SIG Writing Conference 2026 – Wednesday June 3, 2026

Trusting the Process? Cognitive Writing Models into the classroom through Process-Aware Feedback

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Barbier, Marie-Laure , Aix-Marseille University, France
Presenting author: Darrak, Zahra Ed , Aix-Marseille University, France
Presenting author: Quaranta, Jean-Marc , Aix-Marseille University, France
Presenting author: Ricart, Thomas , Écrivor, France
Presenting author: Zafar, Samra , Independent Researcher, Pakistan
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;creative writing;education;keystroke logging

Abstract

The study of written composition focuses increasingly on the study of the process, instead of the product. Yet, the translation of process-based knowledge into pedagogical practice remains fragmented and uneven across instructional contexts (D’Souza, 2021). Bringing three complementary perspectives, this roundtable seeks to examine what a process-aware pedagogy of writing might entail, as well as the trade-offs of using digital technologies to provide students and pupils with feedback suited to their individual needs. Insights around the development of the writing-assistant for primary and secondary education Ecrivor will help identify which traces of the writing process are pedagogically meaningful and how teachers interpret—or misinterpret—these indicators. Moving to academic writing, we will examine the methodological and cognitive limits of AI systems that generate feedback from keystroke logs (Zafar, 2025). Finally, the creative writing perspective will show how dimensions such as originality, narrative strategy, and emotion expose the gaps in current models of writing process and the requirements for AI to support creativity and authorial development in a sensitive and reliable way (Quaranta, 2025). This roundtable is an invitation for participants and audience to debate around key questions: What parts of the process should become feedback, and what risks emerge when process data is misinterpreted by both humans and AI systems? Can cognitive models of writing be operationalized in the classroom without becoming reductive? How can AI tools support, rather than constrain, learners’ composing processes? Drawing on three areas of interest, the discussion will converge on the central question of how research insights and classroom needs can inform one another, and what a genuinely dynamic relationship between research and practice might look like in a future where process data becomes increasingly accessible.D'Souza, Richard. (2021). What characterises creativity in narrative writing, and how do we assess it? Research findings from a systematic literature search’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Volume 42, 100949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100949.Quaranta, J-M. (2025). « Intelligence artificielle et création littéraire : expériences et perspectives », Interfaces numériques, 14, https://doi.org/10.25965/interfaces-numeriques.5440. Zafar, S. et al. (2025). ‘I Wrote, I Paused, I Rewrote’ Teaching LLMs to Read Between the Lines of Student Writing., arXiv preprint, arXiv:2506.08221.

Reading and writing in flow

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Peze, Anouk ten , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: van Weijen, Daphne , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Rijlaarsdam, Gert , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Keywords

creative writing;education;instructional design in writing;reading and writing

Abstract

The recently revised Dutch secondary school curriculum focuses more clearly on creative language use, positioning both literary reading and creative writing within the creative-literary domain (Rijlaarsdam, 2024). Reading and writing share several characteristics such as experiencing flow and developing one’s imagination. When experiencing flow, the writer becomes part of the story (Doyle, 1998). In literary reading, flow predicts reading enjoyment and relates to text comprehension (Thissen et al., 2021). Furthermore, generative thinking processes play an important role in both fiction reading and writing (Finke et al., 1992; Koek et al., 2016). Given these potential overlaps and their mutual support, integrated instruction in literary reading and creative writing seems promising. This study proposal aims to develop integrated teaching materials for lower secondary education (ages 12-15). A key design question is which subject matter best supports meaningful integration. We propose that literary text analysis could function as a bridging component, helping students understand how literary features operate in texts they read and providing tools they can apply in their own writing.In this round table, we look forward to exploring two issues: 1. To what extent is integrating literary text analysis with creative writing and literary reading a productive choice for lower secondary education?2. Which literary features (e.g., narrative perspective, voice, characterization, time structure, setting, imagery, style) are most suitable as shared focal points for integrated reading-writing units at ages 12–15? LiteratureDoyle, C. L. (1998). The writer tells: The creative process in the writing of literary fiction. Creativity Research Journal, 11(1), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1101_4Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. MIT Press.Koek, M., Janssen, T., Hakemulder, F., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). Literary reading and critical thinking: Measuring students’ critical literary understanding in secondary education. Scientific Study of Literature, 6(2), 243-277. https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.6.2.04koeRijlaarsdam, G. (2024). Understanding and being understood. Levende Talen Nederlands. Thissen, B. A., Menninghaus, W., & Schlotz, W. (2021). The pleasures of reading fiction explained by flow, presence, identification, suspense, and cognitive involvement. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 710-724. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000367

ChatGPT as a writing coach: A mixed-methods study in higher education

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Baaijen, Veerle , CLCG University of Groningen, Netherlands
Co-author: Hrib, Iulia , Faculty of Arts, University of Groningen, Netherlands
Chair: Galbraith, David , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;education;feedback

Abstract

The role of ChatGPT in education has been a widely discussed topic, considering its ability to provide immediate feedback and personalised guidance to users (Lo, 2023). This mixed-methods study investigates ChatGPT’s role in enhancing text quality through feedback in higher education, focusing on its potential to support argumentative writing. The research comprises two within-participant design studies (N=16) and a qualitative analysis of student interactions with ChatGPT.Study 1 examined the impact of structured, task-level ChatGPT feedback on text revisions, with participants revising their drafts without direct interaction with the chatbot. Study 2 allowed free interaction with ChatGPT, supplemented by stimulated recall interviews to explore students’ perceptions of its utility. In both studies, text quality was assessed across organization, understanding, argument quality, and mechanics, while qualitative data, including chatbot interactions and revisions, were analyzed using Strobl et al.’s (2024) adapted framework and inductive coding.Results revealed significant improvements in text quality in both studies (Study 1: t(7)=-3.69, p

Unpacking Academic Writing as a multidimensional concept through a systematic literature review

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: van der Scheer, Mylene , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Co-author: Bouwer, Renske , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Co-author: van Rijt, Jimmy , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Co-author: Quené, Hugo , University Utrecht, Netherlands
Chair: Galbraith, David , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;research methodology;writing models;writing theory

Abstract

(see file)The rise of generative AI highlights the need for a clear conceptualization of writing and its role in knowledge development, particularly within university contexts. The concept of academic writing often remains implicit and poorly understood. Students associate academic writing primarily with formal language and disciplinary jargon, whereas teachers place greater emphasis on knowledge construction, textual organization, and integration of sources. Given that academic writing functions as a key indicator of students’ progress, clarification of the concept academic writing is necessary. Given its complex, implicit, and multidimensional nature, academic writing can be approached from multiple perspectives, conceptualized through four interrelated dimensions: product, process, person, and practice. Academic writing as a product emphasizes textual features of a ‘good’ academic texts.[1] The process dimension frames academic writing as a goal-directed, and cognitively demanding activity that goes beyond producing text, involving planning, revising, source-synthesis and knowledge crafting.[2] This complex process is shaped by writers’ personal characteristics, including motivation and affect. Writing also occurs within specific social contexts[3], such as disciplinary- or institutional communities[4]. This review addresses the conceptualization of academic writing from these four dimensions of academic writing. This review was conducted using Scopus, ERIC, and Web of Science. After screening and quality assessment, 651 studies were included, which were thematically coded. The results underscore academic writing as a multidimensional and transformative practice. Studies adopting a product perspective emphasize precision, conciseness, and writer–reader relationships, particularly through discipline-specific language, stance, and Voice. Process-oriented studies conceptualize academic writing as recursive and complex, emphasizing source integration. Person-focused research foregrounds writer identity and writing beliefs, while practice-oriented studies stress the role of disciplinary and institutional contexts in defining “good writing.” Concomitantly, the review reveals systematic biases, including the predominance of writing in English. In the context of generative AI, this underscores the need to reconceptualize academic writing in universities, with greater emphasis on creativity and knowledge-crafting rather than formulaic text production. [1] Aull & Lancaster, 2014; Biber et al., 2020; Staples et al., 2016 [2] Badley, 2009; Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Chau et al., 2022; Kellogg, 2008. [3] Canagarajah, 2002; Graham, 2018 [4] Durrant, 2015; Hyland, 2008

“Writing in Spanish: Research, Practice, and the Generative AI Challenge”

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Galan, Rosa M , ITAM, Mexico
Chair: Galbraith, David , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;education;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;professional writing

Abstract

What happens when thirty years of teaching writing in Spanish meet the disruptive force of generative AI?The relationship between research and teaching in an institutional writing program in the disciplines — serving hundreds of students — is undeniable. On the one hand, the program’s design and its specific interventions are expected to be grounded in theory and evidence. On the other hand, students’ texts, opinions, and evaluations constitute a valuable source of research. However, this relationship does not remain static: it evolves over time, shaped by generational and technological changes, by new research, and, most notably, by the emergence of generative artificial intelligence since 2022.This presentation will share the 30-year experience of Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), a Mexican university, in teaching academic and professional writing. Mainly, it will describe Es ITAM, a tiered scaffolding institutional writing program at the undergraduate level spanning 14 disciplines and based on research, in which all students participate from entry to graduation. Its main purpose is to help university students develop solid written communication skills, both in the academic and professional fields.The program consists of four moments of systematic intervention distributed in semesters 1, 3, 5 and 7, in which writing in traditional and digital formats is worked on. The program is based on three main functions: writing to learn, writing to argue and writing to disseminate specialized knowledge. In 2025, Es ITAM comprises a total of 34 subjects, 32 of which are taken together with other curricular subjects, taught by professors with specific training in 16 different university disciplines, such as Economics, Applied Mathematics, Political Science, Law, Data Science and various engineering disciplines, among others. The theoretical frameworks that informed its design and those currently under review will be discussed. Furthermore, the presentation will reflect on moments of disruption and uncertainty the program has faced and will outline the research it has generated.

Academic style instruction with U SPArC: findings from two cycles of design research

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Glasbergen-Plas, Aliza , Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Co-author: Grijns, Tyche , Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Chair: Maurer, Michelle N. , University of Stavanger, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;design-based research;instructional design in writing;writing instruction

Abstract

Mastering academic writing style can be a challenge for students (Herelixka & Verhulst, 2014). Although the literature extensively describes the hallmarks of academic literacies (Biber & Conrad, 2019; Hyland, 2009), guidance on how to help students acquire an effective style is scarce. This study makes recommendations for university level style instruction upon evaluating the U SPArC style tutorial. This tutorial introduces five style principles captured in the mnemonic U SPArC, using video-based strategy instruction. Short videos model applying a principle to example sentences, followed by gradually built-up exercises (‘guided practice’). In two cycles of design research, we designed and assessed a first version of the tutorial (cycle 1), refined it based on our findings, and evaluated a second version (cycle 2). 62 and 78 master’s students participated in the two cycles at Delft University of Technology. Results show that students responded positively to the tutorial. They found the five style principles helpful for their writing, though not all principles equally so. Students particularly valued the modelling with examples. Although examples were drawn from diverse technical fields, 75% of students also found them ‘relevant for the writing we do in our study program’. Students preferred video-based instruction supplemented by written materials; few favoured in-class delivery. Finally, we avoided grammar terms in the tutorial’s first version to aid comprehension, but this seems to have unwittingly clouded the instruction. We included basic grammar terms (e.g., ‘subject’) in the second version, and almost all students preferred this. Based on our results, we recommend trying out U SPArC’s style principles, pedagogy of strategy instruction, and video-format at a larger scale. Beyond U SPArC, we recommend pairing example-rich videos with written resources, without eschewing key grammar terms. The study offers practical guidance to instructors and course developers.Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, Genre, and Style (2de editie). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 Herelixka, C., & Verhulst, S. (2014). Nederlands in het hoger onderwijs—Taalunie: Een verkennende literatuurstudie naar taalvaardigheid en taalbeleid. Nederlandse Taalunie. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context (1st ed.). Continuum. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474211673

