, 2007). To capture their emotions, we used the Affectiva module in iMotions, a software comparing their facial expressions to their own baseline at 30Hz. To investigate students’ expressed emotions during their 30-minute session, we asked two research questions: (1) What are students’ emotion intensities over time? (2) Do students demonstrate similar emotional trajectories during writing, even if those emotional experiences occur at different moments or rates? After averaging emotion intensities per second, we visualized emotional trajectories across and by participant(s) (Figures 1-2). Our findings demonstrate contempt with fairly high intensity when expressed, whereas anger and disgust have lower intensities, though expressed throughout the 30-minute session. Joy seems to have peaks for some participants, while fear seems to decrease in intensity over time. To analyze our second question, we utilized dynamic time warping (DTW) to investigate where the shapes of students’ emotions while writing were similar across participants. The DTW-matrix suggests some participants hold similar trajectories, where the same emotions are unfolding in a similar order, but at different times or where they are unfolding in a different order, but at similar times. Exploring the shape of the temporal behavior provides insights regarding how students’ emotions might be unfolding over time, while also helping us interpret how writing and emotions might occur within a particular learning community. 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

The role of motivation on acquisition of writing competence on Primary Education.

Abstract

Theoretical models of writing identify motivation as a key component in learning to write. Within this framework, motives for writing constitute a central motivational belief, as they reflect the reasons that drive students to engage in writing tasks and have been linked to text quality and productivity. However, compared to other motivational constructs more extensively examined in writing research such as attitudes, self-efficacy, or goal orientations, motives for writing remain a relatively underexplored dimension, particularly in primary education (Camacho et al., 2021). This study examines developmental changes in motives for writing among 844 Spanish students from Grades 3 to 6 (8–13 years old) and explores the relationship between writing motives and writing performance. Participants completed the Writing Motivation Questionnaire (Graham et al., 2022), which assesses intrinsic motives (curiosity, involvement), extrinsic motives (grades, competence, social recognition), and self-regulation motives (emotional regulation, boredom relief). Writing performance was evaluated through a narrative task scored in terms of text quality, structure, productivity, spelling, and handwriting. Data coding and analysis are currently in progress, and the results will be presented at the conference. The study is expected to contribute to a better understanding of how motives for writing relate to students’ written performance in upper primary education, helping to identify potential critical periods in the development of writing motivation and to explore gender differences, with implications for writing instruction. This research is part of a project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and the European Union (ref. PID2021-124011NB-I00).Camacho, A., Alves, R. A., & Boscolo, P. (2021). Writing motivation in school: A systematic review of empirical research in the early twenty-first century. Educational psychology review, 33(1), 213-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09530-4 Graham, S., Harbaugh-Schattenkirk, A. G., Aitken, A., Harris, K. R., Ng, C., Ray, A., Wilson, J. M., Wdowin, J. (2022). Writing motivation questionnaire: validation and application as a formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29(2), 238–261.https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2080178

Authors and AI: the challenges of process analysis for AI-assisted writing support

Abstract

In a context where the figure of the writer seems to be increasingly challenged by the expansion of artificial intelligence, the Cré@lame projet aimes to draw on the study of writers’ draft (Proust, Fournier, Rivière, Giono, etc.) and contemporary writing pratices. To this end, it aims to collect data and will enable language models to be supplemented with real writing models based on the creative processes themselves. The aim is to model these processes in order to increase the creative potential of generative artificial intelligence (Quaranta, 2025). This paper will analyse the various problems raised by such research, based on the reactions and authors’ responses to the proposal to participate. The first is consent of authors or their rights holders to the recorded processes, an issue already addressed by Buschenhenke (2025). However, the use of processes by LLMs raises this question in a new and more urgent way. In a context where LLMs are rightly accused of plundering texts in disregard of copyright law, this paper will examine the ethical issues confronting researchers and professionals, particularly those related to the RGPD and moral rights, which are particularly important in French copyright law. Based on a qualitative approach drawing on feedback and concrete cases, it will propose ways of developing writing systems that integrate artificial intelligence in a respectful and transparent way that meets authors’ expectations. RéférencesBuschenhenke, F. (2025). Entering stories. Decoding born-digital fiction writing through keystroke logging. [Thèse de Doctorat Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA)] Quaranta, J-M. 2025, « Intelligence artificielle et création littéraire : expériences et perspectives », Interfaces numériques, 14, https://doi.org/10.25965/interfaces-numeriques.5440.

Ethics and Access: Investigating Writing Processes from Manuscripts in Finland

Abstract

Although not always immediately visible in research, ethical and legal challenges have long shaped genetic criticism in relation to the use of archival materials. In Finland, different memory organizations have followed varying practices regarding what must be considered when providing source materials for genetic research. Ethical issues are intrinsic to archival research (McKee & Porter 2012), as scholars may sometimes need to work with materials in ways that do not fully align with an author’s expressed wishes or that reveal aspects of the writing process not originally intended for public view, even though research needs do not always align clearly with the author’s or donor’s intentions.Born-digital materials, such as authors’ floppy disks and hard drives, have brought these questions into focus in new ways. In particular, the use of digital forensic methods and tools that allow the recovery of deleted files and file fragments raises issues of privacy, consent, and legality, which can complicate research. Archives thus play a crucial gatekeeping role, balancing donor privacy with scholarly accessibility. This makes it essential that archiving practices are grounded in a nuanced understanding of the specific nature of born-digital materials. At the same time, it is not always obvious how research needs relate to the wishes and intentions of donors or creators, or how these relationships should be interpreted in different research contexts. (Carroll et al., 2011, 67–68; Kirschenbaum, Ovenden and Redwine 2010, 46–47, 51, 56.)In our presentation, we examine ethical and legal issues related to the study of both archival and born-digital writing processes in the Finnish context. We ask to what extent ethical considerations have been systematically addressed by researchers and memory organizations in relation to archival materials, and how gaps or inconsistencies in these practices may partly shape the challenges now encountered in research on born-digital materials.Carroll, Laura, Erika Farr, Peter Hornsby and Ben Ranker. 2011. A comprehensive approach to born-digital archives. Archivaria 72: 61–92. https://archivaria.ca/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13360Kirschenbaum, Matthew, Richard Ovenden and Gabriela Redwine. 2010. Digital Forensics and Born-Digital Content in Cultural Heritage Collections. Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) Reports 149. https://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub149

How many needles are in the haystack? Privacy-sensitive content in born-digital archives in Flanders

Abstract

Computers have been a widespread writing technology since the popularisation of the word processor in the early 1980s, and digital materiality is now entering (literary) archival institutions, through donations or pre-custodial cloud-based preservation. This is also reflected in the collection of the Letterenhuis in Antwerp, Belgium, which preserves the literary heritage of Flanders. Its born-digital collection has grown to include 1643 3" and 3.5" disks, 369 5.25" disks, 1600 CDs and DVDs, 4 Iomega disks, 22 hard disks, and 30 digital, cloudbased transfers, including websites and socials. In addition, the poet Maud Vanhauwaert logged the writing process of a poem with a keystroke logger for one of the Letterenhuis’ exhibitions.These born-digital collections, including the keystroke logging data, offer many opportunities for analysing writing processes – such as within the field of genetic criticism – but also pose challenges as the contents conflate the professional and personal sphere, such as password information or private communication within the keystroke data, or private files saved among different versions of a text. This means that private and sensitive information has to be identified to prevent unethical violations of privacy (Jaillant 2022). While this is also true for paper archives, the nature of the digital content makes it harder to identify and makes the risk of (ab)use of data outside of a research context less manageable. In this presentation, we will reflect on managing privacy concerns in born-digital archives, considering both archival and research perspectives. This includes the efforts done by the Letterenhuis to make the born-digital collection available for researchers while ensuring the privacy of the creator, the researchers’ experience of working with the born-digital material and keystroke logging data, and how the collaboration between archivists and researchers – and to some extend the creator – can enhance archival workflows for acquiring, describing and unlocking born-digital archives for research.ReferencesJaillant, L. “How can we make born-digital and digitised archives more accessible? Identifying obstacles and solutions.” Arch Sci 22 (2022): 417-36.

In Respect of Writing: Ethical and Legal Challenges Across Writing Supports

Abstract

Ethical and legal questions related to writing have gained renewed importance in contemporary context. As writing supports diversify, from traditional handwriting to the latest digital environments, the conditions under which texts are produced, shared and interpreted are also profoundly transformed. The symposium In Respect of Writing: Ethical and Legal Challenges Across Writing Supports invites reflection on how each writing supports engages specific forms of responsibility, protection and respect toward writers and their texts. This symposium brings these issues into perspective by bringing four proposals from three different countries: France Belgium and Finland, each with own legal framework, thus opening up a space for comparative and international analysis of the ethical and legal challenges that currently shape writing practices. The presentation address respectively, the relationship between authors and artificial intelligence through the analysis of writing processes (Author and artificial intelligence: The challenges of process analysis for ai-assisted writing support), the identification of privacy-sensitive content in born-digital archival materials in Flanders (How many needles are there in the haystack? Identifying privacy-sensitive content in born-digital archival materials in Flanders), issues of digital forensics and research permissions in the study of born-digital manuscripts (Digital forensics and research permissions in the study of born-digital manuscripts), and the ethical and legal questions raised by the study of writing processes in analogue manuscripts in Finland (Ethical and legal questions and the study of the writing processes of analogue manuscripts in Finland).ReferencesBekius, L. 2023. ‘Behind the computer screens’: the use of keystroke logging for genetic criticism applied to born-digital works of literature. University of Amsterdam and University of Antwerp. Thesis,330 p.https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docstore/d:irua:19149Buschenhenke, Floor, Rianne Conijn and Luuk Van Waes. "Measuring non-linearity of multi-session writing processes". Reading and Writing. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10449-9Karhu, Hanna (Accepted/In press): Use of Folklore in a Writing Process of Poetry: Rewritings of Folk Songs and References to Oral Poetry in Otto Manninen’s Early Manuscripts. In Genetic Criticism in Motion: New Perspectives on Manuscript Studies. Edited by Sakari Katajamäki and Veijo Pulkkinen. Associate Editor, Tommi Dunderlin. Studia Fennica Litteraria. Finnish Literature Society, Helsinki, 155-174.Pulkkinen, V. (2020). The Diary, the Typewriter and Representative Reality in the Genesis of Juha Mannerkorpi's Päivänsinet. European Journal of Life Writing, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.21827/ejlw.9.35712

Tracing Reading–Writing Processes in Swedish and Math Classrooms; a longitudinal study

Abstract

Tracing Reading–Writing Processes in Swedish and Math Classrooms; a longitudinal studyThe project intends to study the reading and writing processes that underpin academic success in two core subjects: Swedish and mathematics. In a longitudinal design it investigates (a) to what extent these processes are subject-specific or shared across subjects, (b) how they develop from Grades 7–9 among L1 and L2 students, and (c) which process characteristics best predict performance within and across subjects over time. We use Hayes’ model (2012) as a cross-domain problem-solving framework to compare Swedish reading–writing tasks and mathematical reasoning in writing.Drawing on a sample of 150 students followed from Grade 7 to Grade 9, the study combines six waves of curriculum-aligned tasks in Swedish and mathematics with fine-grained process data. Keystroke logging (Inputlog) is used to capture pausing, revision, source use and text production dynamics as students read, plan, write and solve problems on computer-based tasks (Vandermeulen et al., 2023). These traces are linked to concurrent and later measures of task performance and school achievement to model growth and change.The roundtable invites participants to think with us about issues on task design and measurement questions that are crucial for moving the study forward:(1) which framework(s) for task classification are suitable for selecting and structuring tasks in Swedish and mathematics in terms of constituting processes following Hayes 2012?(2) provided the tasks we will bring to the round table and show for mathematics, to what extent do you think these articulate writing; do we need to re-vise these?(3) which process indicators (number and distribution of pauses, revision, switches between reading and writing, fluency) would you propose for capturing the process of mathematical reasoning in writing?ReferencesHayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written communication, 29(3), 369- 388.Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., De Maeyer, S., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2023). Writing process feedback based on keystroke logging and comparison with examples: Effects on the quality and process of synthesis texts. Written Communication, 40(1), 90-144.

AI and Students' Academic Writing of Theses – Independent Work in Teacher Education

Abstract

AI and Students' Academic Writing of Theses – Independent Work in Teacher EducationGenerative AI is transforming the conditions for teaching and assessing students' academic writing. This is particularly relevant for various types of theses that are written over extended periods, where students are expected to develop independence as well as abilities in analytical, creative, and critical thinking (Magnusson & Zackariasson, 2019).Since the spring of 2025, a research and development project has been underway at Stockholm University within the primary teacher education program. The project aims to test and evaluate new methods and approaches for mentoring, teaching, and assessing students' academic writing in the course on Independent Work, with regard to the use of generative AI.The questions that the project seeks to answer are:How and in which parts of the writing process can AI tools be beneficial in developing students' independence and capacities for analytical, creative, and critical thinking?How and in which parts of the writing process can AI tools pose obstacles to developing these abilities?How does students' use of AI affect the ability of supervisors, teachers, and examiners to assess students' knowledge and skills in relation to the expected learning outcomes of the courses?The project involves five researchers from the Department of Teaching and Learning, along with approximately 120 students who are writing their theses in pairs over a ten-week period.In the project, teacher-produced educational materials, such as lesson plans and instructions, as well as students' formal and informal writing, including work logs, drafts, and evaluations, are documented. This documentation is utilized to illuminate changes in writing assignments, namely teachers' planning, implementation, and evaluation of teaching and assessment, in relation to students' opportunities to develop their academic writing, focusing on their ability for independent analytical and critical thinking in the context of generative AI use.During the roundtable discussions, I aim to explore these questions with other researchers and educators. The roundtable will begin with a presentation of the questions posed by the project and the actions taken in relation to them.

Effort, Agency, and Authorship in AI-Assisted Writing: Revisiting Flower & Hayes’ Model

Abstract

Effort, Agency, and Authorship in AI-Assisted Writing: Revisiting Flower & Hayes’ ModelGenerative AI tools are reshaping the cognitive and rhetorical processes of writing.This study re-examines Flower and Hayes’ (1980) model of planning, translating, and revising through the lens of AI-assisted composition. Drawing on Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller et al., 2011) and frameworks of writer identity (Ivanič, 1998; Hyland, 2002), it investigates how AI intervention influences students’ perceived effort, agency, and authorship during academic writing. Unlike earlier work that conceptualised human–AI co-writing in general terms, this study provides phase-specific, empirical evidence of how effort, agency, and authorship shift across planning, translating, and revising – linking perceived ease to observed shifts in germane effort and agency.Eighty student reflections formed the primary dataset. From these, fifteen students were purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews, with a pre-specified saturation stopping rule. A small exploratory sub-sample will complete concurrent think-alouds to trace process-level decisions. This triangulation captured cognitive, experiential, and interpretive dimensions of the writing process. Thematic analysis traces how students negotiate agency and authorship across recursive phases of writing – delegating cognitive effort to the tool in some moments while reclaiming control over content and phrasing in others. Preliminary findings suggest that perceived ease may conceal a shift in cognitive engagement: when writing feels effortless, germane effort in idea development and revision is displaced to the tool. This cognitive offloading alters agency, shifting it from intentional decision-making to editorial supervision, while moments of reflective intervention reveal emerging co-agency and rhetorical awareness. The paper argues that AI does not erase authorship but redistributes it across human–machine collaboration, offering phase-specific insights to inform pedagogy that maintains germane effort and cultivates deliberate authorial agency.

Navigating the double bind: how AI reshapes financial analysts’ writing practices

Abstract

Financial analysts are hired and paid to develop, explain and publish a point of view and a stance on matters in the financial markets. In doing so, financial analysts are in a double-bind situation: on the one hand, their forecast accuracy is factored into their financial compensation; on the other hand, reliable forecasts are never possible given the volatility and unpredictability of the financial markets (Arnold et al., 2025; Whitehouse, 2023). These circumstances encourage strategic recommendations that are written in such a way that they are always somehow true (Palmieri & Mazzali-Lurati, 2021). The double-bind situation of financial analysts is one of the main reasons why investment recommendations are difficult to understand by the addressees.With the emergence of AI, financial analysts are increasingly using AI tools to write their investment recommendations. This raises questions about the role of these emerging technologies in financial communication in general and, more specifically, how they affect the intelligibility of financial analysts' text products.In my presentation, I introduce the double-bind situation of financial analysts and its implications for financial communication (part 1). Based on interviews with financial analysts and a corpus of investment recommendations from Swiss banks (part 2), I use pragmatic text analysis (part 3) to examine how the use of AI writing tools in financial communication affects the strategic recommendations in financial analysts' text products (part 4). Finally, I discuss the implications of this development for the double-bind situation of financial analysts, for financial communication in general, and for society at large (part 5). Arnold, T., Roth, S., & Kleve, H. (2025). Double binds in dialogue: unraveling paradoxical communication in business families and family businesses. Management Review(36). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31083/MRev39358Palmieri, R., & Mazzali-Lurati, S. (2021). Strategic communication with multiple audiences: polyphony, text stakeholders and argumentation. International Journal of Strategic Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2021.1887873Whitehouse, M. (2023). Transdisciplinarity in Financial Communication. Palgrave McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29115-9

Writing with AI in Multilingual Classrooms: Translanguaging and Teacher–Student Perspectives

Abstract

Writing with AI in Multilingual Classrooms: Translanguaging and Teacher–Student PerspectivesThe rapid integration of generative AI tools into classrooms is transforming how students search, learn, and write in the English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom, particularly in multilingual contexts where language choice shapes access and outcomes (Moorhouse et al., 2024; Yang & Lin, 2025). Yet little is known about how AI-mediated writing practices unfold in multilingual, multicultural school settings, or how such practices should inform writing pedagogy and assessment. This study investigates how Arab and Jewish Israeli secondary-school English teachers and their students use generative AI in English-language classroom writing tasks, and how multilingual language practices shape this use. We examine how learners draw on Hebrew, Arabic, and English when prompting AI, and how teachers and students perceive the usefulness and limitations of AI tools for writing. By analyzing language choice, perceptions, and writing in AI-mediated tasks, the study explores the intersection of translanguaging in EFL classrooms and critical digital literacy (Canagarajah, 2013; Pangrazio & Sefton-Green, 2021; Tzirides, 2024).Situated within a larger mixed-methods project in EFL classrooms in 6 Arab and Jewish high schools, the presentation reports on: (1) patterns of students’ translanguaging and multilingual prompting; (2) students’ AI-supported writing products, and (3) teachers’ and students’ perceptions of AI’s role and limitations in EFL learning and writing (Wang, 2024; Xiao, Yi, & Akhter, 2024). The research design includes the analysis of teacher and student surveys and semi-structured interviews; students’ AI-mediated writing tasks; students' reflection writing tasks on insights into AI-mediated writing; and the collection of prompts and writing artifacts. A central focus of the study is how generative AI reshapes learning and writing processes and influences students’ experiences, strategies, and language choice. The analysis also investigates teachers' perspectives and decisions regarding AI-mediated classroom use and identifies their professional development needs in integrating AI ethically and pedagogically. The study further explores how AI-supported writing tasks shift classroom norms of drafting, revision, and the use of multilingual resources, and offers recommendations for AI-integrated writing instruction and assessment.

Development and Initial Validation of the Word-Processing Assessment for Elementary-School

Abstract

TopicThis presentation describes the development and initial validation of the Word-Processing Assessment for Elementary-School (WoPA-E)- Grades 2-4.Theoretical framework Although word-processing (WP) is commonly required in elementary-schools1, structured instruction in WP skills is frequently absent, which may impact writing performance. Moreover, no valid assessments targeting WP skills in elementary-school students appear to exist. The WoPA-E was developed to fill this gap, drawing on the International Study of Computer and Information Literacy1, and the digital-literacy curriculum of the Israeli Ministry of Education2. Methodology and Results The WoPA-E was designed as both diagnostic- and formative-type assessments for Grades 2-4. A list of 25 commands was generated, encompassing two components: Document Management (e.g., open/save a document), and Editing (e.g., change font/size). Commands are scored as ‘0’-unable, or ‘1’-able to perform. Ethical approval and participants’ consent were obtained. Content validity was assessed by 9 experts/judges using a Table of Specification. Each command achieved over 70% agreement on classification (Management or Editing). Internal consistency (n=51, Grade 4 students) indicated medium-high reliability. Construct validity was established through known-group (Gender) differences, showing, as expected3, no significant differences. Additionally, the WoPA-E demonstrated sensitivity to change; participants showed a significant improvement from pre- to posttest following instruction. Conclusions and relevanceThe WopA-E shows promise as a tool for assessing WP skills among elementary-school students, offering valuable insight for designing WP targeted instruction. However, these results are preliminary, warranting further research.  KeywordsComputer literacy, Computer skills, Elementary school, Word processingReferences1. Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report (p. 308). Springer Nature.2. Ministry of Education, Israel. (2017). ICILS in prompting language objectives, https://meyda.education.gov.il/files/Yesodi/ivrit/meyomanot.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116672468 3. Qazi, A., Hasan, N., Abayomi-Alli, O., Hardaker, G., Scherer, R., Sarker, Y., Kumar, S.K., & Maitama, J.Z. (2022). Gender differences in information and communication technology use & skills: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 4225-4258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10775-x

Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write: What have we learned from 20 years of research?

Abstract

Ivanič’s discourses of writing and learning to write (DoW) (2004; 2017) framework proposes seven categories representing how writing has been conceptualised in composition theory and research. The framework, which Ivanič conceived of as an analytic tool, has been applied over the past two decades to analyses of writing curricula and pedagogy across educational levels and geographic regions. Given its broad applicability as a coherent framework that encompasses diverse perspectives on writing as well as its adaptability to unique educational contexts (e.g., in Canada, Peterson, 2012), DoW has been particularly useful as a conceptual basis for comparative research in writing curriculum studies (e.g., for cross-national comparison, Peterson et al., 2018). To provide an overview of the outcomes of this research and to propose how the framework might be modified for writing studies moving forward, we present a systematic, comparative review of DoW literature published in English or Scandinavian languages since the framework’s initial publication in 2004 (N=46 studies).We asked: 1) What is the focus of this research in terms of geographic region, education level, and educational perspective? 2) Which DoWs are most and least represented in research findings, and 3) Which DoWs are not included in the framework but are identified as possible additions or adaptations? Results show that the bulk of corpus studies were situated in North America and Europe; and that the research most often focussed on the written curriculum (e.g., official curriculum documents) followed by the planned and/or enacted curriculum (classroom instruction), while the curriculum as experienced by students was the focus of only one study. We found that genre, process, and skills discourses were most strongly represented in findings, while sociopolitical and thinking discourses were rarely identified as prominent. Results further suggest the influence of standards-based global policy shifts in candidates for additional DoWs, including a “market discourse” (Pulls, 2019), a “compliance discourse” (Lambirth, 2016), and a discourse positioning writing as a forced activity (Norberg, 2021). We conclude by discussing implications for the impact of writing scholarship moving forward into an age of technological disruption.