From Higher Education to Secondary Schools: Developing an OER for genAI-Supported Scientific Writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Schnatz, Nina Isabella , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Bieri, Aline , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Chair: Maurer, Michelle N. , University of Stavanger, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;design-based research;text genre;writing instruction

Abstract

Writing is widely recognised as an epistemic tool in higher education: it structures inquiry, supports knowledge creation, and enables students to participate in disciplinary discourse. These epistemic demands also shape Swiss secondary education, where learners in Berufs-/Maturitätsschulen must produce a propaedeutic research paper as part of their final examinations. The increasing presence of generative AI (genAI) in academic writing introduces challenges across educational levels. While genAI can support idea generation, structuring, and revision, research shows that students often struggle to integrate AI outputs into coherent, genre-appropriate, and epistemically responsible writing processes. This highlights the need for pedagogical designs that scaffold reflective and transparent genAI use throughout the writing process. This paper presents the development of an open educational resource (OER) designed to support genAI-assisted scientific writing in Swiss secondary schools. The OER is part of a broader design-based research (DBR) programme on genAI-integrated writing in higher education but is not itself an iterative DBR cycle. Instead, it represents a transfer of design principles and scaffolding mechanisms from two higher-education DBR iterations of a genAI-supported scientific writing course at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW). The resulting OER includes prompting activities, genre-focused self-study units, and reflective tasks adapted to the BM-/Matura-Arbeit context. It will be introduced to teachers in May 2026 to support implementation in the 2026/27 school year. The theoretical framework draws on writing-process models and genre approaches, conceptualising genAI as a tool to be critically evaluated within the epistemic aims of scientific writing. Methodologically, the OER design draws on analysis of course artifacts (prompting journals, student texts, writing tasks, scaffolds), student surveys from FS24 and FS25, and instructor feedback. Additional insights stem from workshops in 2025, which indicated strong demand for guidance on genAI use, authorship, and academic integrity. Expected outcomes include a modular OER that supports key writing stages while fostering genre knowledge, reflective practice, and epistemic responsibility. The paper contributes to writing research by showing how DBR-informed cross-level transfer can strengthen scientific writing pedagogy and support a smoother transition from secondary to tertiary education.Keywords: genAI-supported writing, scientific writing, writing pedagogy, epistemic practices

Making Research Understandable: Teaching Undergraduates to Communicate Research to Non-Experts

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Gomez Laich, Maria Pia , Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar
Co-author: Pessoa, Silvia , Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar
Co-author: Mitchell, Thomas , Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar
Co-author: Dreher, Kira , Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar
Chair: Maurer, Michelle N. , University of Stavanger, Norway
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;design-based research;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum;writing in the disciplines

Abstract

This presentation reports on a design-based intervention to help undergraduates communicate research to non-specialists through two coupled genres: the Plain-Language Summary (PLS) and the research poster. At an English-medium U.S. branch campus in the Middle East, for the past two years we helped prepare students for the university's undergraduate poster symposium. In Year 1, we introduced a five-move PLS (teaching statement, problem, methods, findings, takeaway) alongside core poster design principles. In Year 2, we refined the timing by scheduling sessions closer to the event, added assertion-based poster headings (Wolfe & Reineke, 2024), and incorporated a formative feedback session two weeks before the presentations. Our dataset includes 58 PLSs and 58 posters, presentation recordings, and reflective interviews. We evaluated all PLSs and posters using rubrics targeting clarity, coherence, audience-fit, visual hierarchy, and explicit takeaways; all items were double-rated with reconciliation.Our presentation focuses mainly on Year 2, where there were clear improvements. Students produced more coherent PLSs and posters, used plain language more effectively for non-expert audiences, and presented their findings through cleaner, visually accessible layouts. The logistical adjustments to our intervention proved critical, as students had a more developed understanding of their research and were able to successfully leverage the PLS as the basis assertion-based poster headings. As the reflective interviews with students and our analysis of the posters show, this integration strengthened the link between written and visual communication, improving both students’ ability to make sense of their research as they crafted the moves of the PLS and the communicative effectiveness of their posters. We close by outlining adaptable teaching materials, such as PLS models, annotated examples, and poster design guides, that can support programs seeking to help students communicate research effectively to broad audiences. The project demonstrates how writing research can inform practical, scalable strategies for undergraduate research communication.ReferencesWolfe, J., & Reineke, K. (2024). Assertion-based poster headings. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

Dynamics of writing of students with dyslexia: relating writing online indicators with eye movements

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Mazur, Audrey , Université de Lyon, France
Co-author: Quignard, Matthieu , CNRS, France
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

experimental approaches;eye tracking;handwriting;writing impairment

Abstract

In France, the number of students with disabilities who report having a language disorder increases every year. Among them, students with dyslexia-dysorthographia seem to be the most represented. Beyond 18 y.o., these individuals still have difficulties with reading and writing. When reading, they make many mistakes and take longer than control groups (Elbro, et al., 1994). When writing, they continue to have difficulties with spelling, syntax, vocabulary, and identifying and correcting errors (among others, Farmer et al., 2002; Hatcher et al., 2002). International literature also points to their atypical writing dynamics, for example, making more long pauses and more intra-word pauses (among others, Sumner and Connelly, 2020).The aim of this presentation is to present the preliminary results of a pilot study focusing on the impact of dyslexia-dysorthography on the reading and writing processes of young adults, taking into account two types of analysis based on: on-line (including eye movement, pauses, duration, etc.) and off-line (word choice, errors, etc.) indicators. Twenty-two students with dyslexia (DD) and 22 controls matched for age and academic level took part in a reading and writing experiment. Data was collected using an innovative device incorporating a graphics tablet, an eye tracker and associated software.We propose to present and discuss preliminary results concerning the dynamics of writing, and more specifically pauses during written production associated to eye movements: are the indicators of atypical writing dynamics associated with atypical eye movements as well? Are both atypical phenomena correlated? Do they occur with the same words? This could make it possible to target specific difficulties during the writing process. This presentation could be combined to a demonstration. Farmer, M., Riddick, B., and Sterling, C. (2002). Dyslexia and inclusion: assessment and support in higher education. London and Philadelphia: Whurr Publishers.Hatcher, J., Snowling, M., and Griffiths, Y. (2002). Cognitive assessment of dyslexic students in higher education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 119–133.Sumner, E. and Connelly, V. (2020). Writing and Revision Strategies of Students With and Without Dyslexia. Special Series: The Interaction of Reading, Spelling and Handwriting Difficulties with Writing Development–Part 2, 189-198.

Synergies between languages at school: learning to write persuasive texts in several languages

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Peyer, Elisabeth , University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Co-author: Hicks, Nina , University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

corpus linguistics;language-specific and cross-linguistic studies;writing at school;writing in a foreign or second language

Abstract

Calls for a stronger pedagogical connection between teaching the languages taught at school have been made for years due to potential benefits from synergies. Despite extensive research on transfer, however, the core question of which conditions affect transfer remains, particularly in written productions. This project therefore examines if and under which conditions lower secondary school learners can transfer their knowledge to facilitate writing persuasive texts in the L1 and L2/L3. The focus lies on conceptual aspects of texts, so-called text procedures, i.e., text type specific patterns that consist of a language-specific expression (e.g. “because”) which are linked to a cross-linguistic schema (e.g. reasoning) (Marx/Steinhoff, 2021). The first phase of the project sought to determine to what extent knowledge of text procedures is transferred prior to explicit instruction. To answer this question, 265 persuasive texts by lower-secondary school pupils based on the same task from the SWIKO corpus were annotated using EXMARaLDA and analyzed regarding similarities and differences across the three languages (German, French, English), two learning contexts (language of schooling and foreign languages), and two regions (German- and French-speaking Switzerland). Results suggest that learners indeed started to exploit synergies between their languages, with similar patterns across all texts. Regional differences were evident with French-speaking learners arguing more explicitly than German-speaking learners across all languages. Proficiency played a crucial role: learners used a wider variety of and more cognitively challenging procedures with increasing linguistic proficiency, in line with age-related acquisition trajectories observed in the L1. Furthermore, learners used more implicit reasoning in their weak as opposed to their strong foreign languages, suggesting that cross-linguistic schemata can be transferred even before a corresponding language-specific expression is learned.Our presentation concludes with an outlook on the second phase of the project (intervention study), which will examine a) whether explicit instruction can enhance transfer, and b) whether transfer can be promoted from L2 to L1 and/or vice versa.Marx, N., & Steinhoff, T. (2021). Können einzelsprachliche Interventionen sprachenübergreifende Effekte haben? Wie die schulische Majoritätssprache Herkunftssprachen fördern kann. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24(4), 819–839.

The functional use of graphematic forms in German–French biliterate writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Weth, Constanze , Institute for Research on Multilingualism, University of Luxembourg, France
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

corpus linguistics;learning and learner characteristics;writing in a foreign or second language;writing models

Abstract

Studies have shown that children use the resources of their first written language when writing a language with which they have had less experience (Sürig et al., 2016). While some studies have measured text skills in two languages using global metrics (Usanova & Schnoor, 2021), only a few have examined specific language and graphematic resources of writing in multiple languages (Díez-Bedmar & Papp, 2008; Weth & Wollschläger, 2020).This paper presents analyses of writing (narratives, dictations) in German and French produced by 273 biliterate students (Grades 5─6) with various language backgrounds. The analyses focus on the differentiation of graphematic resources, including cross-linguistic transfer, using methods from usage-based approaches (Verspoor et al., 2012). Graphematic forms are examined at the levels of types and tokens as well as sub-lexical units, including grapheme-phoneme correspondences, syllables, and morphemes. By focusing on these fine-grained patterns, the study provides insights into the dynamic use of graphematic resources within students’ multilingual repertoires at the transition from primary to secondary education. Díez-Bedmar, M. B., & Papp, S. (2008). The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. Language and Computers Studies in Practical Linguistics, 66. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206204Sürig, I., Şimşek, Y., Schroeder, C., & Boneß, A. (2016). Literacy Acquisition in School in the Context of Migration and Multilingualism. John Benjamins.Usanova, I., & Schnoor, B. (2021). Exploring multiliteracies in multilingual students: Profiles of multilingual writing skills. Bilingual Research Journal, 44(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2021.1890649Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 Weth, C., & Wollschläger, R. (2020). Spelling patterns of German 4th graders in French vowels: Insights into spelling solutions within and across two alphabetic writing systems. Writing Systems Research, 11(2), 124–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2020.1754997

#Diff2Score - Identifying textual characteristics of "Difficult-to-Score texts"

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Hoffmann, Lea , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Fladung, Ilka , Universität Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Co-author: Jost, Joerg , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Karl, Kristina , Federal Institute for Quality Assurance of the Austrian School System, Austria
Co-author: Ferencik-Lehmkuhl, Daria , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Chair: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

assessment;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;L1;text linguistics

Abstract

Difficult-to-score texts are texts that reduce inter-rater agreement (Wolfe et al., 2016) or have poor model-fit-statistics on the essay level (Wind et al., 2017). In this study, we follow the second approach, and ask: To which degree are textual characteristics of L1 German texts associated with poor rating quality?To investigate textual characteristics, we measure, for example, text length and lexical diversity (Wolfe et al. 2016; Freundberger et al., 2018). To investigate rating quality, we use a variation of a Many-Facet-Rasch model (MFRM) by Eckes (2005), integrating raters, criteria, prompts, and text types as facets into the model. The model-fit-statistics are interpreted as indices for rating quality und used in a correlational analysis with the measures of essay characteristics. All analyses are run in R. Data stem from an Austrian-nationwide writing assessment. As all fourth graders produced handwritten texts in their L1 (Austrian German), all texts had to be digitized. In this study, 186 student texts responding to eight prompts across four text types (e. g., descriptive texts) were scored by a panel of 161 trained raters. Each rater scored three texts with a text-type specific rating scale covering criteria in four dimensions (e. g., structure).To date, a manual error correction has been conducted and textual characteristics were measured. Preliminary results indicate substantial variation in text length among the texts, with an average length of 105 words and a range of 41-336 words; our presentation will report further results. Findings may improve criteria-based feedback in schools and inform the design of future rater training programs in assessments. Eckes, T. (2005). Evaluation von Beurteilungen. Psychometrische Qualitätssicherung mit dem Multifacetten-Rasch-Modell. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 213 (2), 77–96.Freunberger, R., Breit, S. & Illetschko, M. (2018). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und schwer zu beurteilende Texte im Vergleich. In G. Sigott (Ed.), Language Testing in Austria taking Stock. Lang, 373–388.Wind, S. A., Stager, C., & Patil, Y. J. (2017). Exploring the relationship between textual characteristics and rating quality in rater-mediated writing assessments. AW, 34, 1–15. Wolfe, E.W.; Song, T. & Jiao, H. (2016). Features of difficult-to-score essays. In AW, 27, 1–10.