Foundations of Early Writing: Measuring Classroom Practices that Support Writing Development

Abstract

Few observational measures exist for measuring how preschool teachers’ instructional practices promote children’s handwriting, spelling, and composing skills (Berninger & Winn, 2006). This gap may contribute to educators spending limited time writing with young children (Gerde et al., 2015) or in providing limited composing supports (Bingham et al., 2017).This study draws on cognitive early writing theoretical models (Puranik & Lonigan, 2014) and sociocultural learning theory (Vygotsky, 1985) to examine how teachers enact a variety of practices that could support children’s early writing development. We employ a new observational measure to address two research questions.RQ1 = What types of writing experiences do preschool children experience?RQ2 = How are preschool writing practices predict children’s early writing skills?MethodA total of 723 preschool aged children (ages 3 to 5 years) from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds (55% Black, 32% Latine, 13% White), across three US states, and 198 preschool teachers participated in this study. Teachers’ writing practices and supports were assessed using Writing Resources and Interactions in Teaching Environments-tWRITE (Bingham, Gerde, Bowles, 2025) in the fall and spring of the preschool year. Preschoolers early writing skills were measured by the Test of Early Written Language (Hresko et.al., 2012). Descriptive and multivariate analyses were used to understand the predictive value of teacher writing practices on preschoolers’ writing achievement, while controlling for child age and gender.ResultsDescriptive statistics (RQ1) reveal that preschool teachers primarily supported handwriting and spelling skills. Composing interactions supporting children’s ideation and language construction attempts were infrequent. Hierarchical Linear Modeling revealed that teachers writing practices, particularly composing supports, were related to children’s scores on the TEWL-3.ConclusionsThe TWRITE is a valid measure of preschool writing practices. Findings yield actionable insights into how teachers’ writing practices shape children’s early writing development. References

Can coherence formation and perspective-taking in writing be promoted separately and successfully?

Abstract

In addition to general cognitive and linguistic abilities (such as working memory capacity, vocabulary and reading fluency), it has been shown that the components of coherence management (understanding and linguistic organization of contextual structures) and perspective-taking (being able to adopt and consider perspectives other than one's own) predict the quality of written texts (of different genres) and should therefore be taken into account accordingly when promoting writing skills (Grabowski et al., 2018). The present intervention study (pre-post design) aimed at determining whether the skill components of coherence management and perspective taking can be separately supported through special didactic units in fifth graders, with respect to text quality, and whether the respective focus is discriminatively reflected in the associated characteristics of the written texts. To this end, five teaching units were designed for each of the two skill components and carried out in fifth-grade secondary school classes (n = 56). The decisive writing task was designed and implemented in such a way that it is particularly suitable for testing the correspondence between the content to be tested and the resulting aspects of text quality. A magic trick, in which a can appears to stand on a playing card without swaying or falling, is shown on film from two perspectives: First, the trick is seen from the spectator's perspective, i.e. unexplained. The corresponding writing task is a description of the trick. Then the trick is shown from "backstage", so you can see how the trick works. The writing task corresponding to this perspective is an explanation of the trick. In addition to the basic empirical report of the study and its results (including further more direct measures of coherence and perspective-taking abilities), the presentation will primarily explain and discuss the implementation of the psychological constructs in didactic materials and the development of suitable diagnostic tasks. Grabowski, J., Mathiebe, M. Hachmeister, S. & Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2018). Teaching perspective taking and coherence generation to improve cross-genre writing skills in secondary grades: A detailed explanation of an intervention. Journal of Writing Research, 10, 331–356.

Changes in writing instruction based on a professional community: voices of Chilean teachers

Abstract

This research reports on changes in narrative writing teaching practices expressed by Chilean elementary school teachers who participated in a Professional Learning Community during one school year. Theoretically, our study understands writing teaching practices situated in specific educational communities, based on the Writers in Community Model (Graham & Aitken, 2025). As an area of research, the qualitative study of changes in teaching practices in a Professional Learning Community is in line with previous research on professional development based on teaching practice (Camping, et al., 2025). A methodological design based on a case study with nine elementary school teachers who participated weekly in the professional community was adopted. To analyze changes in practices, longitudinal qualitative interviews were conducted at two points in time: during the formation of the community and at the end (Vogl, et al., 2018). The data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clark, 2021). The results show changes in practices related to greater use of evidence-based writing teaching models, the type of activities proposed, the resources used, and the time devoted to teaching and narrative writing skills. Teachers also mention positive assessments of the Learning Community as a professional development strategy that facilitates teacher practice change. The paper concludes by mentioning implications, limitations and recommendations for future studies.ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.Camping, A., McKeown, D., Williams, M., & Harris, K. R. (2025). Professional Development in Writing Instruction. Handbook of Writing Research, (pp.340-354). Guilford.Graham, S. & Aitken, A. (2025). The writer(s) within community model. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerlad (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11–31). Guilford.Vogl, S., Zartler, U., Schmidt, E.M., & Rieder, I. (2018). Developing an analytical framework for multiple perspective, qualitative longitudinal interviews (MPQLI). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(2), 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1345149

The Limits of Generic Academic Writing Instruction in Technical Universities

Abstract

The Limits of Generic Academic Writing Instruction in Technical Universities Abstract Generic approaches to academic writing instruction continue to dominate technical universities, even though writing is increasingly recognized as a discipline-specific act of meaning-making. Although writing as a discipline-specific activity has received growing recognition, technical universities continue to rely on generic instruction that neglects the linguistic and epistemological foundations of disciplinary reasoning. As a result, students struggle to construct credible arguments and disciplinary voice within technical communication. Using a qualitative, SFL-informed genre analysis of forty undergraduate engineering and applied-science texts, the study examined how students deploy ideational, interpersonal, and textual resources to construct disciplinary meaning. The analysis examined how students organize information flow, manage stance, and deploy lexico-grammatical resources to achieve rhetorical purposes within disciplinary genres such as reports and design proposals. Attention was also given to how these linguistic choices reflect students’ developing disciplinary identities. Findings reveal systematic mismatches between students’ language patterns and the expected schematic structures of technical genres, revealing that generic writing instruction fails to adequately support the acquisition of discipline-specific reasoning. These results confirm that writing development is inseparable from learning to participate in disciplinary discourse communities. In response, the study designed and implemented pedagogical interventions grounded in the Teaching–Learning Cycle, emphasizing explicit modelling of disciplinary genres, collaborative text construction, and scaffolded practice integrated into content courses. Evaluation of pilot implementations through text analysis and feedback indicate improvements in students’ control of genre structure and argument coherence. Based on the findings, the study advances on-going efforts to reconceptualise writing development as an integral part of the disciplinary knowledge making rather than a transferable generic skill. Keywords: SFL, Genre, Pedagogy, Disciplinary

Learning to write in grade 4: Support with didactic writing tasks

Abstract

Tasks are the didactic core of learning arrangements. For written assignments in primary school, it is particularly important to discuss solutions and approaches to solving them (Vode 2023). In written argumentation, this allows peers to be brought into the writing situation, which would otherwise be missing in a monological structure in written instruction . This makes the content and linguistic expectations transparent for all learners, which is necessary for effective feedback (Busse, V., Graham, S. & van Keer, H. 2024). School writing requires academic language which in turn must be learned in all areas. Cohesive devices are particularly challenging in this regard, as they clarify and unambiguise logical relationships within and between parts of sentences in texts (Domenech, M. & Mundt, E. 2024). These are special learning tasks for primary school students.As part of this elaboration project, the influence of oral task introduction on cohesion building in fourth-grade pupils' texts (n = 38) was investigated. For this purpose, the learning groups were given oral task introductions of varying scope and length for an otherwise uniform argumentative writing task. The design of the task and the task introductions were based on the principles of the task profile concept, scaffolding (Gibbons 2002) and the SRSD approach (Harris & Graham 1996).The text products were analyzed offline using a custom-made script and natural language processing via the Stanza Library of the Stanford NLP Group with regard to their cohesion devices.The evaluation of the categories (connectors; subordinate clauses per sentence; number of repeated lemmas and pronouns; overall cohesion), it was observed that students with the more comprehensive task introduction wrote significantly longer texts (mean number of words = 79.23 vs. mean number of words = 106.06 with p = 0.022) and, overall, used more cohesive devices per word (p = 0.032; Cohen's d = -0.648 (Hₐ: μ1 < μ2)). It is noteworthy that subordinate conjunctions and comparative particles were used more frequently by students who received the shorter introduction.For teaching practice, this means that even a structured introduction to a writing task lasting 5 to 10 minutes can have a measurable effect on students' texts.

The influence of early oral language on later narrative and expository writing in primary school

Abstract

Oral language underpins the development of subsequent literacy skills, yet longitudinal studies that investigate how children’s oral language contributes to later writing performance are rare. Further, it remains unclear whether the influence of oral language is uniform across writing genres. The aim of this study was to examine how vocabulary, grammar, and narrative skills shape later writing development, and specifically whether oral language exerts distinct effects on narrative and expository writing. We report data following a cohort of monolingual English-speaking children (N = 62; 24 males) for four years from school entry. Oral language skills (vocabulary, grammar and narrative skills) were initially assessed at school entry (authors published). Spelling, handwriting, reading and writing were assessed 18 months later (Time 2) (authors in press). In this presentation we report on participants’ writing skills assessed a further 30 months later (Time 3: final age of participants 8-10 years) using two writing tasks - one narrative and one expository prompt. Writing products were assessed for productivity, accuracy and text quality. The impact of predictive and concurrent dimensions of oral language on written compositions were examined for both writing genres. Productivity and scores of text quality were significantly higher for the narrative writing task, with large effect sizes. By contrast, no differences were found for spelling accuracy and handwriting legibility in the two writing genres. Associations between oral language measures and writing productivity and quality also differed by writing task. Clarifying the mechanisms linking early oral language to later written expression in different genres is critical for theory development and has practical relevance for classroom instruction.

Writing Quality on a LEGO-Based Procedural Writing Task: Gender Differences in Analytic Traits

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Young writers demonstrate substantial potential for composing texts, and measures of cognitive capacity related to writing show no gender differences (Bourke & Adams, 2012). Despite this, boys often report lower motivation for school-based writing and greater difficulty with transcription and text production (Olinghouse, 2008), and girls consistently outperform boys on writing assessments (Kim, 2017). These differences may be partly genre- and topic-related, as girls more often prefer narrative texts and boys factual or expository materials (McGeown, 2016). This study therefore examined gender differences in writing quality on a hands-on procedural task designed to broaden engagement and explicitly specify audience and purpose.METHODS: Seventy Norwegian sixth-grade students viewed an image of a six-piece LEGO figure and wrote instructions so a peer could rebuild the figure without the image. Texts were then rated using the six subdimensions of the 6+1 Traits framework (Culham, 2003).RESULTS: Girls outperformed boys on all dimensions except Word Choice, with the most robust gender difference observed for Voice (Hedges’ g=0.83). Smaller but underpowered gender differences were observed for remaining traits (0.15-0.48). All subscores were strongly correlated with total score (rs=.67-.94), and the correlational structure was equivalent between genders. Girls produced longer texts than boys (d = 0.48), and word count was moderately related to writing quality (rs=.38-.64). Adjusting for word count partially attenuated gender differences (38-71%), though controlling for word count may remove substantively meaningful variance, as word count likely reflects underlying differences in fluency and task engagement.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, gender differences in writing persisted even on the hands-on task designed to broaden engagement. Specifically, girls continued to outperform boys in expressive voice even after adjusting for word count, suggesting that while engaging task design is important, it may be insufficient to reduce gender differences in writing quality and potentially a focus on expressive voice for instruction, particularly for boys.REFERENCES:Bourke, L., & Adams, A.-M. (2012). Educational and Child Psychology, https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2003.20.3.19.Culham, R. (2003). Scholastic Publishing, ISBN-10: 0439280389Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017). Reading and Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9719-6.McGeown, S. P. (2016). Journal of Research in Reading, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12055. Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Reading and Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1.

Digital writing and writing motivation

Abstract

Writing is more than the ability to write a text: writing is embedded in a literacy practice, writers are part of a writing or literacy community (Graham, 2018). Digital writing platforms like myMoment (designed for grade 3 to 6) can provide students with a broader audience, strengthen their sense of ownership over their writing and increase their writing motivation. In our study, we examine how the communicative function as one form of writing motivation can be assessed, how this relates to writing competencies, and how writing motivation changes over the course of writing with myMoment.In our baseline survey with 157 students, we were able to replicate Graham et al.’s (2019) scale measuring students’ attitudes toward writing, as well as seven of the eight subscales of writing motivation from Graham et al. (2022). We complemented these scales with a communication-as-writing-motivation scale, as no such measurement has yet been suggested in the research literature. Our newly developed writing motivation subscale demonstrates an internal consistency of α = 0.78 (n = 148), and it correlates significantly and (predominantly) positively with writing fluency (p < 0.001, r = 0.272), as well as with narrative text quality (p = 0.032, non-linear relationship). The other writing motivation subscales we tested also correlate significantly with our writing performance data, but with either only writing fluency or only narrative text quality. Furthermore, we will present results on the development of this relationship between writing motivation and writing performance during the use of the digital writing platform myMoment, with a focus on struggling and advanced writers. Graham, S. (2018). A Revised Writer(s)-Within-Community Model of Writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279.Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fishman, E. et al. (2019). Writing Skills, Knowledge, Motivation, and Strategic Behavior Predict Students’ Persuasive Writing Performance in the Context of Robust Writing Instruction. knowledge, 24.Graham, S., Harbaugh-Schattenkirk, A. G., Aitken, A. et al. (2022). Writing motivation questionnaire: validation and application as a formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 29(2), 238–261.

Speech-to-Text for Students with Dyslexia - Implications from Studies in Sweden and Switzerland

Abstract

Research aimWriting is a key competence for academic and professional success. However, students with dyslexia face considerable barriers in text production, as their lower-order writing skills are insufficiently automated. This paper explores whether speech-to-text technology (STT) assists students with dyslexia in text production and whether there is a transfer to other modalities. Findings from complementary studies conducted in Sweden and Switzerland are synthesized to outline benefits and challenges for educational practice.Theoretical frameworkThe theoretical approach draws on Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1994) and Bandura's (1997) concept of self-efficacy. STT may reduce cognitive load from lower-order writing processes, freeing resources for higher-order ones, and may strengthen self-efficacy compared to demanding writing tasks. Thus, STT may assist students with dyslexia in processes and products of text production. MethodsGunilla conducted a counterbalanced within-group study with typically developing middle school students and a multiple-baseline single-case study with students with dyslexia using STT. She also conducted a five-year follow-up interview study on experiences with assistive technologies used by students with dyslexia. Silvana conducted a quasi-experimental mixed-methods study with Grade 5 students with dyslexia. She investigated the effects of STT on text production and writing motivation and conducted interviews with teachers and specialists.FindingsThe present results confirm former mixed findings on the effectiveness of STT. While STT can be a helpful tool for students with dyslexia, co-morbidities may require additional adjustments. Monitoring progress and providing targeted scaffolding are essential and appreciated by students and professionals. The school environment also influences successful use. KeywordsSpeech-to-Text; Assistive Technology; dyslexia; text production1. ReferencesBandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. PII: 0959-4752(94)90003-5

Who benefits from using speech-to-text as their writing tool?

Abstract

Writing presents significant challenges for many children, particularly those with reading and writing difficulties such as dyslexia. In addition to spelling problems, these children often produce texts of lower quality than their peers (Berninger et al., 2008; Connelly et al., 2006). These difficulties are commonly explained by cognitive bottlenecks during transcription, which place heavy demands on working memory and limit the resources available for higher-level writing processes (Berninger et al., 2002). One potential way to reduce transcription demands is the use of speech-to-text (STT) technology (Kraft, 2023; MacArthur & Cavalier, 2004; Quinlan, 2004). However, empirical knowledge of STT’s effects on children’s writing remains limited, particularly for languages other than English (Matre & Cameron, 2022), and it is still unclear for whom STT is most beneficial. This study examined the effects of built-in STT on writing among 57 children aged 10–12 and addressed two research questions: (a) which individual characteristics predict text quality in texts produced using STT, and (b) which children benefit most from using STT compared with typing. To address the first question, linear regression analyses examined whether working memory, reading skills, spelling skills, and expressive language skills predicted text quality in STT-produced texts. Although STT can reduce spelling demands, it may also introduce semantic inaccuracies due to misrecognition, placing additional demands on monitoring and revision. The results showed that neither working memory nor reading skills predicted text quality; only spelling and expressive language skills were significant predictors. To address the second question, participants were divided into three groups: children with both reading and spelling difficulties (n = 15), children with primarily spelling difficulties (n = 16), and children without reading and writing difficulties (n = 16). Texts produced using STT were compared with typed texts. Linear mixed models indicated that children with both decoding and spelling difficulties—but not those with only spelling difficulties—produced longer and higher-quality texts when using STT, even after minimal instruction. Overall, the findings suggest that STT, when combined with appropriate instructional support, can benefit some children with reading and writing difficulties, underscoring the need for further research investigating for whom it is most effective.

From Ratings to Formative Feedback: An AI-Based System for Automated Essay Scoring

Abstract

Feedback is widely recognised as one of the most powerful influences on learning, particularly in the development of writing competence. However, in everyday classroom practice, the provision of detailed and timely feedback on student texts is constrained by limited time resources. Automated essay scoring (AES) has the potential to mitigate this tension, provided that it is pedagogically sound and sensitive to the complexity of writing.This demonstration introduces an AI-based AES system developed for primary and lower secondary education. The system generates structured feedback within seconds, addressing four core dimensions of writing: content quality, coherence and cohesion, language accuracy, and stylistic appropriateness. In addition to score-based ratings across eight criteria, the system provides qualitative, dimension-specific feedback designed to support formative learning processes.The development of the system builds on a large empirical foundation of 36,739 digitised student essays that were evaluated by trained human raters. By combining large language models with targeted natural language processing techniques and educational assessment frameworks, the system aims to produce automated feedback that is more consistent, transparent, and pedagogically grounded than that of general-purpose AI applications. The demonstration briefly outlines these design principles and explains the rationale underlying the selected feedback dimensions.The demonstration then focuses on how these principles are operationalised in practice. Participants are shown how the system structures multi-dimensional feedback, generates qualitative comments from textual features, and presents feedback in an interpretable manner for educational use. Particular attention is given to interface and feedback design choices that support formative use in the classroom and clearly differentiate the system from generic AI-based writing tools.Overall, the demonstration contributes to current discussions on AI in writing education by illustrating how automated feedback systems can be designed to augment instructional practice and support learning in classroom contexts.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Formative Thesis Writing Assessment

Abstract

The development of academic writing skills in higher education presents numerous challenges. Instructors face high workloads alongside the ongoing need to provide focused and pedagogically sound feedback. While AI tools can assist in this area, current solutions show limitations. Automated writing assessment tools tend to focus on surface‑level language features (Zhao, 2025), and generative AI feedback may suffer from hallucinations, fail to address specific criteria, or lack alignment with teaching content (Gautschi, 2025). In addition, fine‑tuning large language models for specialized purposes—and many paid solutions—may be cost‑prohibitive.Recent developments in GenAI, particularly retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) systems, offer a promising alternative (Li et al., 2025; Swacha & Gracel, 2025). Although RAG‑based architectures have been applied to academic writing support, to date they have not been applied to the specific problem of academic writing assessment for thesis writing. Existing tools such as CorpusChat (see Cheung & Crosthwaite, 2025) demonstrate RAG‑based support for student writers but do not include an assessment component. To our knowledge, no existing tool integrates RAG for assessment with the goal of providing feedback aligned with instructor or writing program specifications.To address these issues, we have developed a RAG‑based system for generating formative feedback. This approach allows for reduced hallucination, greater focus, and improved flexibility and control over generated feedback. Our SaaS‑independent multi‑chat, multi‑context RAG application (Node.js server, React frontend) incorporates user and persistence management, full handling of multiple RAG document contexts, recursive splitting, vector storage (Qdrant), and query rewriting to optimize similarity searches. Local context folders include target structures for feedback, target criteria, and samples of evaluated texts. The system provides feedback based on a modified IMRD‑based structure model for thesis writing. This demonstration session showcases the system’s potential to promote academic writing skills in higher education, benefiting both students and lecturers through a flexible, pedagogically grounded formative feedback ecosystem.

Studiying writing dynamics of students of dyslexia: the DYSTRACKER setup

Abstract

During this demonstration, we aim to present an innovative experimental setup for collecting both offline (linguistic choices) and real-time (online, pauses, speed, duration, etc.) data, including eye-tracking data, for the same individual during both reading and writing tasks: DYSTRACKER device (Anonymisation). This device linked to a research project with the same name is the result of a transdisciplinary collaboration implying several disciplines (psycholinguistic, linguistic, speech therapy, neuroscience, computer science and orthoptics) and a company (Sierra Neurovision, France). Sierra Neurovision designs and develops eye-trackers to improve screening for neurovisual disorders in adolescents and young adults.Obtaining all these indicators for the same person in both reading and writing was a technical and scientific challenge. Data were collected using this innovative setup, which integrates a pen tablet, an eye-tracker, and their associated software. The written data will be collected using high-resolution pen tablets (Wacom One or similar) with Eye and Pen© software (Chesnet and Alamargot, 2005). This software records writing and eye activity. For eye activity, we will use the Eya S360 eye-tracker (SIERRA Neurovision, CE standard - ISO 62471), which records and displays eye movements. We will obtain data (enabling us to analyze lexical choices (off-line analysis), real-time processes (on-line analysis - pauses, flow, revisions, etc.), including ocular data (saccades, rhythms, etc.)) from written texts and readings.As said before, the device was developed for a previous project (a pilot study funded by a laboratory of excellence and the École Normale Supérieure of Lyon). It is also fully operational and has enabled the collection of these types of data for 44 students with and without dyslexia (Mazur, Quignard and Bigarnet, accepted). This setup indeed was therefore implemented to study the impact of dyslexia/dysorthographia on the reading and writing processes of students, contributing to a better understanding of this disorder and its impact.Chesnet, D. & Alamargot, D. (2005). Analyses en temps réel des activités oculaires et graphomotrices du scripteur : intérêt du dispositif 'Eye and Pen'. L'Année Psychologique, 105, 477-520.This demonstration is combined with a paper submission (30645).