How context and purpose shape assessment: methodological considerations for measuring text quality

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Konstantinidou, Liana , Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Lamas, Elsa Liste , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Chair: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

assessment;corpus linguistics;education;evaluation and assessment of writing competence

Abstract

This paper argues that methods for measuring text quality in writing research should be anchored in the specific context and intended purpose of the stakeholders participating in the respective project. Project context and purpose can lead to different priorities and weightings for aspects such as construct validity, efficiency, and the amount of pedagogical information gained (Knoch, 2021; Weigle, 2002). We will show how we designed assessments for three projects, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the methods in relation to the context, the stakeholders’ goals, and the effect of the studies on writing practices.In the first project, we combined human rating and corpus-based assessment to create writing ability profiles in vocational schools, providing teachers with data-informed pedagogical recommendations (Konstantinidou & Liste Lamas, 2023). In the second study, we conducted an intervention to measure the effectiveness of scenario-based reading and writing education in vocational schools. Text quality was assessed using human rating and consensus scoring (Konstantinidou et al., 2022). In the third project, we developed a diagnostic writing test for engineering students. Based on the results, students with weak written communication skills are recommended additional communication courses. Assessment relied on machine-learning methods using linguistic features from corpora and AI-applications that explain human ratings.While the first study prioritised the quantity of information obtained, the second prioritised validity. The third project focused on efficiency, as more than 700 students are tested twice a year.Reflecting the assessment methods in their specific contexts should contribute to the design of text quality assessments that are informed by context and purpose, especially in research projects with implications for writing practice.Konstantinidou, L. & Liste Lamas, E. (2023). Schreibkompetenz-Profile in der beruflichen Bildung: heterogen, individuell und schwer interpretierbar?. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie, 101, 133-150.Konstantinidou, L., Madlener-Charpentier, K., Opacic, A., Gautschi, C. & Hoefele, J. (2022). Literacy in vocational education and training: scenario-based reading and writing education. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 1025-1052Knoch, U. (2021). Assessing writing. In G. Fulcher & L. Harding (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (2nd ed., pp. 236–253). Routledge. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge University Press.

Monitoring Rater-reliability in Decentralized Organizations

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Neumann, Astrid , Institute for German Language and Literature Education, Germany
Presenting author: Stoffers-Lang, Michaela , Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany
Chair: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

assessment;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;research methodology;written language competence

Abstract

Reliability relates to the fairness and consistency of assessment. With 158 Goethe Institutes in 98 countries worldwide and 390 exam partners for the exam administration, the question of a suitable Human Resource Development Program for raters and quality management concerning rating and grading of the test section “Writing” in a decentralized system with its approximately 5,000 trained raters worldwide arises. As each test taker’s performance is rated by two raters individually in situ, the inter-rater reliability, respectively the consistency between the two raters needs to be ensured. Without training, rating and grading of the same students’ performances lead to a great variety and variance in grades (Weiss 1965, Birkel and Birkel 2002). Lumley (2005) even claims that not the rating criteria are at the heart of the correct assessment, but the rater training as the rater is crucial and central to the rating process. Whether the rating scale or the criteria are adequate, respectively the fair grade was given, is not at issue. Rather, the issue is: How reliable do the raters apply a given rating scale? As a measure of agreement for a same sample with different raters different concordance coefficients can be determined. To exemplify the methodology, the following null hypothesis can be deduced:H0: The inter-rater reliability of two trained raters for each exam administration is insufficient if the respective value is equal to or smaller than a pre-determined threshold value. As the Goethe-Institut’s rating scales are criterion-based and either ordinal or interval scales, the Null Hypothesis is tested and checked for robustness by analyzing five concordance coefficients with the aim of a generalizability theory. The study was conducted by means of the example of the Goethe-Zertifikats B1 at selected test centres. The initial results are very satisfactory: Inter-rater reliability was substantial, as evidenced by Krippendorff’s alpha (α = .848), Intra-Class-Correlation (ICC(2) = .83), and Spearman’s rank correlation (ρ = .85). Cohen’s kappa indicated moderate agreement (κ = .527), whereas Gwet’s AC2 suggested almost perfect agreement (AC2 = .90). Further specifications will be provided within the detailed analysis.

Examining Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Literacy Plan Development

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Johansen, Marita Byberg , NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Presenting author: Lorentzen, Vibeke , NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Chair: Arrimada, María , University of León, Spain
Domain: Educational Policy and Systems; See Session Schedule

Keywords

case study;education;literacy;pedagogy and instruction

Abstract

Examining Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Literacy Plan DevelopmentResearch topic / aim This study explores how different stakeholders in a Norwegian municipality experience the process of developing a local literacy plan. A literacy plan is understood as a locally developed document that specifies how early childhood education and schools work with language, reading, and writing in accordance with national curriculum guidelines. The aim is to understand how such collaborative processes influence professional practice and organizational development, and to identify factors that promote sustainable development of such plans.Theoretical framework / area of investigation The study draws on perspectives from organizational development and professional learning communities, emphasizing the interplay between local ownership and external expertise. It situates literacy plan work within the broader field of writing education and literacy development.Methodological design The study is a case study conducted in a municipality that developed a joint literacy plan for two schools. Data include a focus group interview with the literacy plan team, individual interviews with the head of childhood and youth services and County Governor representatives, and a teacher survey. The analysis combines descriptive statistics with thematic analysis.Conclusions / findings The analysis identifies four key themes: (1) The process is as important as the product, (2) Internal and external support is crucial for confidence and progress, (3) Plan work builds culture and shared understandings, and (4) A common plan provides direction and supports pedagogical coherence. Findings indicate that teacher involvement is essential for ownership and for embedding the work in practice, and that the literacy plan functions as a tool for professional learning, culture building, and systematic practice. Challenges include uneven involvement, dependency on individuals, and weak institutional embedding. The study highlights the need for robust structures that ensure continuity while balancing local ownership with external expertise.Relevance to domain of writing and other forms of text production Developing a literacy plan emerges as both a professional and organizational development project with potential to strengthen professional communities and assessment competence. It illustrates how policy texts can serve as catalysts for collaborative learning and coherent literacy practices. Keywords: literacy development plan, professional learning, organizational development, institutional embedding

Integrating writing in content-lessons: Effects of a professional development program.

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: van Drie, Jannet , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Holdinga, Lieke , Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands
Chair: Arrimada, María , University of León, Spain
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

L1;literacy;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum;writing in the disciplines

Abstract

This study evaluated a professional development (PD) program for teachers (lower vocational education, 7-8 grade) on integrating language and writing instruction in content lessons.To improve literacy in Dutch secondary education, all subject teachers are encouraged to integrate language into content teaching (Dutch Ministry of Education, 2022). Language-Oriented Content Teaching (LOCT) is promising because it integrates content learning and disciplinary language skills (cf. Moje, 2008). Its implementation is however challenging and requires teacher awareness of disciplinary language and knowledge of pedagogical approaches (Wildeman, 2022). More insights into effective PD is needed.We evaluated a PD (seven meetings), which was based on principles of effective PD (i.e., active learning, collective participation). Topics included disciplinary literacy, approaches to stimulating language production (speech and writing) and supporting disciplinary writing (cf. Graham & Perin, 2007). 44 Teachers from eight schools participated.The research question was: What are effects of the PD about LOCT on teachers’ knowledge, attitude and teaching practices? Pre-post questionnaires were used to measure knowledge and attitudes. Teaching practices were measured using self-efficacy questionnaires, observations and lesson plans. Multi-level analyses revealed a significant increase in knowledge and more positive attitudes after PD. Teachers reported to implement LOCT-pedagogy more frequently and with better quality. Outcomes of observations and analyses of lesson plans confirmed these self-reports. We will illustrate outcomes with examples of learning activities two teachers developed to support students’ writing short-answer questions (Biology) and business letters (Economics). Despite its limitations, this study identifies key features of effective PD for integrating writing instruction across school subjects and highlights challenges to wider school implementation.ReferencesDutch Ministry of Education (2022). Masterplan basisvaardigheden. [Basic skills master plan.] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2022/05/12/kamerbrief-masterplan-basisvaardighedenGraham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3). 445-476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1Wildeman, E. (2022). Vocational teachers' integrated language teaching: On the role of language awareness and related teaching behaviour. Phd Thesis, Eindhoven School of Education/Eindhoven University of Technology.

Studying writing practices and ideologies in multiple research sites: the literagram method

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Turai, Rahel K. , Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Hungary
Co-author: Jenei, Kamilla , Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Hungary
Co-author: Krizsai, Fruzsina , Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Hungary
Co-author: Szabó, Gergely , Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, Hungary
Co-author: Lexander, Kristin Vold , University of Inland Norway, Norway
Co-author: Bodó, Csanád , Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
Co-author: Deme, Andrea , Eötvös Lorand University, Hungary
Co-author: Szánthó, Zsuzsa , Eötvös Lorand University, Hungary
Chair: Arrimada, María , University of León, Spain
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

literacy;research methodology;social and cultural aspects of writing;writing and linguistics

Abstract

Whereas mass literacy is a defining feature of modern societies (Coulmas 2013), writing continues to be consequential to how societies are structured. Information technology revolution has been creating novel practices of writing, and consequently, novel inequalities. To capture these novel literacy practices (and the ideologies connected to them), we developed a method called ‘literagram’. Our recently launched four-year long project (The sociolinguistics of writing: Literacy practices and ideologies in flux, 2025–2028) aims at a situated, in-depth, and systematic exploration of literacies in a post-digital era. The SLoW project focuses on three different arenas of writing and changes in literacies: dialect writing on social media platforms (entextualization); multi-authored writing in higher education (collaboration); and written interactions among diasporic speakers (digitalization). In addition to separate studies of these phenomena, our comparative study will apply the literagram method in each research site to make the findings comparable. Inspired by the ‘mediagram’ (Lexander & Androutsopoulos 2021), literagrams are visualizations of participants’ writing habits: mind maps consisting of writing channels and modes drawn by the participants themselves. In this sense, the literagram method approaches literacy as social practice, instead of solely focusing on writing and reading skills. As participants recreate and interpret their literagrams through interviews with fieldworkers, the literagram method aligns with the principles of citizen science, involving non-professionals in the research process and increasing sociolinguistic awareness among participants (Molek-Kozakowska & Laihonen 2025). In this talk, we present our methods, preliminary findings, and discuss our ideas on the comparability of findings from different research sites. References: Coulmas, Florian. 2013. Writing and Society: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lexander, Kristin Vold & Jannis Androutsopoulos. 2021. Working with mediagrams: A methodology for collaborative research on mediational repertoires in multilingual families. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 42(1). 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1667363 Molek-Kozakowska, Katarzyna & Petteri Laihonen. 2025. Fostering language awareness through Citizen Science: Results and implications of a project with Polish teenagers doing language-related research. Language Awareness. 34(2). 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2024.2428184