The challenge of creating a coherent text: A Coherence-Focused AI Chatbot for Academic Writing

Abstract

The challenge of creating a coherent text: A Coherence-Focused AI Chatbot for Academic Writing Despite growing interest in AI-supported writing instruction, relatively little is known about how interactive AI tools affect higher-order writing skills, such as textual coherence. To address this gap, we present the development of a coherence-focused feedback chatbot designed explicitly for research-based writing. The tool aims to translate writing research on cohesion and coherence into practical, real-time guidance in academic writing for students and early career academics.The tool is grounded in cohesion theory, which explains how linguistic features create unity and continuity across a text (Crossley et al., 2016; Halliday & Hasan, 2014; Morris et al., 2025). The coherence-focused chatbot was developed focusing on these cohesion theory frameworks, through iterative prompt engineering, and integrated into the free, online De-jargonizer platform (Rakedzon et al., 2017). The chatbot provides individualized, question-driven prompts that guide students in identifying aspects of coherence, such as lexical overlap across sentences/paragraphs, semantic similarity between ideas, and use of transitions. At each stage, they receive AI-generated suggestions and revise their texts across iterations. A reflection and a questionnaire on the process follow this. During the demonstration, attendees will receive an overview of the pedagogical rationale, tool development, and use in research design, followed by a demonstration of the chatbot. Participants will be invited to test the tool on their own writing samples and explore how coherence indices are employed to generate tailored feedback. The project demonstrates how research can be translated into classroom-ready practice, advancing understanding of AI’s potential to support higher-order writing skills in multilingual contexts. More broadly, it highlights how coherence-aware AI tools can contribute to more inclusive, adaptive, and discipline-responsive academic writing instruction.

Assessing Digital Multimodal Composing in L2 Writing: A Scoping Review

Abstract

AbstractThe continuous advancement of educational technologies has made digital multimodal composing (DMC) a burgeoning area of research in L2 writing. DMC refers to the design of a digital genre with the integration of multiple modes, such as text, image, sound, and gesture (Kessler, 2024). Instead of the traditional view of writing as monomodal written texts, DMC highlights the semiotic richness and technological affordance of contemporary writing practices. Despite growing pedagogical interest and positive evidence from L2 classrooms, appropriately assessing DMC products and composing processes remains a major challenge for writing teachers and researchers.While empirical and synthesis studies on DMC have proliferated within second language acquisition, the overall research landscape of DMC assessment remains underexplored. As a research synthesis approach, a scoping review can outline the status quo of an emergent topic and identify potential gaps for future research (Chong, 2025). Therefore, adopting the scoping review method and following the PRISMA guidelines, this paper selects and analyzes 30 research articles from 2005 to 2024 to map theoretical foundations, methodological approaches, and thematic trends in current DMC assessment research.Theoretically, current research mainly draws on three theories: systemic functional linguistics, multimodality theory, and multiliteracies theory. Methodologically, existing studies primarily employ the etic approach to explore key dimensions of DMC competence, as well as the data-driven approach to develop analytic rubrics for DMC products. Thematically, current scholarship focuses on construct definition and operationalization, teacher feedback literacy, and assessment tool development.Based on the identified limitations and gaps, corresponding directions for future research are put forward. This review contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of DMC assessment by synthesizing existing studies and offering practical implications for writing pedagogy and assessment.ReferencesChong, S. W. (2025). Synthesis Methods and Reporting Tool (SMART) for research syntheses in applied linguistics. Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-22.Kessler, M. (2024). Digital multimodal composing: Connecting theory, research and practice in second language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

Development and standardisation of a writing fluency test for grades 2 to 4

Abstract

An important prerequisite for developing writing competence is mastering lower-level skills, particularly writing fluency. Writing fluency comprises the automatized ability to produce legible letters, correct words, and grammatically correct sentences (transcription fluency) and locally coherent text (text generation fluency) at a reasonable pace with sustained attention (Linnemann et al. 2022). If these skills are not yet automatized, there are not enough cognitive resources available for higher order processes, such as planning the text (McCutchen 1996). Therefore, influent writing has a negative impact on text quality. Since writing fluency is not sufficiently mastered by all students in primary and secondary education, structured and targeted promotion is particularly necessary in primary school. Such promotion and the identification of children at risk require evidence-based, standardised diagnostics. However, there is currently no standardised instrument for measuring writing fluency in German-speaking countries. Teachers are therefore largely reliant on observation.Therefore, a writing fluency test was developed that includes the sub-skills of transcription fluency and text generation fluency. The test consists of four subtasks (alphabet task, word production, sentence production, text writing about a picture story). All tasks are performed against the clock. The test measures letters and words per minute and sentences per three minutes. Item analysis of 160 subjects revealed the following reliability statistics: alphabet task ICC=.98; word production=.88; split half=.98; sentence production=.75; split half=.84. The validity was confirmed in a structural equation model (Linnemann et al. 2022). Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the resulting writing fluency dimensions correlate with construct-related variables, such as text quality (r=.40) or reading fluency (r=.40). In an ongoing study, which will complete data collection in January, the test is being standardised for primary schools with 2500 students. The poster provides insights into the theoretical background, the test tasks, and the results of the standardisation study, including cut off points for students at risk, considering variables such as multilingualism, learning disabilities and dyslexia. Linnemann, M. et al. (2022). The dimensionality of writing and reading fluency and its impact on and comprehension and composition. JoWR, 14(2), 185–227. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.

Do Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency Compete? Within-Person Evidence From CBM Writing

Abstract

Understanding how different dimensions of writing performance interact is essential for modelling developing writers’ abilities. Within Curriculum-Based Measurement of Writing (CBM-W), the Complexity–Accuracy–Fluency (CAF) framework provides a multidimensional perspective on text production (Wagner et al., 2019). Building on limited-capacity views of attention, it has been argued that attention is a finite resource and that the three dimensions of CAF may compete for these resources during composition (Housen & Kuiken, 2009). Consequently, writers may allocate attention to one dimension (e.g., accuracy) at the expense of others (e.g., fluency or complexity), resulting in trade-offs in performance rather than balanced expression of all dimensions within a given writing episode (Smith et al., 2023). Such trade-offs may help explain the substantial intraindividual performance fluctuations observed across short, closely spaced writing tasks. The present study addresses this hypothesis by analyzing the dynamic interplay among the three CAF dimensions in children’s CBM-writing performance.Data have been collected from students in Grade 3 and Grade 6 (N =296), who each produced five 5-minute CBM writing probes within one week. Fluency was operationalised as Total Words Written (TWW), Accuracy as the percentage of Correct Word Sequences (%CWS), and Complexity as orthographic complexity, reflecting the occurrence of advanced orthographic patterns in the child’s intended text. Because each child produced several texts, observations are nested within students (Level 1: texts; Level 2: student).The planned analyses involve a multivariate multilevel path model, enabling the investigation of within-person associations among the CAF dimensions and potential variability in these relationships across students and grade levels. Central to this analysis is the question of whether changes in one dimension systematically relate to changes in the others, thereby indicating trade-offs in writers’ allocation of cognitive and linguistic resources.ReferencesHousen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048Smith, A. R., Allen, A. A., & Alley, J. (2023). A literature synthesis of curriculum‐based measurement in writing for English learners. Psychology in the Schools, Article pits.23121. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23121 Wagner, K., Smith, A., Allen, A. A., McMaster, K. L., Poch, A., & Lembke, E. S. (2019). Exploration of New Complexity Metrics for Curriculum-Based Measures of Writing. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 44(4), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418773448

From fluency to quality: language proficiency and task genre in L2 process-product relations

Abstract

Writing fluency in a second language (L2) is a crucial competence in both educational and professional contexts. Yet, how language proficiency and task complexity influence the relationship between writing processes and products remains to be fully elucidated. Writing fluency describes the skill of rapidly and seamlessly converting conceptual ideas into written language, with minimal hesitation or interruption. Fluent writing skills free up cognitive resources, which can then be allocated to other attention-binding tasks within the writing process, a prerequisite for composing a high-quality text. However, disfluency can also enhance text quality, as pauses and revisions may be used to refine its language, structure, and content.Existing evidence suggests that writers’ ability to produce text fluently depends on both their language proficiency and the cognitive demands of the writing task. To examine these effects, 60 students composed two texts – counterbalanced a description and an argumentation – both in English as their L2, while their writing process was recorded via keystroke logging. Participants also completed a cloze test to assess L2 proficiency and a copy task to control for typing skills. The log files were analyzed for various fluency parameters, including production rates, bursts, pauses, and revisions. The resulting texts were evaluated for overall quality, linguistic complexity, and accuracy.Multiple regression analyses revealed that writing fluency, linguistic complexity, and accuracy each significantly predicted text quality across both genres, and writing was overall more fluent in the argumentation than in the description. Moderation analyses partly supported the initial hypotheses: only among highly proficient writers did greater fluency correspond to greater lexical complexity in the argumentation. Less experienced writers had to slow down and interrupt their writing more frequently to express themselves in a lexically complex manner. In all other aspects of writing performance, higher fluency was consistently associated with better outcomes, regardless of task genre or proficiency level.Overall, the findings demonstrate that writing fluency is a key indicator of L2 writing competence, contributing to better performance across proficiency levels and task types. These results highlight the need to afford greater attention to fluency in both L2 writing research and pedagogy.

Perspective taking and writing motivation on argumentative writing quality

Abstract

Purpose: Argumentative writing requires writers to generate linguistically complex text while simultaneously coordinating claims and reasons to convince their audience. This coordination may depend not only on foundational reading and writing skills but also on socio-cognitive factors such as perspective-taking and writing motivation. This study examined whether writing motivation and perspective-taking predict 7th‑grade argumentative writing quality after accounting for foundational language skills.Method: Participants were 200 7th-grade students participating in a longitudinal study in Norway. Measures included an argumentative writing task, self-reported perspective-taking (a subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index), writing motivation (five subscales), listening comprehension (NARA-II), vocabulary (WPPSI), reading comprehension (NARA-II), word decoding (TOWRE), an adapted spelling test (Staveprøven), and a short transcription task. Argumentative texts were scored on dimensions of writing quality, namely writing conventions (WC), language complexity (LC), and argumentative skills and audience awareness (AAW). Structural equation modeling with latent variables was used to analyze the data. Results: Perspective-taking significantly predicted AAW when accounting for reading- and writing-related skills, while writing motivation showed a marginally significant association (p = 0.050). However, the high correlation between perspective-taking and writing motivation might indicate collinearity, which may limit estimation of each predictor’s unique contribution to argumentative skills and audience awareness in argumentative writing. In addition, reading comprehension significantly predicted LC and AAW and mediated the effects of oral language on these writing outcomes. Word decoding was not a significant predictor in the full model after controlling for spelling. Spelling was positively associated with WC and LC, while transcription fluency was not a significant predictor in the model. Conclusion: These findings highlight the roles of student’s capacity for perspective-taking and writing motivation in students’ ability to consider an audience when writing, beyond the influence of reading- and writing-related skills. At the same time, our results underscore the central role of reading skills and spelling as a foundation for argumentative writing quality.

What linguistic changes occur in texts after an SRSD intervention?

Abstract

Teaching children to become proficient writers is a central goal of education. However, students at all educational levels often struggle with effective expression, particularly in argumentative writing (Crowhurst, 1990). Analytical genres are at the core of school and academic experiences, yet they are one of the most protracted accomplishments in text production (Berman, 2008). In the last few decades, the focus on writing instruction has shifted toward strategies that support the writing process (Salas et al., 2023). One such approach, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), emphasises teaching specific strategies for different stages of the writing process (Graham & Harris, 2018). Developmental studies have identified several text characteristics, such as text-embedded lexicon (lexical diversity, lexical density, word length, adjectives) and syntactic complexity (clause length, relative pronouns, discourse markers), as indicators of development and genre accuracy. This presentation outlines findings from an intervention study that taught argumentative text production, examining whether an SRSD writing intervention focused on the planning process can induce linguistic changes in argumentative texts written in Catalan by 1,021 participants from 2nd- and 4th-grade. There were two conditions: a business-as-usual control group or an SRSD opinion-essay planning intervention experimental group. Specifically, we compare seven linguistic features of a total of 1,702 texts, 888 written before (pretest) and 814 produced after (posttest) an SRSD writing intervention, to assess its short-term effectiveness. Results show significant linguistic improvements in the experimental group, including richer lexical choices and greater syntactic complexity. In contrast, the control group’s texts show no such changes. These findings suggest that targeted instruction in writing processes can lead to improvements in students’ language use and writing practices. References Berman, R. A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 735-771. Crowhurst, M. (1990). Teaching and Learning the Writing of Persuasive/Argumentative Discourse. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(4), 348-359. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2018). An Examination of the Design Principles Underlying a Self-Regulated Strategy Development Study. Journal of Writing Research, 10(2), 137-187. Salas, N., Pascual, M., Birello, M., & Cros, A. (2023). Embedding Explicit Linguistic Instruction in an SRSD Writing Intervention. Written Communication, 40(3), 857-891.

Writing Fluency Always Matters, No Matter the Writing Technology

Abstract

According to the Not-so-Simple View of Writing, transcription is a central component of writing (Ahmed et al., 2022). While the mechanical component of transcription (handwriting/typing) must be learned separately, the spelling component can be transferred from one writing technology to another. Additionally, computers offer additional support with spell checkers. However, there is a lack of studies that have examined the influence of different writing technologies in connection with spell checkers on secondary school students using a large sample size (Feng et al., 2019).The present study therefore investigates: Does the quality and fluency of students' texts differ when they write using different writing technology (handwriting / typing with and without spell checking)? Does the fluency of students' writing with different writing technologies explain differences in the quality of their texts?To answer these questions, 912 students (M = 14 years; 51% female) completed three writing tasks. The first writing task measured writing fluency. Text quality was measured with the second and third tasks (two different text types). Roughly one-third of the students wrote by hand (364), one-third wrote on a computer without spell check (301), and one-third wrote on a computer with spell check (277). Human raters and GPT-4o were used to determine text quality based on a rating scheme with four dimensions: content, coherence & consistency, language, and style.By running analyses of variance, groups differed significantly in writing fluency with less text produced by both computer groups, but not in their text quality (RQ 1). We employed regression analysis and found that writing fluency was a strong predictor of text quality irrespective of writing technology (RQ 2). Overall, our results emphasize the importance of writing fluency for writing practice in schools. Students need sufficient exercise with all writing technologies.References: Ahmed, Y., Kent, S., Cirino, P. T., & Keller-Margulis, M. (2022). The Not-So-Simple View of Writing in Struggling Readers/Writers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 38(3), 272–296. Feng, L., Lindner, A., Ji, X. R., & Malatesha Joshi, R. (2019). The roles of handwriting and keyboarding in writing: a meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing, 32(1), 33–63.

Writing Profiles of German-Speaking Children: A Latent Profile Analysis in Grades Three and Five

Abstract

Writing Profiles of German-Speaking Children: A Latent Profile Analysis in Grades Three and FiveChildren’s writing performance is based on a complex interplay of cognitive, linguistic, and written language components (Philipp, 2020). Therefore it is expected that children differ in their writing skills, and no uniform construct of writing performance exists. Studies addressing these questions often group participants’ performances using cluster or latent profile analyses. However, only a few such studies exist for writing, mainly from English-speaking countries, indicating that no universal writing profile exists and multiple profiles can be identified (e.g., Sandler et al., 1992; Troia et al., 2022). Compared to other domains, such as reading, research on writing remains limited (Troia et al., 2022).The present study addresses this gap in the German-speaking context. The sample comprised 514 children from Swiss German schools in grades three and five. Latent profile analyses were conducted separately for each grade to examine how many writing profiles could be identified based on phonological working memory, handwriting, spelling, linguistic knowledge, basic reading skills, writing fluency, and text quality. Four profiles emerged in both grades: weak, below-average, above-average, and competent writers. Components were aligned within profiles, with the weakest and most competent showing greater variability.These results contribute to a better understanding of individual differences in writing and provide implications for assessment and targeted support. Philipp, M. (2020). Grundlagen der effektiven Schreibdidaktik: Und der systematischen schulischen Schreibförderung (8. erweiterte Aufl.). Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH. Sandler, A. D., Watson, T. E., Footo, M., Levine, M. D., Coleman, W. L. & Hooper, S. R. (1992). Neurodevelopmental Study of Writing Disorders in Middle Childhood. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13(1), 17–23.Troia, G. A., Wang, H. & Lawrence, F. R. (2022). Latent profiles of writing-related skills, knowledge, and motivation for elementary students and their relations to writing performance across multiple genres. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 71, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102100

AI and I: A rhizomatic analysis of writing processes with AI tools

Abstract

AI and I: A rhizomatic analysis of writing processes with AI toolsSara Silverdal, Umeå University and Carina Hermansson, Stockholm UniversityAs writing practices continually co-evolve with societal and technological change, the emergence of generative AI poses new challenges and opportunities for schools and students. This paper investigates how relationships between student writers and AI technologies are enacted during the writing process, and how these relationships reshape notions of authorship, agency, and textual production. Drawing on a socio-material framework and specifically employing a rhizomatic analytic approach (Mac Lure, 2013; Alvermann 2000), the study maps the assemblages that emerge when upper-secondary students in Sweden compose short stories with access to AI tools.The empirical material consists of 24 filmed writing sessions capturing students’ screens, facial expressions, and part of their intra-actions in the room. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six students - one group interview with four participants and two individual interviews. The paper focuses in depth on three exemplifying student cases to trace divergent pathways of becoming-with AI during writing.Initial findings reveal markedly different orientations toward AI: one student delegates much of the writing to the AI; another engages in iterative, reciprocal intra-actions with AI; and a third takes a critical stance refusing to use AI at all. Across these cases, authorship emerges as fluid and negotiable, shaped by the dynamic entanglements between students, tools, and texts. The analysis also highlights how critical thinking and reading of the AI generated products appears as a valuable asset to be able to work with these tools and interpret their responses.The study contributes to writing research by providing an empirically grounded account of how generative AI reshapes writing processes and writer identities. For pedagogy, the findings highlight the need to equip both teachers and students with critical, transparent, and equitable practices for working with AI tools. Such preparation is essential to ensure that AI becomes a resource for inclusive learning rather than a source of stratification in students’ writing development. Keywords:Writing process, creative writing, generative AI, upper secondary education

Genre awareness in Dutch L1 writing education

Abstract

Genre awareness in Dutch L1 writing educationJan van Gulik, Renske Bouwer, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Erwin Mantingh & Ninke StukkerContemporary approaches to genre education often put an emphasis on genre-specific writing schemes, lists of rules that texts from a specific genre adhere to (Devitt, 2004; Johns, 2008). However, such schemes suggest to students that there is only one way to write a text. Another limitation of implementing genre education through prescriptive schemes is that students only learn to write in a limited number of genres.An alternative approach is to invest in a more general genre awareness. This provides students with a metalanguage for interpreting unfamiliar genres and variations of familiar genres (Devitt, 2004; Tardy et al., 2020). However, we know little about the extent to which genre awareness is already addressed in the current Dutch L1 curriculum. The new core objectives for Dutch, for example, seem to require more genre knowledge than before. Therefore, we examine how these core objectives and Dutch course materials for pre-vocational secondary education address genres. In this material analysis, we examined for each language domain (reading, speaking, and writing):• which terms are used for genres (e.g., text forms and text types)• which specific example genres (e.g., reviews) are mentioned• which genre characteristics (e.g., content) are addressed.Results show that both materials contain useful ingredients for fostering students’ genre awareness, but that a more integrative approach is needed, as different aspects of genre theory are scattered across language domains. In the writing domain, connections between the communicative purpose and conventions of genres are addressed. However, a discussion of the communicative context of genres (e.g. relationship between language users) remains underexposed. Furthermore, the core objectives address both common, popular genres and macro-genres (such as persuasive texts), while course materials focus on the latter in the writing domain.We discuss implications for improving course materials, and for successful implementation of genre pedagogy in the Dutch context.BibliographyDevitt, A. (2004). Writing Genres. Southern Illinois University Press.Johns, A. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 235-252.Tardy, C. et al. (2020). Teaching and researching genre knowledge. Written Communication, 37(3), 287-321.

Institutional policies on generative AI in BA thesis writing: Evidence from Romanian universities

Abstract

LLMs have changed educational practices in universities across the world. This impact might be even greater in the case of bachelor theses, often written by less experienced students who might need more support with writing and might resort to LLMs to provide it. Universities have responded by creating policy frameworks that set the limits of permitted and disallowed uses of generative AI (e.g., Jin et al., 2025). Not all institutions, however, have been equally quick to respond to these challenges. In Romania, many universities have preferred to wait for models of action to become available from leading international institutions or official boards and have not yet articulated clear AI-related policies, which often leaves students and supervisors without clear guidance about how AI may be used in bachelor theses.In the present study, we analyse data from questionnaires and interviews, as well as publicly available policy documents from universities in the country to answer the following questions: Do Romanian higher education institutions have AI-related policies, and when were they implemented? Do these policies include specific provisions regarding Bachelor theses? Are students and supervisors aware of the existence of such policies, and do they integrate them in their work? Our findings show that, to date, not many Romanian universities have explicit policies regarding the use of AI. When they do exist, these often include only limited sections dedicated to the use of AI and few offer practical guidance on how to use AI in an ethical manner. By contrast, respondents to the interviews and questionnaires emphasize the need for institutional policies and for a consistent approach to the use of AI tools. Finally, we problematize this tension between the expressed needs of the academic communities and what the educational system currently provides, and make recommendations for the development of practical, discipline-sensitive guidance to support students’responsible use of AI in university contexts.Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348

Negotiating Rhetorical Traditions in Post-Communist Romania: A Collaborative Autoethnography