Beyond Text-Focused Feedback: The Added Value of Keystroke Logging Feedback & Dialogic Peer Feedback

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Leijten, Mariëlle , Universiteit Antwerpen, Netherlands
Presenting author: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology
Related Symposium: Writing process feedback; See Session Schedule

Keywords

feedback;Generative AI;keystroke logging;writing processes

Abstract

Master’s students in Professional Communication & Management revise their texts several times before submitting a final version, guided by feedback. In addition to traditional, text-focused feedback, we introduced a combination of technologically supported process feedback (based on keystroke logging data) and a human-centred approach in which teachers supported students in reflecting on their writing processes. This process-oriented feedback was complemented by dialogic peer feedback, prompting students to engage in dialogue about their texts and underlying writing strategies.A total of 126 students wrote a bad-news email. Their writing processes were logged with Inputlog. After submitting a first draft, 57 students received an individual process report based on KSL data (Vandermeulen et al., 2020). Reflection was stimulated through comparisons with exemplar processes, some of which illustrated diverse ways of integrating GenAI tools into the writing process. A new KSL-based visualisation, the dynamic source network graph, was also piloted, mapping all consulted sources and their interconnections. Students subsequently clustered these sources into meaningful categories (e.g., GenAI tools, theory on bad-news emails, internet searches on content or formulation).All students then received text-focused feedback and revised their texts. Results showed that students exposed to both process- and text-focused feedback achieved significantly higher scores on their second drafts than those receiving text-focused feedback only.Subsequently, 53 students attended a session on requesting, giving, and processing feedback (De Kleijn, 2022; Tielemans et al., 2021), and were provided with tools to foster peer feedback dialogue (Bouwer et al., 2024; Landrieu et al., 2024). Analyses of third and final versions are underway to assess the added value of this dialogic peer exchange.Questionnaires and focus group discussions showed that students found the process reports clear and the exemplar comparisons insightful. Students emphasised, however, the need for teacher support in interpreting process data. Overall, 75% considered dialogic peer feedback useful, with more than half rating it more valuable than traditional peer feedback.Future research should further explore how combining KSL-based insights with teacher-guided reflection and dialogic peer feedback might foster students’ writing development and help them navigate GenAI tools more deliberately.

Designing Intention and Process-Informed Strategies for Self-Regulation of Writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Bouwman, Wren , Iowa State University, United States
Co-author: Anders, Abram , Iowa State University, United States
Co-author: Torrance, Mark , Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom
Co-author: Roeser, Jens , Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom
Co-author: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Co-author: Chukharev, Evgeny , Iowa State University, United States
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology
Related Symposium: Writing process feedback; See Session Schedule

Keywords

feedback;reading and writing;writing instruction;writing processes

Abstract

Writing from sources requires students to coordinate complex reading and writing processes, yet many struggle to connect their intentions with their actions during composition. This presentation reports on a three-part research project that explores how students’ mental representations, process behaviors, and self-regulatory strategies interact during source-based writing.The first study examines intermediate composition students’ behaviors, their actions, while reading-to-write using qualitative coding of process measures. First, a corpus of student syntheses and source texts are diagrammed using Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann & Thompson, 1988). Then, spans of students’ syntheses are matched to source texts using semantic similarity measures and qualitatively coded to describe how students adapt source material, considering rhetorical relations, hierarchical depth, and reading history. Students next write new syntheses, which are analyzed using the same RST-based coding scheme, but here the coding is applied to their real-time composing process rather than to a pre-existing corpus. After writing, the students are shown playback segments of their writing session and are asked, through stimulated recall, what they intended to do with the sentence they were writing and why they chose to write it. These student interviews are then coded with the same scheme as the corpus to allow for direct comparison to their coded writing session. By comparing students' stated intentions to their observed behaviors, this study identifies moments where writers’ actions diverge from their goals — what might be called “regulatory blind spots.”Early pilot work in this project has already shown some mismatches between what students believe they are doing during synthesis and what their writing processes reveal. These regulatory blind spots are then targeted through short, pre-writing instruction in setting intentions, monitoring their reading and writing coordination, and adapting strategies in real time. A second phase of this research will evaluate to what extent the targeted instruction on regulation of writing better aligns writers’ intentions with behaviors. Together, these studies argue for intention-informed process pedagogy: instruction that helps students notice, align, and adjust their writing processes to match their communicative goals. The study will be completed before the symposium, with full results ready for presentation.

From Expert Habits to Student Support: Using Process-Tracing to Build GenAI Writing Guidance

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Speltz, Emily Dux , Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, United States
Co-author: Chamberlain, Darryl , Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, United States
Co-author: Aik, Maissane , Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, United States
Co-author: Blood, Beata , Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, United States
Co-author: Zaldivar, Zoe , Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, United States
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology
Related Symposium: Writing process feedback; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;feedback;Generative AI;writing processes

Abstract

This presentation introduces an exploratory study that investigates how expert and student writers integrate generative AI (GenAI) into their writing processes and how we might translate expert strategies into meaningful process-focused guidance for students. Motivated by the need for more situated support for GenAI-assisted writing, this research combines qualitative case studies with process-tracing technologies to uncover patterns in writers’ use of GenAI tools.The study proceeded in three phases. First, we observed eight self-identified “expert” users: professionals across industry and academia who use GenAI regularly in communication-centric work. These participants engaged in an authentic writing task while using GenAI tools. Through screen capture, keystroke logging (via Grammarly Authorship), think-aloud and stimulated recall protocols, and retrospective interviews, we documented how these experts strategically incorporated AI assistance into drafting, revising, and decision-making processes. Second, we conducted parallel sessions with ten novice student writers to capture how less-experienced users navigated similar GenAI-supported tasks. In both of these phases, we extracted observable patterns across sessions by inductively developing a codebook of actions throughout the writing process.In the third phase, we compared expert and student process behaviors to identify key differences in GenAI usage, such as when writers pause to reflect, reject, or revise AI-generated suggestions, or engage in iterative prompting. Using our codebook of process actions, we developed a set of process-focused GenAI writing strategies based on expert behaviors, which we then used to systematically develop feedback for students displaying certain patterns of actions. This phase of data collection is ongoing but will be completed prior to the conference; we will describe how students responded to the scaffolded feedback provided to them on the basis of their process behaviors. This presentation will highlight preliminary findings from both expert and student process behaviors, share insights on integrating consumer-facing tools like Grammarly Authorship into writing research, and discuss the process-focused feedback developed for GenAI-integrated writing. We argue that pairing process-tracing data with qualitative case study methods enables more nuanced, scalable observations of GenAI-integrated writing, which can advance both writing process research and pedagogical design for AI-assisted composition.

Writing process feedback

Type: Symposium
Chair: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Organiser: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Discussant: Speltz, Emily Dux , Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, United States
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology
Related Symposium: Writing process feedback; See Session Schedule

Keywords

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

Abstract

This symposium continues the growing conversation on process-focused writing feedback, extending work presented at SIG Writing 2024 (Paris). Building on earlier work using process data and real-time analytics to inform pedagogy, the 2026 session turns toward the next frontier: advancing writing process feedback through AI-integrated and other technology-rich environments that foreground writers’ intentions and decision-making. Across three empirical projects, contributors examine how fine-grained writing-process data —from keystroke logs to GenAI interaction data— can be translated into actionable feedback for both researchers and educators.Together, the presentations explore how writers at different levels of expertise use and reflect on their writing processes: from expert and student integration of GenAI tools, to students’ alignment of intentions and actions during complex source-based writing, to the pedagogical value of process reports and exemplars (grounded in keystroke logging data) combined with dialogic peer feedback. We consider how process-focused feedback can foster aspects of learning such as self-awareness and reflection, regulation, and agency across learning contexts. By bringing these strands together, the symposium invites discussion on methodological innovation, data ethics, and pedagogical design in the next generation of process-focused writing research. It also aims to bridge insights from different methodologies (such as qualitative case studies, process-tracing technologies, and classroom interventions) to envision how process-focused feedback can most effectively be provided to student writers.The symposium on writing process feedback will consist of three paper presentations followed by the discussant’s response, with time for Q&A among presenters and an open, structured discussion with participants to identify future directions for process-focused feedback research.

A pedagogy for writing enjoyment. Inspiration from free-time author schools for children

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Heger, Stine , Aarhus University, Denmark
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education
Related Symposium: Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World; See Session Schedule

Keywords

education;writing instruction;writing processes;writing to learn

Abstract

This paper presents findings from a study of children’s experiences with free-time writing in so-called author schools for children in Denmark. The study is guided by two research questions: 1) What characterizes writing enjoyment in the context of free-time author schools for children, based on children’s own experiences? and 2) How can insights from children’s writing experiences in author schools inform broader pedagogical considerations about writing in formal school settings? The aim of the paper is to contribute empirically grounded knowledge about writing enjoyment in an out-of-school teaching context and to explore how such knowledge might inspire broader considerations about a pedagogy for enjoyable writing experiences. The study is based on a rhetorical view of writing and teaching (Fleming, 2016; Kock, 2013; Matthiesen, 2013) and on an anthropological take on studying children’s perspectives (Spyrou, 2018; Warming, 2019). The empirical material is produced during extended ethnographic fieldwork in three different author schools (Bundgaard et al., 2018; Emerson et al., 2011; Spradley, 2016a and b). During this fieldwork, a kinship-based researcher position is developed, inspired by Gubar (2013). This method includes writing alongside the children as a way to understand their writing experiences. The empirical material is analyzed through ethnographic thematic readings (Cerwonka & Malkki, 2007; O’Reilly, 2012). Findings point to four core dimensions of writing enjoyment as expressed by the children: 1) writing together with others in a community of writing, 2) being free in writing and experiencing agency, 3) using imagination in writing to explore ideas and stories, and 4) being taught by an author, someone who is herself a writer. These insights are considered in relation to existing understandings of writing enjoyment (e.g. Myhill et al., 2023) and discussed as inspiration for a writing pedagogy that is experience-centered rather than performance-centered

Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World

Type: Symposium
Chair: Early, Jessica , Arizona State University, United States
Discussant: Early, Jessica , Arizona State University, United States
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education
Related Symposium: Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World; See Session Schedule

Keywords

learning to write;meta-analysis;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction

Abstract

Bringing together writing researchers from multiple countries and methodological traditions, this symposium examines how writing instruction is shaped by local systems, resources, and sociocultural conditions, offering insights into what enables teachers, curricula, and writers to thrive in varied global contexts. Writing instruction is profoundly shaped by the affordances and constraints of the contexts in which it occurs. Teachers across different national education systems experience varied forms of pre-service preparation, each reflecting the theoretical frameworks, curricular priorities, and research evidence emphasized at the time of their training. Access to professional development is itself uneven, influenced by financial resources, district policy, institutional cultures, and teachers’ own interests.Material and technological resources further shape what writing instruction looks like in particular contexts. Some teachers work in classrooms where digital tools and emerging forms of artificial intelligence can be integrated into writing instruction; others rely primarily on pen-and-paper or work within hybrid or fully online environments. Students themselves bring diverse experiences and needs such as linguistic backgrounds, neurodiversity, or challenges like dysgraphia. These factors shape both the goals of instruction and the strategies teachers employ. At the same time, textual norms and expectations vary across cultural and educational contexts, influencing how students are taught to construct texts. In some systems, for example, high-stakes writing assessments exert pressure on instructional content, narrowing pedagogical focus or shifting attention from writing practice to performance on tests. In short, writing instruction is never context-neutral. It is shaped by intersecting pedagogical, institutional, technological, and sociocultural forces that vary across classrooms, districts, and nations.This symposium brings together writing researchers from four countries who use diverse methodological and theoretical approaches to examine writing and writing instruction within their respective contexts. The symposium is organized around three central questions:What do we know about effective writing instruction?What conditions help writers thrive?How is writing curriculum and instruction being implemented across contexts?Together, these international perspectives highlight how writing instruction is enacted within—and transformed by—the complex realities of educational systems. By foregrounding contextual variation, the symposium advances a more nuanced understanding of what supports writing pedagogy and thriving writers across countries.