Abstract

Teaching and researching writing are situated within specific socio-economical contexts, and pedagogical decisions made by writing teachers are embedded both in diverse rhetorical traditions and broader historical, ideological and institutional structures (Street, 1995). Teachers’ own literacy trajectories move across institutional, discoursal and power structures, and, like their students, teachers have developed as writers by using a varied repertoire of strategies and discourses to negotiate different contexts and identities. In this study, we use collaborative autoethnography to investigate the literacy trajectories of five writing teacher-researchers. Collaborative autoethnography brings researchers together to generate, interpret, and analyze autoethnographic data (Chang et al., 2004) and thus helps access the relationship between individual experience and the broader socio-historical contexts in more depth. The participants are five Romanian-born academics with very different professional trajectories who have all studied in Romania but then worked and researched across different contexts. We worked collaboratively to generate autoethnographic data, reflecting on the most important turning points in our evolution as academic writers, researchers and teachers, and on our understanding of our positions as writing teachers and researchers within our institutions, but also within the broader international context. We next analysed the autoethnographic data, first individually and then in collective meetings, identifying commonalities and contrasts across our trajectories and identifying common themes. The themes identified speak to how we see ourselves as Romanian academics researching and teaching English in an Anglo-Centric environment, how we have adapted, adopted or transcended the multiple rhetorical traditions we have been exposed to, and how the way we negotiated these tensions shapes our teaching. Finally, we consider the broader implications of these examples of researcher-teachers’ trajectories and their impact on pedagogical practice. Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. W., & Hernandez, K.-A. C. (2016). Collaborative autoethnography. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315432137Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844282

Understanding and Assessing Effective Note-Taking with a Digital Pen in Middle School

Abstract

Handwriting requires the interaction of language, cognition, and motor skills (Odersky, 2018). Once motor skills as a lower-level process have been acquired, additional resources become available in the areas of cognition and language (Speck-Hamdan et al., 2016). These higher-level processes are for instance reflected in the quality of handwritten notes and personal thoughts.Note-taking is an effective strategy to support learning in the classroom. Different forms of handwritten notes exist: Linear notes include outlining and the sentence method (writing one sentence for each topic). Non-linear forms of notes include tables, mind maps, Cornell notes, SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review), and guided notes, in which students are provided with an external framework with headings, guiding questions, or important key terms. Not only is note-taking an important skill, but reviewing and learning with notes also correlates with test performance (Kiewra et al., 1991). Studies in secondary education revealed that writing speed correlates with the quality of notes (Graham et al., 1997). Writing instruction in primary education (legibility) is related to the length and quality of notes in advanced school careers (Berninger et al., 1997; Graham et al., 2000). Peverly et al. (2007) investigated which cognitive skills contribute to high-quality note-taking. The results show that writing fluency was the only predictor of the quality of the notes. We will present a project in one middle school class (n=25) over three years (start October 2025). The students use a digital pen during note-taking. The teachers will instruct different types of note-taking in class, while the researchers will evaluate the quality of notes, legibility and the performance correlation. The teachers involved in the project can enhance their professional skills by reflecting on their instructional methods in a cooperative team with the researchers. This leads to transparent lesson planning and didactic self-reflection. Additionally, we will annually conduct partially structured interviews with the students. The poster will present the research design and preliminary results of the first year.

What Does My Reader Need? Audience Awareness in Sixth-Graders’ Written LEGO Instructions

Abstract

Purpose: Audience awareness is central to effective writing, requiring writers to anticipate readers’ needs and misunderstandings (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Hayes, 2012). Failures to support and consider readers have contributed to catastrophic consequences, including fatal radiation explosions linked to technical instructions that failed to anticipate user interpretation (Leveson & Turner, 1993). This study examines how Norwegian sixth-grade students demonstrate audience awareness through reader supports when writing LEGO-based procedural texts for real readers (though low-stakes), and whether these demonstrations differ by writer gender.Method: Seventy sixth-grade students wrote instructions for a specific peer to build a six-piece LEGO figure using only the written instructions, ensuring genuine communication. Three researchers independently coded texts for reader supports indicating audience awareness using a deductively-developed, inductively-refined rubric with seven categories: reader connection, adaptation, emphasis, sequential markers, figurative language, goals, and action support. Patterns of reader support use were compared by author gender using frequency counts and qualitative examples.Results: Sixth-grade writers demonstrated audience awareness in procedural writing. Sequence markers were almost always present, and action support appeared in over half of essays, whereas reader-oriented supports (e.g., reader connection and goal orientation) appeared in only about one third. Girls produced substantially more reader supports than boys, with more than four times as many reader connection instances and twice as many adaptation, action support, and goal orientation instances. Discussion: Authentic, hands-on writing tasks can elicit clear demonstrations of audience awareness through reader supports, even in relatively short procedural texts (approximately 100 words). Despite the task being designed to align with boys’ LEGO-building interests and spatial reasoning strengths, girls more consistently and flexibly supported their readers. These findings suggest gender differences in how young writers conceptualize and enact audience awareness, underscoring the need for instructional approaches that explicitly support students in anticipating and responding to readers’ needs.ReferencesBereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260Leveson, N. G., & Turner, C. S. (1993). An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents. Computer, 26(7), 18–41.https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1993.274940

Writing Assessment in Primary Education in Spanish-Speaking Contexts

Abstract

Writing Assessment in Primary Education in Spanish-Speaking Contexts: A Systematic Review of Instruments and Tasks Writing is a core component of school literacy and a strong predictor of academic success; however, its assessment has traditionally received less attention than reading. International research emphasises that effective writing assessment is essential for informing instruction and supporting the development of competent writers, particularly when it is grounded in authentic text production tasks (Graham et al., 2011). In Latin America, the SERCE regional study provided early evidence of the value of assessing writing through complete texts, taking into account both written products and the processes involved (Atorresi, 2010).This study reports the results of a systematic review of empirical studies published between 2010 and 2025 on literacy assessment in primary education (approximately ages 6–12) in Spanish-speaking countries. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study was coded according to country, educational level, assessed skills (reading and/or writing), types of writing tasks used, and the availability of reliability and validity evidence.The findings reveal a clear dominance of reading-focused assessment. Only 8 of the 28 studies (28.6%) included an explicit evaluation of writing. When writing was assessed, it was mainly operationalised through transcription tasks, such as dictation and spelling, whereas text production and composition were addressed infrequently and in an unsystematically manner. This pattern contrasts with approaches that advocate formative writing assessment as a key mechanism for improving teaching and learning (Graham et al., 2011).Overall, the results point to a gap between the theoretical conceptualisation of writing as a complex, multidimensional skill and its assessment in applied research. The study highlights the need to strengthen writing assessment in primary education by incorporating text production tasks and explicit assessment criteria. Such advances are essential for the early identification of writing difficulties and for supporting evidence-based educational intervention in Spanish-speaking contexts.ReferencesAtorresi, A. (2010). Escritura: un estudio de las habilidades de los estudiantes de América Latina y el Caribe. OREALC/UNESCO Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Alliance for Excellent Education.

Writing to learn in the new A(I)ge

Abstract

Writing-to-learn (WTL) can increase students’ understanding of disciplinary content (Armstrong et al., 2008; Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004). However, since generative artificial intelligence (genAI) was made freely available, we observe in our courses (Utrecht University, Bachelor Biology) that students use genAI during their thinking and writing processes for writing assignments. When genAI helps with or even takes over processes in the students’ writing process, the question arises whether WTL is still relevant as learning approach in future education. This study aimed to gain insight into how third-year university students perceive writing assignments and use genAI. Students from the final bachelor thesis course were invited to fill in an anonymous survey on genAI-use, self-efficacy for academic writing, writing beliefs, and how they experience academic writing in general. Results from close ended questions showed that students (n = 29) generally report that writing helps them understand content better, with no significant difference between students who do use genAI (n = 19) and students who do not use genAI (n = 10), t(26,637) = 1,75, p = 0,093. We also found no significant difference in how they experience academic writing (t(19,056) = -0,29, p = 0,774) and writing self-efficacy (H(1) = 0,544, p = 0,461) between these groups. Students who use genAI for writing assignments mostly use it as a brainstorm partner and to improve self-written texts and spelling. They least use it to generate texts, to compare literature, and to verify if their own text corresponds to the content of the source. Students give different reasons not to use genAI. Mainly low reliability and quality of AI-generated texts and it’s negative influence on learning were mentioned. This study forms a basis for a follow-up study across our whole student population to see if and how genAI-use poses a risk on the WTL-process throughout the bachelor.

Effects of oral language instruction on children's writing

Abstract

Writing and reading, together with mathematical competence, are fundamental pillars for students’ overall development. Despite the importance of writing, early instruction in it often focuses primarily on mechanical skills, delaying the introduction of more complex or abstract content. In response to this, contemporary models of writing such as DIEW (Kim & Schatschneider, 2017) propose both direct and indirect contributors to writing, including oral language at the discourse level.Bearing that in mind, the objective of the present study is to analyze the effect of interventions focused on developing oral skills on early writing performance in preschool and primary education students.The study consisted of a meta-analysis of instructional studies addressing oral language and its impact on early writing competence. The process was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines throughout. Studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included if they were available in full text, in English or Spanish, and analyzed instructional programs targeting oral language and early writing. Studies were excluded involving students from fourth grade or above, clinical or special education samples, or foreign language contexts.The meta-analysis included 16 studies covering a total of 11,823 participants. The combined correlation between oral skills and early writing competence was moderate and significant (r = .45, 95% CI [.33, .55], Z = 7.53, p < .001), although heterogeneity was high (I² = 91.54%).The results provide evidence of a moderate, positive relationship between oral language instruction and writing competence, both in lower-level and higher-level writing skills. Subgroup analysis showed stronger effects in primary education than in preschool, suggesting that oral language interventions can enhance writing performance as learning progresses, thereby opening up paths for tiered instructional strategies.This work was co-financed by the Department of Education of CyL and the European Social Fund Plus under the framework of the Predoctoral PR 2023 Call, a grant awarded to the first author. This work was created under a project (PID2021-124011NB-I00) financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and "ERDF A way of making Europe" Kim, Y. G., & Schatschneider, C. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129

Emergent Literacy Development: A Socio-Constructivist Program in Preschool

Abstract

Emergent literacy refers to the foundational skills, knowledge, and behaviours that precede formal reading and writing instruction. It encompasses the natural development of literacy as children interact with their environment. These early literacy skills, as letter knowledge, phonological awareness invented spelling and early reading are crucial for successful reading and writing development, influencing long-term academic outcomes. The socio-constructive approach to literacy development considers that children build knowledge through meaningful interactions with peers and educators which role is to provide guidance, scaffolding and minimal intervention to support children’s discoveries. In this context our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of a socio-constructivist emergent literacy programme in preschool designated to develop key literacy skills. Four classes from 2 schools in the Lisbon area attended by 88 5-year-olds participated in this study. The emergent literacy program was developed with 49 children attending two of these classes (experimental group). In the other 2 classes comprising 39 children, traditional literacy activities were developed (control group). In both classes the activities were developed by the educators during their classes. Children’s phonological awareness, letter knowledge, reading and spelling were assessed at the beginning and end of the school year. The emergent literacy program comprised 12 sessions, each beginning with contextualized activities (e.g., storytelling, singing a song, watching a short film) that provided a framework for subsequent learning. This was followed by activities addressing several emergent literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness, letter knowledge, vocabulary, early interaction with print, invented spelling). All sessions began with a large group activity, followed by a small group activity, and finished with an individual activity. The control group activities consisted, mainly, of traditional tasks such as rhyming, singing songs, storytelling, and copying letters and words, in groups or individually, with low levels of interaction between the children. The study results demonstrated statistically significant differences between the groups, with the experimental group showing substantial improvements in letter knowledge, phonological awareness, spelling, and reading compared to the control group. These findings suggest that emergent literacy programs incorporating socio-constructivist and naturalistic practices can be highly effective in developing fundamental skills in preschool children.