Perspectives on writing curricula implementation: Insights from an international survey

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Jeffery, Jill , Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Netherlands
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education
Related Symposium: Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;pedagogy and instruction;writing at school;writing instruction

Abstract

Curricula are, arguably, an important but neglected part of the context in which writing instruction takes place. They are an intermediary between policies, instructional practices, and student learning but have not figured strongly in empirical research on writing instruction. Acknowledging the key role of teachers in interpreting and implementing curricula, the authors examine the structural and contextual conditions that impact their agency in the ‘curriculum work’ they do. Drawing on our international online survey of experts’ (N=46) views of writing curriculum, we explore teachers’ role in development; the content of writing curricula as this enables and constrains; the reported agency teachers have; the support they receive for interpretation and implementation; and the resulting perceived degree of alignment of enactment with the official curriculum. Responses show curricula to be overwhelmingly mandatory (>80%) and writing to be located mostly in L1 (93%). Responses suggest that writing curricula are relatively rich in terms of the theoretical perspectives they represent, but with formalist, process and genre frameworks strongly represented in the nomination of the top three. Teachers’ role in the development of writing curricula is largely indirect, through consultation with groups and individuals or the participation of a small, selected number. Teachers are seen, potentially, to have considerable agency in implementation; more than half of our respondents considered teachers to have a fair amount or a great deal of autonomy. However, teachers receive limited support for implementation and two-thirds of our respondents considered teachers received only a small amount of preparation to teach writing.

Trends in writing intervention research: 1930s and onwards

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Skar, Gustaf , Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education
Related Symposium: Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World; See Session Schedule

Keywords

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

Abstract

"Trends in writing intervention research: 1930s and onwards" for Symposium "Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World"This systematic historical descriptive review was conducted to determine the trends and status of research using true and quasi-experiments (with pretests) to test the effectiveness of writing practices with students in kindergarten to grade 12. The analyses included 859 writing treatment/control comparisons, which were included in two previous meta-analyses (Collins et al., 2025; Graham et al., 2023). The search for studies in these two reviews ended in December 2022 and September 2021, respectively. The use of true and quasi-experiments (with pretests) to test writing practices increased dramatically across the decades from the 1930s onwards, with 290 treatment/control comparisons conducted in the 2010s. The expansion in the number of studies conducted was accompanied by an increase in study quality as measured by internal/external research design indicators. Research in this area moved from an exclusive study of teaching spelling and handwriting in the 1930s through the 1950s to the study of a diverse array of writing practices in the preceding decades. As the number of writing practices tested increased, so did the number of measures used to assess the effects of these instructional methods. Most of the writing treatment/control comparisons originated in the United States/Canada, but starting in the 1970s, European researchers began to make significant contributions to testing the effectiveness of writing practices. The most prolific researchers from 1931 and onwards were Steve Graham, Karen Harris, Gert Rijlaarsdam, and Sue Del La Paz. Limitations and suggestions for future research are provided.

Collaborative Writing Processes in Science Education

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Bleiker, Johanna , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Co-author: Brütsch, Angela , Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich, Switzerland
Co-author: Neugebauer, Claudia , Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich, Switzerland
Co-author: Schneider, Charlotte , Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Switzerland
Co-author: Arnold, Julia , Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Switzerland
Domain: -
Related Symposium: Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;intervention study;speaking and writing;writing processes

Abstract

The research project Collaborative Writing in Science Education (KoSNaWi) examines how collaborative writing can serve as an effective tool for promoting both linguistic and conceptual learning in science classrooms.Background: In current science curricula, competency descriptions such as “describing processes” or “explaining relationships” illustrate the interdependence of linguistic and scientific competencies. Transforming immediate observations into explicit, decontextualized, and (typically) written representations is a demanding task. To support this process, students in primary schools are frequently asked to write collaboratively and are provided with scaffolds for text structure and linguistic formulations. KoSNaWi investigates such scaffolded collaborative formulation processes. Located at the intersection of language education and science education research, the project draws on theories of scaffolding (Gibbons, 2015), conceptual change (Möller, 2015), and writing-to-learn frameworks (Graham, 2019). KoSNaWi addresses a research gap by shifting the analytical focus from written products to the process of collaborative writing. It investigates the oral interactions accompanying pair-writing activities during the formulation phase, asking what learning potential lies in the co-constructively developed formulations emerging in these dialogues.Methodologically, the study follows a qualitatively oriented mixed-methods design (Qualitative Content Analysis, Interactional Linguistics) within an experimental intervention comparing three conditions: (1) writing without support (control group), (2) writing with a fixed “writing plan”, and (3) writing with an adaptive, on-demand writing plan. The sample comprises 120 fifth-grade students from 10 classes. The writing dialogues are video-recorded, transcribed, and analysed by an interdisciplinary research team.Preliminary findings: KoSNaWi analyses process data. We reconstruct how scientific concepts are modified during collaborative formulation processes. The writing dialogues are co-shaped by the different scaffolding measures. We examine the epistemic potential of these dialogues as a function of the scaffolding conditions under which they occur. ReferencesGibbons, P. (2015). Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Heinemann.Graham, S. (2019). Writers in Community Model: 15 Recommendations for Future Research in Using Writing to Promote Science Learning. In V. Prain & B. Hand (Eds.). Theorizing the Future of Science Education Research (pp. 43–60). Springer. Möller, K. (2015). Genetisches Lernen und Conceptual Change. In J. Kahlert et al. (Hrsg.). Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts (S. 243–249). Klinkhardt.

Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies

Type: Symposium
Chair: Philipp, Maik , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Organiser: Philipp, Maik , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Discussant: De Smedt, Fien , Ghent University, Belgium
Domain: Learning and Social Interaction
Related Symposium: Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies; See Session Schedule

Keywords

collaborative writing;education;intervention study;writing processes

Abstract

Writing, as a cognitively demanding skill, can be improved through various intervention approaches (Graham, 2025). One of these is cooperative writing, in which peers carry out various cognitive processes together in social contexts. Cooperative writing can be conceptualized as an umbrella term describing a process in which peers work together and serve different roles in the three main processes of writing: planning, drafting, and revising (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001; Svenlin & Sørhaug, 2023). The contributions of the symposium focus on these three main processes from three current intervention studies in primary and secondary schools. They show how writing research contributes to the improvement and better understanding of school writing practices. Contribution 1 combines generative artificial intelligence with cooperative planning dialogues among 8th grade students. The students write arguments, with AI supporting content generation and the students being responsible for selection and organization. The dependent measures concern writing motivation.Contribution 2 focuses on the interactive negotiation processes involved in science learning within a writing-to-learn setting. It supports cooperative formulation of 5th grade students with scaffolds and shifts the focus of analysis and evaluation to both writing and learning aspects.Contribution 3 deals with the effectiveness of three different revision approaches that are compared against each other with secondary school students. The effects of the interventions are scrutinized with a new task that captures evaluation with special emphasis on higher order concerns. References Alamargot, D. & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the Models of Writing. Springer. Graham, S. (2025). What Do Meta‑Analyses Tell Us about the Teaching of Writing? In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (3. Aufl., S. 181–202). Guilford. Svenlin, M. & Sørhaug, J. O. (2023). Collaborative Writing in L1 School Contexts: A Scoping Review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(6), 980–996. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2115128

Peer Feedback and Text Evaluation

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Sturm, Afra , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Co-author: Nyffeler, Angela , Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Switzerland
Co-author: Morre, Gabriel , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Co-author: Hirt, Carmen Nadja , University of Zurich, Switzerland
Co-author: Karlen, Yves , University of Zurich, Switzerland
Domain: -
Related Symposium: Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;collaborative writing;intervention study;writing instruction

Abstract

The process of text revision is understood by cognitively oriented approaches as a sequence of activities that include reading through, evaluating, and revising the text (MacArthur, 2012). Effective peer feedback approaches address all three activities and support learners in different ways. The following questions can be used to guide these three activities: a) Reading through: How do I understand a text written by someone else? What is its overall idea? b) Evaluating: Can the author achieve the intended effect with the text? Does the text correspond to the respective genre? What should they change? c) Revising: How could the author implement these changes?In our intervention study regarding writing argumentative texts in grade 7 (N = 363), three peer feedback approaches are examined in comparison to a control group:· LUPA: an adaptation of CDO (De La Paz, Swanson & Graham, 1998).· SMABUSCH: explicit instruction of a revision strategy combined with teaching an argumentative text structure (Sturm, 2022).· REDIT: an editorial group discusses several texts and is observed by the audience (Amir, Atkin & Rijlaarsdam, 2021).While LUPA and SMABUSCH were implemented in pairs, REDIT was implemented in groups of up to eight students.Among other instruments, we used a task for evaluating a foreign text (analogous to López et al., 2021, but with authentic student texts), an argumentative writing task, and a reading comprehension test (Schneider, Schlagmüller & Ennemoser, 2017). Initial results of the evaluation task at t0 show that 33% of students failed to identify any higher order concerns (HOC), while another 29% identified only one out of six HOC passages. Students experienced even greater difficulty identifying underlying problems or proposing solutions.We will present first results on how evaluation skills develop across five measurement points, whether differences emerge depending on the peer feedback procedure, and the role of reading skills.

We, Myself and AI: On the Benefits of Combining AI and Cooperative Planning for Writing Motivation

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Philipp, Maik , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Co-author: Wolfangel, Mirjam , Pädagogische Hochschule Zürich, Switzerland
Co-author: Unger, Valentin , St.Gallen University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Co-author: Glaser, Cornelia , Pädagogische Hochschule Heidelberg, Germany
Domain: -
Related Symposium: Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies; See Session Schedule

Keywords

collaborative writing;Generative AI;writing beliefs;writing instruction

Abstract

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (genAI) is currently disrupting writing practices in schools and raises the question of how writing can be used meaningfully in the classroom. Against this background, we designed an intervention with adolescents that uses ChatGPT to generate arguments, which are then further developed during collaborative planning discussions. Many of the intervention features directly address motivational mechanisms from self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and social cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1997) but require empirical testing and generally remain in need of further research in the field of writing.Methodological design: We expect to see increases in autonomous writing motivation (H1) and declines in controlled writing motivation (H2). We will measure these changes using validated scales (Smedt et al., 2022). We also hypothesize improvements in self-efficacy in planning arguments (H3; scale by Smedt et al., 2022) and in self-regulated argumentative writing (H4, scale by Wang et al., in press). We will test the hypotheses using repeated-measurement variance analysis in a pre-post design with three randomly assigned groups of 389 eighth-grade students stemming from 23 intact classes: a genAI group, an alternative treatment, and a pure control groupExpected results: At the time of submission, the intervention study is still ongoing. We will present preliminary results at the conference and provide a more detailed introduction to the intervention. From an instructional design perspective, the project with its focus on the motivation and use of genAI for planning represents important work in writing research for the further development of writing practice.ReferencesBandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford. Smedt, F. de, Landrieu, Y., Wever, B. de & van Keer, H. (2022). Do Cognitive Processes and Motives for Argumentative Writing Converge in Writer Profiles? Journal of Educational Research, 115(4), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2022.2122020 Wang, J., Graham, S., Kim, Y.‑S. G. & Steiss, J. (in press). Zooming into Two Measurement Issues in Writing Self-Efficacy: Revision as a Distinct Dimension and the Generality Hypothesis in Argumentative Writing. Reading and Writing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-025-10679-z

Development of advanced written discourse in linguistically diverse students

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Bachmann, Alina , Osnabrueck University, Germany
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

developmental aspects of writing ability;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;language-specific and cross-linguistic studies;literacy

Abstract

Part of the literacy competence is being able to write texts according to (communicative) goals (Berman, 2016). Governed by school‑taught structural norms (Tolchinsky, 2020), this is essential for academic success. While lower secondary students are still acquiring these norms, they already have informal experience with various text types. Prior research shows multilingual pupils often lag behind monolingual peers in school‑language literacy (Busse & Hardy, 2023), but most studies focus on primary education and use simple binary (monolingual-multilingual) comparisons leaving the lower‑secondary phase and the nuanced impact of language background under‑explored. As part of a PHD project this study asks:How do lower secondary students show literacy competence in written texts? How does language background affect these texts?Narrative and argumentative essays from 11 fifth‑graders and 12 ninth‑graders in Germany are analysed for macro‑structure, reader orientation, cohesion, and orthography. Student’s language background is assessed using a questionnaire. Findings reveal that although fifth‑graders employ many textual elements, they frequently deviate from school‑norms; ninth‑graders produce texts with more normative structures. Thus, students entering high school already have a functional notion of how to achieve narrating or arguing goals, even if they do not fully apply canonical devices. Moreover, family language use loses influence on text production when students have had sufficient schooling in the test language. The results have didactic implications towards a more communicative approach of writing instruction. Berman, R. A. (2016). Linguistic Literacy and Later Language Development. In J. Perera, M. Aparici, E. Rosado, & N. Salas (Eds.), Written and Spoken Language Development across the Lifespan: Essays in Honour of Liliana Tolchinsky (pp. 181-200). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21136-7_12 Busse, V., & Hardy, I. (2023). Literalität und Mehrsprachigkeit: Begriffsklärungen, Förderansätze und Forschungsbefunde. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 51(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00175-0 Tolchinsky, L. (2020). Text Writing at the Core of Literacy Discourse. In R. A. Alves, T. Limpo, & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-Writing Connections: Towards Integrative Literacy Science (pp. 163-168). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38811-9_10

Does hybrid feedback foster L2 writing development?

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: De Clercq, Orphee , Ghent University, Belgium
Presenting author: Özturan, Tuba , Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Türkiye
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Keywords

EFL and ESL writing;feedback;Generative AI;natural language processing (NLP)

Abstract

Feedback is a pivotal component of both L1 and L2 students’ writing development (McCarthy et al., 2022), but providing in-depth feedback is a labour-intensive process (Godwin-Jones, 2022). Recent developments in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) have increased interest in its use for providing personalized and real-time feedback in second language (L2) writing instruction. However, there is limited research on how GenAI-feedback combined with teacher mediation/control may support L2 writers’ development over time. Therefore, this study aims to investigate whether such hybrid feedback triggers the development of linguistic complexity in L2 writing.The study was conducted in a 15-week undergraduate Writing Skills course at a medium-sized university in Türkiye. Participants were 19 native Turkish students from the Department of English Translation and Interpretation with A2-level English proficiency. During the course, they completed eight timed, paragraph-level writing tasks across multiple genres, such as opinion, definition, process, and narrative, without technological support. After each task, students typed their drafts into shared Google Docs. They then received hybrid feedback: First, the course lecturer used GenAI (ChatGPT) to receive structured feedback focusing on the quality of the topic sentence, three common linguistic errors, three common global errors, and a fully revised version of the paragraph. Second, the course lecturer reviewed the GenAI-generated feedback and selected only accurate and appropriate responses, which were then shared with the students. Also, students wrote short reflection reports explaining how they engaged with the feedback and which suggestions they focused on. The dataset includes students’ original writing tasks, the hybrid feedback, and the reflection reports.The data analysis is still ongoing and focuses on analysing the linguistic complexity, considering both lexical and grammatical aspects (Bulté & Housen, 2012). To this purpose all text versions have been processed with the NLP tools for the Social Sciences (https://www.linguisticanalysistools.org/) and by selecting only those measures which are theoretically relevant (Bulté et al., 2025). By adopting a longitudinal perspective, this study aims to examine patterns of development rather than one-time improvements. Overall, this study contributes to discussions on the pedagogical efficiency of hybrid feedback in L2 writing instruction.

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: König, Nina , Institut für Bildungsevaluation, Switzerland
Co-author: Berger, Stéphanie , Institut für Bildungsevaluation, Switzerland
Co-author: Stahlhut, Laura , Institut für Bildungsevaluation, Switzerland
Co-author: Debelak, Rudolf , Universität Zürich, Switzerland
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

evaluation and assessment of writing competence;feedback;Generative AI;natural language processing (NLP)

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 poster presents the design and underlying architecture of 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 poster outlines these design principles and explains the rationale underlying the selected feedback dimensions.The poster then focuses on how these principles are operationalised in practice. It is 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 poster 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.

Genre blending in contemporary Finnish essays

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Lowndes, Ida , University of Helsinki, Finland
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

creative writing;text genre;text linguistics;writing and literature

Abstract

Genre blending in contemporary Finnish essaysThis study examines Finnish essays from the point of view of genre blending and hybridity (Mäntynen & Shore 2014). The theoretical framework of the study is based on linguistic genre studies and the idea of genre as sociocultural action (e.g. Devitt 2004). The aim of the study is to explore the genre of recent essays published in Finland and the linguistic traits that potentially produce its hybridity.The essay is usually described as creative nonfiction; it blends the techniques of fiction and nonfiction (e.g. Lopate 2013). Mixing different genres comes naturally to the essay, and this makes it a very diverse group of texts. The idea of the essay as a genre has been challenged because of this. This study is based on the idea of the essay as a transgressive genre (see Bahtin 1981). The data consists of three contemporary Finnish essay collections discussing environmental topics. The texts draw on the writer’s personal experiences and knowledge based on other texts and research. The analysis shows that the essays are hybrids blending for example pamphlet, memoir, general nonfiction and narrative nonfiction.ReferencesBahtin M. 1981. Discourse in the novel. – Holquist M. (ed.) The Dialogic imagination. Four essays, 259–422. Austin: University of Texas Press.Devitt A. 2004. Writing genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Lopate P. 2013. To show and to tell. The craft of literary nonfiction. New York: Free Press.Mäntynen A. – Shore S. 2014. What is meant by hybridity? An investigation of hybridity and related terms in genre studies. – Text & Talk 6, 737–758.

Oral language and emergent literacy: Early childhood educators’ beliefs and practices

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Vettori, Giulia , University of Florence, Italy
Co-author: Dockrell, Julie , Institute of Education, United Kingdom
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

developmental aspects of writing ability;literacy;pedagogy and instruction;reading and writing

Abstract

Literacy skills (reading and writing) are fundamental for academic success, employment, and social participation (OECD, 2023). Priori research identified early oral language and emergent literacy skills as key factors for later reading and writing (Mercugliano et al., 2025). Early childhood educators have a key role in providing language learning opportunities and interactions to enhance children’s language and emergent literacy skills. In this study the opportunities afforded in these early educational settings are profiled to contribute to our understanding of effective classroom practice, specifically in closing the gap created by social or language disadvantages. Early childhood educators’ self-reported beliefs and practices in relation to oral language and emergent literacy in Italian settings are examined across four domains: (1) beliefs about their role in promoting emergent literacy including the role of preschools in preparing children to learn to read and write (Beliefs); (2) capture the ways in which early oral language (receptive and expressive language) and emergent literacy (phonological awareness, letter knowledge and sound-signs integration, narrative awareness) are included in preschool education (Practices); (3) identify the time spent on oral language and literacy activities across the day (Quantity of Time) and (4) finally elucidate challenges, resources and barriers related to teacher and class-level variables (Teacher and class factors). The participants are early childhood educators working in Italian settings from both nursery schools (nidi d’infanzia, 0–3 years) and preschools (scuole dell’infanzia, 3–6 years). The teachers completed a literacy beliefs questionnaire adapted from published works (i.e., Besser-Biron et al., 2025; Dockrell et al., 2012; Sandvik et al., 2014; Weadman et al., 2022) which included national educational policies and objectives. Data collection is scheduled for completion by the end of March, with an anticipated sample size of approximately 60 participants. Given previous studies in English contexts we anticipate a positive relationship between beliefs and practices with evidence in how these practices evolve and adapt in response to challenging classroom environments. Ultimately, this study aims to inform the development of targeted professional development programs and evidence-based interventions.

Using writing for memorising: pen vs. mobile phone

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Breuer, Esther , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

acquisition;cognitive processes;EFL and ESL writing;writing to learn

Abstract

Previous research has shown that using (hand) writing for memorising and for language learning is a very effective method, especially for abstract lexical items. Neurocognitive studies have shown that word representations are closely connected to motor areas in the brain that control the writing hand. At the same time, writing practices have changed considerably due to the widespread use of digital devices. This raises the question of whether the relationship between writing movements and memorisation is affected by the use of new technologies. This study examines the influence of different writing tools on the memorisation of words in a first and a foreign language. German students copy words in German (first language) and English (foreign language) using either pen and paper or a mobile phone. The word material includes established, well-known words as well as neologisms that are unfamiliar to the participants. Neologisms are used in order to investigate how new lexical items are encoded and stored under different writing conditions. Participants are divided into two groups according to the writing tool. After the copying task, memory is tested immediately to measure short-term retention. A second memory test is conducted one week later to assess longer-term retention. This design allows for a comparison of memorisation effects depending on the writing tool, the language, and the degree of lexical familiarity. At the time of the conference, results will be available and will be presented and discussed in detail. The study aims to show whether handwriting and mobile phone input lead to different memory outcomes, particularly for neologisms and foreign-language words. By combining insights from embodied cognition research and language learning, this presentation will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of how changing writing technologies may influence lexical processing and memory in educational contexts.

VALIDATION OF WRITING MODELS IN TRANSPARENT ORTHOGRAPHIES: WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Jozipović, Marija , Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, Croatia
Co-author: Lenček, Mirjana , Faculty of Education and rehabilitation Sciences (University of Zagreb), Croatia
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

acquisition;cognitive processes;developmental aspects of writing ability;language-specific and cross-linguistic studies

Abstract

Most writing models have been developed and validated in opaque (deep) orthographies such as English. However, language activities like writing are influenced by the specific characteristics of a language and its script. Unlike deep orthographies, transparent (shallow) orthographies (e.g., Croatian, Finnish) are characterised by highly consistent and predictable phoneme–grapheme correspondences, approaching a 1:1 relationship (Lenček & Anđel, 2011). Consequently, both literacy acquisition (Kuvač Kraljević et al., 2024) and the nature of reading and writing difficulties differ from those in English (e.g., Lenček, 2012; Reis et al., 2020). Compared to widely studied languages such as English, writing in transparent orthographies has been less extensively researched, and studies validating existing models in these languages are scarce. Writing models provide theoretical frameworks for understanding the (meta)cognitive, (meta)linguistic, and (grapho)motor processes involved in writing, as well as the factors that determine the quality of the final product. h. To claim universal applicability, writing models must be applicable across diverse linguistic and orthographic contexts. One of the main challenges in validating writing models concerns the role of orthographic transparency, for which research remains limited.This paper aims to present key developments and shifts in writing models that have emerged from critiques of earlier models, highlights persisting gaps in understanding the components and relationships within writing models, and examines their generalisability across different scripts, orthographies, and languages, with particular attention to transparent languages such as Croatian (Kuvač Kraljević et al., 2024; Olujić Tomazin et al., 2023). Current literature indicates a lack of studies validating writing models in transparent orthographies, where features facilitating literacy acquisition reduce the influence of transcription on the quality and fluency of written discourse. Finally, interdisciplinary and longitudinal research across languages and populations, including multilingual speakers, is essential to test the validity of existing models and to identify both universal and context-specific components.