How generative AI reshapes students' writing practices at a French university writing center

Abstract

This paper examines how academic writing in higher education is transformed when writing is learned, regulated, and evaluated in interaction with generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools. Focusing on master’s students’ learning of academic writing at a French university writing center, the study considers academic writing as an activity system (Engeström, 2014) and as a situated literacy practice (Lea & Street, 1998), in a context where students are typically confronted with the task of writing a master’s thesis without prior instruction in academic writing.From an activity theory standpoint, academic writing is seen as a goal-directed activity in which subjects, tools, and communities interact over time (Russell, 1997). From an academic literacies perspective, what is considered a valued text is embedded in broader relations of position and identity (Lillis & Tuck, 2016). This double lens allows us to examine not only what students do with GAI, but also how it positions them within communities of practice. The data combine a survey on rhetorical awareness, self-regulation, and GAI-related practices with semi-structured interviews conducted with master’s students attending the writing center. This work is drawn from an ongoing doctoral project on students’ learning of academic writing. Expected findings include differentiated profiles of learners according to how they mobilize GAI, genre knowledge and self-regulatory strategies to align their texts with perceived expectations. These profiles are expected to support the view that academic writing increasingly involves the use of GAI tools, not simply to offload writing tasks, but to mediate academic genres for novice writers whose disciplinary identities are still under construction, by making certain norms and expectations more explicit to them.This paper argues that studying writing through the lens of activity theory and academic literacies offers an understanding of GAI as a structuring component in the broader system of writing, as it reconfigures access to norms, resources, and legitimate participation in academic communities (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The needs revealed by students’ use of GAI tools offer research-informed directions for writing support that focuses on agency and rhetorical awareness in the use of tools, rather than on the technical regulation of GAI use.

Impact of home literacy practices on elementary students’ writing performance and motivation

Abstract

Current developmental models of writing assume a sociocultural perspective where the mastery of writing is explained by a set of internal and external processes (Graham, 2018). Writing acquisition is, therefore, the result of continuous formal and informal interactions between the writer and the context. Among these external and informal learning environments, families become a keystone. Literature confirms the relationship between home literacy practices, students’ transcription skills (Guo et al., 2021) and motivation towards writing (Sparks & Reese, 2013). Research, however, has been conducted almost exclusively in preschool and very early elementary stages and it is not extended to high-level cognitive and motivational processes involved in writing. This study analyses the impact of home literacy practices and writing supports in both writing performance and motivation towards writing across elementary grades. 1464 Spanish students from 1st to 6th grade distributed in 9 schools participated in the study. Their families completed the Home Writing Practices and Support Questionnaire, which explores types of home writing practices (formal vs. informal) and kinds of support (content, motivational, procedural). Students’ handwriting and spelling skills were assessed respectively through sentence-copy and spelling-to-dictation tasks. Participants wrote a narrative to assess their planning and composing skills. A mandatory revision exercise was completed after the composition task. The students also completed three questionnaires on motivation, attitudes towards writing and writing self-efficacy. Assessments were delivered by researchers over two sessions. Data is under analysis and results will be presented and discussed at the conference. Our findings might contribute to reshape sociocognitive conceptions of writing development. This work is part of a project funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation and the European Union (ref. PID2021-124011NB-I00).Graham, S. (2018). A Revised Writer(s)-Within-Community Model of Writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406Guo, Y., Puranik, C., Dinnesen, M. S., & Hall, A. H. (2021). Exploring kindergarten teachers’ classroom practices and beliefs in writing. Reading and Writing, 35(2), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10193-ySparks, A., & Reese, E. (2013). From reminiscing to reading: Home contributions to children’s developing language and literacy in low-income families. First Language, 33(1), 89-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272371143358

In search of Proust’s creative writing process : genetics, textometrics and cognitive psychology

Abstract

This study is part of the ANR Cré@Lame project, which is developing several tools adapted to the recording, dynamic visual reproduction and analysis of the writing and creativity processes observed in the drafts of heritage writers and contemporary writers (Quaranta et al. 2023). Methodologically, the research project combines data from textual genetics (Quaranta, 2004) with quantitative textual data processing developed in textometrics on literary texts (Brunet, 1982). The poster will present our corpus composed of the different manuscript versions of the incipit of the Recherche (Lavault 2013), with the aim of describing, from a genetic and stylistic point of view, the construction of the incipit of the Recherche and considering their contributions to psycholinguistics and the psychology of creativity. The combination of genetic and textometric studies will allow for a detailed examination of the macrostructural and microstructural changes in the successive rewritings of the incipit.ReferencesBrunet E. (1982). Le style de Proust dans la Recherche du temps perdu. Étude quantitative. VII International Symposium of the Association for Literacy and Linguistic Computing, p. 51-76.Lavault M. (2013) Du côté de l’incipit de la Recherche : la genèse de la fiction selon Proust. Genesis (Manuscrits-Recherche-Invention), 36, 91-104.Bonnardel, N. (2012). Créativité et conception. Approches cognitives et ergonomiques, De Boeck.Quaranta J-M. (2004). Proust “débutant” : la dynamique de l'écriture dans les premiers textes. Bulletin d'informations proustiennes, 34, 73-88.Quaranta, J.-M., Barbier, M-L, & Butzek, A.-M. (2023). écriture créative et formation, In N. Bonnardel, F. Girandola, E. Bonetto & T. Lubart (Eds.). La Créativité en Situations : Théories et applications (pp. 285-294). Paris : Dunod.Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.

Making Writing Processes Visible: Sentence-Level Visualizations of Keystroke Logging Data

Abstract

Understanding how texts are produced is crucial for developing theoretical models, evaluating writing strategies, and enhancing practical applications in writing instruction. Current keystroke logging analysis (e.g., THEtool https://github.com/mulasik/wta, analyses integrated in Inputlog https://www.inputlog.net) provides aggregated information to be interpreted by researchers, but only rudimentary visualization. These visualizations are mostly aimed at researchers, not at writers themselves. Visualizations as static graphics pose a challenge to cover highly dynamic processes as writing. We address this gap by designing and implementing novel visualizations that effectively display writing actions on sentence level by using output from THEtool. Our work is situated at the intersection of writing research and visual analytics, using raw keystroke logging data in XML-format processed by THEtool as input. The primary challenge is the meaningful integration of the static writing product and the temporal process using the notion of “version” by Mahlow (2015) into a single, comprehensive representation understandable by writers and researchers, being both aesthetically attractive and suitable for research purposes (e.g., for hypothesis building).We designed 8 new visualization models and implementated them as custom JavaScript visualizations based on syntactically processed keystroke logging data. The data is aggregated into sentence histories, classifying transformations (e.g., append, insert, delete, replace) to map actions to the sentences they affect. We demonstrate the feasibility with a pilot study of university students who wrote under identical conditions. The developed visualizations include a new model for product-process combination graphs and detailed sentence histories. (Mahlow 2015)The results reveal diverse and significantly non-linear writing strategies among participants. The novel visualizations successfully integrate the process and product dimensions in a meaningful way.These individualized process visualizations hold significant potential for bridging empirical research with aesthetically appealing display of processes to writers for reflection on their own writing strategies and challenges as well as allowing researchers to formulate research hypotheses. C. Mahlow (2015). A Definition of "Version" for Text Production Data and Natural Language Document Drafts. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on (Document) Changes: Modeling, Detection, Storage and Visualization ACM, New York, pp. 27-32. doi:10.1145/2881631.2881638C. Mahlow (2025). Die meisten schreiben das Ende zuerst. Oder nicht? Schreibprozesse sichtbar machen. 24 pages. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.15667692

The Emergence of Orthographic Revision in Early Writing

Abstract

Research on writing revision has traditionally focused on older students, while studies examining revision processes in the early years of primary education remain scarce. During these initial stages, revision is typically limited and mainly focused on orthographic aspects, which receive strong instructional emphasis and are more accessible than higher-level textual features. From this perspective, orthography provides a particularly informative domain for analysing early revision processes, as it lies at the intersection of transcription skills and emerging metacognitive control. Accordingly, the present study examines how orthographic revision emerges and develops from Grade 1 to 3.Participants were 247 Spanish primary school students (Grade 1: n = 75; Grade 2: n = 89; Grade 3: n = 83). All students completed the same two-session narrative writing task following an identical procedure across grades. In Session 1, students produced an initial narrative text. In Session 2, one week later, they revised their text in two phases: explicit detection of orthographic errors and subsequent rewriting. Orthographic revision was analysed using a fine-grained coding scheme distinguishing letter-level errors (incorrect use of upper- and lower-case letters, omission or addition of letters), rule-based errors (accentuation and violations of orthographic rules), and word-level errors (incorrect word segmentation). Measures captured the number and type of errors, as well as the quantity and accuracy of error detection and revision.Although analyses are still ongoing, preliminary findings indicate clear developmental trends. From Grade 1 to 3, letter-level and word-segmentation errors decrease, whereas rule-based errors increase, possibly reflecting growing linguistic complexity. Error detection remains limited overall but improves with grade level. Importantly, when errors are detected, both detection and correction tend to be accurate, even in the earliest grades. These findings suggest that early constraints on revision are more strongly related to limitations in revision than to orthographic knowledge itself, highlighting the need for early instructional support targeting revision strategies. Final analyses will be completed and presented at the conference.This communication is part of the I+D+i PID2021-124011NB-I00 project funded by MCIN/ AEI/10.13039/501100011033/ and “FEDER Una manera de hacer Europa”

The importance of the imagined figure of the reader to children's writing achievement

Abstract

This poster presents an investigation of the relationship between children’s awareness of the reader, their metapragmatic awareness (MPRA), as they write and their writing achievement. The questions asked are what is the nature of children’s MPRA and what is the relationship of MPRA to children’s writing achievement? A focus on MPRA is part of a larger mixed methods study of the relationship between children’s metalinguistic awareness (MLA) and their writing achievement. Audience awareness is known to be related to writing achievement and quality (Graham et al., 2018; Holdstock, 2024). The imagined figure of the reader is an important part of the model of the writing process in cognitive writing theory (Flower & Hayes,1981). The way MPRA shapes linguistic choices and thus influences writing achievement merits investigation. Method: the sample was a group of 31 children aged seven to eleven years from an inner city, multi-ethnic Auckland primary school. The children completed a writing test, New Zealand e asTTle: writing and a metalinguistic test, the Verbal Fluency test. These results enabled establishment of profile groups at four levels of attainment: high writing and high metalinguistic; high writing, low metalinguistic; low writing, high metalinguistic; low writing, low metalinguistic. All the children wrote a paragraph about an e asTTle prompt: “Recount an experience with extended family and friends”. They thought aloud as they wrote in a modified think aloud protocol termed a verbalisation. Immediately after writing the children completed a semi structured interview. The resulting qualitative data was transcribed and analysed by the researcher into seven categories including MPRA in which sentences or phrases referring to the category were recorded as mentions. Results showed that thinking about the reader shaped children’s metalinguistic choices. Children of all levels of achievement expressed their ability to think about their reader as they wrote. Thinking about the reader in a differentiated and detailed manner was related to writing achievement. Some children displayed more sophisticated MPRA than others, thus it seemed there was evidence that the awareness of one’s reader developed in ways that in some way related to their writing achievement.