Writing workshop in classrooms, what for ?

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Keller, Lorenzo Dubois , Aix-Marseille University, France
Co-author: Barbier, Marie-Laure , Aix-Marseille University, France
Co-author: Quaranta, Jean-Marc , Aix-Marseille University, France
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Keywords

cognitive processes;creative writing;literacy;writing at school

Abstract

Writing workshops in classrooms, what for ? Dubois-Keller, L., Quaranta, J.M., Barbier, M.L. Creative writing workshops are, in principle, suitable and adaptable to all school levels (Butzek, Barbier & Quaranta, 2023). They are based on a didactic model of "spiral reading, writing, rereading, rewriting " (Oriol-Boyer, 2013), and teachers who use them report numerous cognitive and conative benefits for students, including improved writing skills, motivation, and literacy skills. However, little scientific research has been conducted on the effects of creative writing workshops in schools.This study presents a systematic literature review conducted using the PRISMA method, with the aim of identifying the possible impacts of creative writing training in a secondary school context. 681 articles were identified across eight databases in social sciences. 23 were selected for this review based on exclusion and inclusion criteria. The following were excluded: articles not dealing with the teaching of creative writing; or on its effects on cognitive, conative, or literacy skills; theoretical studies and studies dating from before 2005. The following were included: articles that offered participants, high school students, a creative writing intervention; open access articles; articles in English or French. The results showed that creative writing in general is used almost worldwide and could have beneficial effects on the cognitive skills (creativity, problem solving), conative skills (motivation, self-efficacy, agency), and literacy skills (reading, writing) of high school students. However, these effects were not always similar across the studies analyzed. It seems that creative writing is a concept that needs to be adapted to the school setting according to teachers' objectives and class level. However, studies show that the skills developed during creative writing activities are transferable to other academic texts expected in the school context. Oriol-Boyer, C. (2013). Ateliers d’écriture, quarante ans d’élaboration, Mémoires d’un parcours entre théorie et pratiques. Dans C. Oriol-Boyer & D. Bilous (dir.), Ateliers d’écriture littéraire (pp. 25-89). Paris : Hermann.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.

Written Language Production in Children with Developmental Language Disorder: Evidence from Arabic

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Taha, Juhayna , University College London, United Kingdom
Co-author: Salloum, Shada , Birzeit University, Palestine
Co-author: Dockrell, Julie , Institute of Education, United Kingdom
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

language-specific and cross-linguistic studies;spelling issues;writing for specific needs;writing impairment

Abstract

Written Language Production in Children with Developmental Language Disorder: Evidence from ArabicWriting systems vary in their orthographic depth and in the linguistic units they encode, leading to crosslinguistic variations in writing development. This necessitates language-specific frameworks for writing assessments. This study focuses on Arabic, where data on writing development and difficulties is scarce. The Arabic script has distinctive features, including the similarity of basic letter forms, ligature, allography, and nonlinearity. These properties place unique demands on writing development, especially for children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), who are at heightened risk for persistent writing difficulties.This study compares the written language production of Arabic-speaking children with DLD to that of typically developing (TD) children. It also explores the relationship between spoken and written language production.We assessed Arabic writing using a word dictation task (spelling) and picture-elicited written texts (written narratives). We measured spoken language through expressive vocabulary, expressive grammar, nonword repetition, and oral narratives. Sixty Arabic-speaking children in Ramallah, Palestine, aged 8 to 12 years, participated across three groups: children with DLD, age-matched TD children, and language-matched TD children. This design allows us to determine whether writing profiles in DLD reflect developmental delay or qualitatively distinct writing patterns. Data collection will be completed by mid-February.Planned analyses will examine written texts across key dimensions (productivity, complexity, accuracy, and overall writing quality), including accuracy and the frequency and nature of spelling, morphological and syntactic errors. Regression analyses will identify the extent to which spoken language predicts the different dimensions of children’s writing. Implications for research and practice will be outlined.

A Pilot Study of Expressive Writing in Educational Rehabilitation for Neurodegenerative Diseases

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Pintér, Henriett , Semmelweis University, Hungary
Co-author: Molnar, Pal , Semmelweis University, Hungary
Co-author: Albert, Csilla , Cultural Journal of Székelyföld, Romania
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

case study;intervention study;motivational and emotional factors in writing;therapeutic writing

Abstract

The aim of the study was to examine the applicability of expressive writing among neurodegenerative patients in the form of an intervention implemented as a supplementary writing task performed at home in connection with institutional, guided educational rehabilitation sessions. In the rehabilitation of neurodegenerative patients, cost-effective interventions that can be integrated into everyday life and can have beneficial effects on emotional well-being are increasingly gaining attention. Expressive writing has been used in learning situations, among other things, to improve well-being (Park et al., 2014), to increase working memory (Farthoukh & Chanquoy, 2020), and to reduce anxiety and caregiver burden in patients with neurodegenerative diseases (Cash & Lagerman, 2015) and stroke survivors and their relatives (Beauchamp et al., 2023). Educational rehabilitation based on the Pető method provides complex support for the physical, emotional, and social functioning of people with neurodegenerative diseases within an institutional setting, promoting their learning processes and well-being. Expressive writing has not yet been used among such patients in the Central European region. Eleven people engaged in a 20-minute writing task on four consecutive days to disclose their experiences, followed by reflections on each session (Pennebaker & Evans, 2018). We examined whether there were differences in self-reflections after writing on consecutive days and what linguistic patterns emerged in the self-reflections. Quantitative analysis using the Friedman test revealed a significant difference between the first and third days in the expression of deep thoughts and feelings, while qualitative content analysis identified seven recurring linguistic patterns in the participants' reflections, such as: "It gives me strength," "It helps me organize my thoughts," and "I was able to express myself." These results illustrate how writing serves as a cognitive and emotional tool for organizing experiences, developing self-awareness, and supporting psychological well-being. The results suggest that expressive writing may be a feasible and cost-effective complementary practice in educational rehabilitation. It appears to support participants’ engagement, motivation, and sense of coherence within learning-based therapeutic activities.

Corpus Insights for Teaching Case Analysis Recommendation Writing

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Gomez Laich, Maria Pia , Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar
Co-author: Maune, Michael , Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;case study;corpus linguistics;professional writing

Abstract

The case analysis is a central genre in business and information systems programs, requiring students to apply disciplinary knowledge to identify issues and propose recommendations (Nathan, 2013). Effective recommendation writing demands that students adopt an argumentative stance, justify their preferred option, and demonstrate evaluative reasoning. Yet many students struggle to argue clearly for one option over others or to evaluate their proposed solution by comparing it to alternatives or addressing limitations.In this presentation, we examine how students construct the Advisory move in case analysis writing, the stage where analysis is transformed into persuasive recommendations. Drawing on Swalesian move analysis (Swales, 1990) and Systemic Functional Linguistics (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014), we analyzed two corpora: (1) the British Academic Written English corpus and (2) the Information Systems Writing in Qatar corpus, which comprises 98 undergraduate case analyses (381,824 tokens) produced at an American branch campus in the Middle East. From these corpora, we built a specialized subcorpus of 70 recommendation-driven texts (256,385 tokens) to examine how the Advisory move is realized. This subcorpus was annotated in UAM CorpusTool (O’Donnell, 2023) to develop a scheme of rhetorical sub-moves: Orientation (framing, theoretical grounding), Argument (reasons for/against options), and Recommendation (endorsement, implementation, rejection). Complementary n-gram analysis identified recurrent lexical, modal, and evaluative strategies students use to calibrate obligation, contingency, and certainty.By making visible the rhetorical sub-moves and linguistic resources that underpin effective recommendations, we argue that explicit teaching of these patterns is essential for strengthening students’ recommendation writing. Linking corpus analysis to pedagogical practice, we show how writing research can inform instructional interventions that improve the quality of student arguments in case analysis genres.ReferencesHalliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.Nathan, P. (2013). Academic writing in the business school: The genre of the business case report. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 57–68.O’Donnell, M. (2023). UAM CorpusTool 3.3.Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Examining Writing and Reasoning in Dutch History Textbook Questions

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Menke, Remco , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Van Boxtel, Carla , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: van Weijen, Daphne , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: van Drie, Jannet , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Chair: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

education;literacy;writing in the disciplines;writing tasks

Abstract

Examining Writing and Reasoning in Dutch History Textbook Questions One of the main challenges in history education is students’ difficulty in applying abstract historical concepts in writing. Knowledge of substantive concepts is essential for understanding the past and contributes significantly to the quality of historical reasoning (van Boxtel & van Drie, 2018). However, students particularly struggle with using historical concepts in their written responses (van Boxtel et al., 2024). Additionally, their answers often lack structure and coherence (van Drie et al., 2014) as well as explicit use of historical concepts. The study’s main research question is: What are the language and discipline-specific demands of written answers to textbook questions with substantive historical concepts in 8th grade? Little is known about these discipline-specific literacy requirements for answering questions, even though textbooks are widely used in history education (Bernhard, 2018). We selected textbooks from four different publishers. For four topics, we analysed what is expected from students by examining textbook questions (n = 361). Among other aspects, we examined which historical concepts are required in written responses, as well as what forms of language support are provided, such as writing frames. We also considered requirements for students to incorporate specific concepts and express ideas in their own words. In addition, written answers on these assignments were analysed (n = 50), with four students completing the tasks while thinking aloud. Preliminary findings show that history textbook questions offer students little opportunity to practice reasoning and writing with substantive concepts. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that many students struggle with questions that require historical reasoning with these concepts. Overall, this study identifies the domain-specific demands associated with writing in history education and emphasises their significance. The main findings of this study form the foundation for a lesson design to be developed in a follow-up study. During the poster presentation, we hope to receive feedback on the findings, the analysis, and how the lesson design builds on these results.

From research to classroom: Implementing evidence-based writing practices

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Sieveke, Pia , University of Münster, Germany
Co-author: Busse, Vera , University of Münster, Germany
Co-author: Graham, Steve , Arizona State University, United States
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

intervention study;pedagogy and instruction;writing at school;writing instruction

Abstract

Strengthening students’ writing is essential for long-term academic success (Cutler & Graham, 2008). Despite substantial research on effective writing instruction, evidence-based writing practices are still implemented inconsistently, and research linking professional development (PD), instructional practice, and student outcomes remains limited (Camping et al., 2025).As part of a (quasi-)experimental intervention project conducted in eleven German primary schools (Grades 3 and 4), this explanatory sequential mixed-methods study examined changes in teachers’ writing-related knowledge and practices following PD, their acceptance of the approaches, and the relationship between implementation fidelity and students’ writing outcomes. Quantitative data included pre–post assessments of writing knowledge, perceived feedback effectiveness, and feedback frequency among EG (n = 21) and CG teachers (n = 17). Logbooks from eleven EG teachers were used to classify implementation fidelity (high vs. low) and relate implementation to student writing outcomes (n = 177). Qualitative interviews with the same teachers were analyzed using qualitative content analysis to identify factors that supported or hindered implementation. EG teachers reported significantly higher writing knowledge following PD compared to the CG (ANCOVA: F(1, 35) = 9.91, η²ₚ = .22, p = .003), while no group differences emerged for perceived feedback effectiveness or feedback frequency. Implementation fidelity varied substantially: six teachers showed high adherence to key components of the intervention, whereas five demonstrated low adherence. Interview data highlighted acceptance, perceived fit, and feasibility as key factors shaping instructional decisions. Multilevel analyses revealed a significant time × implementation interaction, showing that students taught by high implementers achieved greater gains in text quality (β = 0.22, p < .001; ICC = .33). The discussion considers factors supporting successful implementation and implications for designing PD, with attention to teacher perceptions and contextual factors that influence the uptake of evidence-based practices. Camping, A., McKeown, D., Williams, M., & Harris, K. R. (2025). Professional development in writing instruction. In J. Fitzgerald, C. A. MacArthur, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research (3rd ed., pp. 340–354). Guildford Press. Cutler, L. & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–919.

Reciprocal peer feedback with argumentative text structure

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Morre, Gabriel , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

collaborative writing;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;intervention study;writing instruction

Abstract

Reciprocal peer feedback with argumentative text structureText revision is understood as a sub-competence that enables students to distance themselves from their own text, allowing them to identify inconsistencies and develop alternatives (Baurmann & Pohl, 2009). Cognitively oriented approaches consider revision as a sequence of activities that involve reading, evaluating, and revising the text (MacArthur, 2012).As part of an intervention study on revising argumentative texts in 7th grade, one of three experimental groups used the peer feedback approach Smabusch (N = 106 students). This approach combines the explicit teaching of a text-pattern-based revision strategy (Sturm, 2022) with reciprocal feedback (according to MacArthur, Schwartz & Graham, 1991). The acronym Smabusch focuses on an argumentative text structure (situation, opinion, argument, reasoning and examples to support it, and smash as the “winning argument”).Initial analyses indicate that Smabusch results in a positive change in strategy efficiency. This raises the question of how students in the experimental group use Smabusch to evaluate texts and how they proceed when implementing the strategy. The poster presentation will present further results also focusing on setting a writing goal and evaluating a text. Baurmann, Jürgen; Pohl, Thorsten (2009): Schreiben – Texte verfassen. [Writing – Composing Texts] In: Bremerich-Vos, Albert; Granzer, Dietlinde; Behrens, Ulrike und Köller, Olaf (Hrsg.): Bildungsstandards für die Grundschule. Deutsch konkret. [Educational standards for elementary school. German in concrete terms] Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor. S. 75–103.MacArthur, Charles A.; Graham, Steve; Schwartz, Shirley (1991): Knowledge of Revision and Revising Behavior among Students with Learning Disabilities. In: Learning Disability Quarterly 14/1. S. 61–73.MacArthur, C. A. (2012). Evaluation and Revision. In V.W. Berninger (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitiv psychology (pp. 461–483). Psychology Press.Sturm, A. (2022). Prozess- und produktorientierte Schreibförderung in Kombination [Process- and product-oriented writing instruction combined]. In V. Busse, N. Müller & L. Siekmann (Hrsg.), Schreiben fachübergreifend fördern. Theoretische Grundlagen und Praxisanregungen für Schule, Unterricht und Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung [Promoting interdisciplinary writing. Theoretical foundations and practical recommendations for schools, instruction and teacher education] (S. 96–113). Klett Kallmeyer.

Scaffolding Multilingual Writers in Source-Based Argumentative Writing: An Intervention Study

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Debrah, Cecilia Owusu , University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana
Co-author: Yegblemenawo, Stella Afi Makafui , Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: Developmental Aspects of Instruction; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;AI writing;intervention study;L2

Abstract

Source-based argumentative writing remains a demanding task, especially for multilingual writers in higher education, as they are expected to interpret diverse texts, synthesize multiple perspectives, and develop coherent arguments in a second language (Chuang & Yan, 2023). This study draws on a Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on mediated learning to explore how a scaffolded instructional intervention enhances students' engagement with sources in their argumentative writing, particularly given the growing influence of digitally mediated tools on students' academic literacy skills. Conducted over fourteen weeks, the qualitative study involved 60 undergraduate civil engineering students enrolled in the second part of a two-semester academic writing course. The intervention was based on five scaffolded phases: analyzing sources, summarizing, synthesizing, planning, and drafting, designed to make the process manageable and transparent. To reflect authentic writing practices in digitally mediated contexts, students recorded any AI tools they used during task completion. Data sources included 10 semi-structured interviews, classroom observations, instructional materials, and drafts of students’ writing assignments. Braun and Clark’s (2019) reflexive thematic analysis was used to examine how students navigated each stage, the challenges encountered, and the strategies employed to integrate sources into coherent written arguments. Findings show that scaffolded sequences helped students break down complex tasks, identify connections between texts, and build confidence in developing arguments. While AI-assisted tools provided localized support, the scaffolded activities remained the primary guide for deeper interpretive and rhetorical choices essential for effective academic writing. This research offers valuable insights into how structured scaffolding can aid L2 writers’ growth in source-based argumentative writing.

Task Specification and Adaptation in Primary Grade Writing Instruction

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Springstein, Sander , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

assessment;writing at school;writing instruction;writing tasks

Abstract

Writing tasks play a crucial role in the development of writing competence, as they initiate, guide, and support writing processes. Therefore, recent writing research has placed increasing emphasis on the conceptualization of good writing tasks. In German-speaking countries, the concept of task specification (in German: Profilierung) by Bachmann and Becker-Mrotzek (2010) has gained particular prominence within the field of task-based research. According to this concept, a writing task is considered “good” when it is embedded in an authentic and social context which (1) defines a clear writing purpose, (2) activates or provides the necessary knowledge to complete the task, (3) facilitates social interaction within the writing process, and (4) offers opportunities to observe the effect the text has on its readers.Despite recent progress in task-based research, it remains largely unexplored which writing tasks are implemented in actual classroom practice and to what extent they meet established criteria for good writing tasks. Therefore, as part of a national survey, the current study aims to compile a representative corpus of writing tasks used by primary school teachers in the writing classroom. The corpus will then be evaluated using a newly developed rating scale: Following the concept of task specification (cf. Bachmann & Becker-Mrotzek, 2010), the proposed rating scale is structured around four subscales (i.e., purpose, knowledge, interaction, and effect). Furthermore, the rating scale includes an additional subscale (adaptation) that examines how primary school teachers adapt existing writing tasks to meet the needs of struggling writers (e.g., Graham & Harris, 2005; Grünke & Leonard-Zabel, 2015).References:Bachmann, T. & Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2010): Schreibaufgaben situieren und profilieren. In: T. Pohl & T. Steinhoff (Eds.): Texformen als Lernformen. Duisburg: Gilles & Francke, 191-210. Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (2005): Improving the Writing Performance of Young Struggling Writers: Theoretical and Programmatic Research From the Center on Accelerating Student Learning. In: Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 19-33. Grünke, M. & Leonard-Zabel, A. M. (2015): How to support struggling writers: What the research stipulates. In: International Journal of Special Education, 30(3), 137-149.

Teaching writing in primary school: Future teachers’ conceptions

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Gil, Maria Beatriz , EDUNOVA.ISPA, Portugal
Co-author: Martins, Margarida Alves , ISPA-Instituto Universitário EDUNOVA.ISPA, Portugal
Co-author: Alves Martins, Margarida , ISPA-Instituto Universitário EDUNOVA.ISPA, Portugal
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

pedagogy and instruction;writing at school;writing beliefs;writing instruction

Abstract

Writing is a fundamental skill for students' success throughout their schooling, as it is relevant to various school subjects. Graham and Alves (2021) argue that it is necessary to understand the needs of teachers and future teachers so that resources and materials can be developed that enable them to implement teaching activities for written production in an explicit and continuous manner since primary school. In this context, our aim was to analyse future teachers' conceptions regarding the teaching of writing in primary school and the confidence they feel in teaching different types of texts. The participants were 97 master's students at the end of their initial training for teaching in primary school. They attended 4 higher education institutions in Portugal. They answered a questionnaire at the end of their training. In it, they were asked about: their level of confidence in teaching writing when compared to other areas, such as oracy and reading, and the weekly time they considered necessary to devote to teaching it; their level of confidence and perceived relevance regarding the teaching of different types of texts and different components of writing; the relevance they attributed to planning and revising and to various assessment parameters; their knowledge of the teaching resources available to support the teaching of writing; and their perceived training needs. The results revealed that future teachers feel less confident about teaching writing when compared to oracy and reading, despite considering that the same amount of time should be devoted to teaching writing and reading. There was a significant discrepancy between the degree of confidence and the relevance attributed to different components of writing, with the former clearly lower. Regarding text genres, they show more confidence in teaching narrative and descriptive texts than other types of texts. Finally, they demonstrated very limited knowledge of the teaching resources available to support the teaching of writing and highlighted the need for training in planning, writing and revising texts. These results contribute to reflect on the role of initial training in the development of skills for teaching written production and in designing teaching resources to support teaching practices.

Career Development for Early Career Researchers

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Aramayo, Hairenik
Presenting author: Elf, Nicolaj
Presenting author: Konstantinidou, Liana , Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Presenting author: Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Presenting author: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Presenting author: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic; network; outside academia; publish; research; researcher; teach; volunteer

Abstract

An OECD (2023) report identified a number of factors influencing the career choices of early career researchers. The report offered eight recommendations for supporting the careers of post docs. Recommendation 4 emphasised the importance of mentoring. The purpose of this round table is to address mentoring and to enable early career researchers to discuss career progress and development with experienced researchers and academics. Career development inside and outside academia will be discussed. There will be five presenters: Hairenik Aramayo, Dr Nina Vandermeulen, Professor Liana Konstantinidou, Professor Nicolaj Elf, Associate Professor Emeritus Karl-Heinz Pogner. Each presenter will talk for ten minutes about how they developed or followed their career trajectory inside or outside academia. The skills and abilities which facilitated successful career development will be a focus. The talks will be followed by forty minutes allowed for questions and discussion. The importance of publishing and the rigours of getting an article published will be considered. The value of participating in a variety of research opportunities will be addressed. The importance of tertiary teaching experience and developing supervision expertise will be discussed. Presenters will talk about engaging in voluntary opportunities on committees, organising conferences or research groups to enhance employability. The presenters will advise about careful networking. The advisability of conference attendance will be discussed. The skills and knowledge developed in the PhD which are transferable to settings outside academia and are also valuable in academia will be a focus. Early career researchers should find this session most beneficial in deciding and developing their career trajectories and realising multiple options which are available to them.

Enhancing Automated Essay Scoring by Integrating Rule-Based Language Checking with Generative Models

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Berger, Stéphanie , Institut für Bildungsevaluation, Switzerland
Presenting author: Stahlhut, Laura , Institut für Bildungsevaluation, Switzerland
Co-author: König, Nina , Institut für Bildungsevaluation, Switzerland
Co-author: Debelak, Rudolf , Institut für Erziehungswissenschaften, Universität Zürich, Switzerland
Chair: Perrin, Daniel , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Keywords

evaluation and assessment of writing competence;feedback;Generative AI;writing at school

Abstract

Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have enabled automated feedback systems that offer scalable support for writing instruction in classroom settings. While large language models (LLMs) can generate formative feedback efficiently, prior research indicates that such feedback often contains hallucinations or lacks linguistic precision, thereby limiting its pedagogical usefulness (Jia et al., 2024; Cheng & Amiri, 2025). This study investigates whether integrating rule-based language-checking methods into a generative AI feedback system improves the accuracy and instructional value of automated feedback for student essays in primary and lower secondary education.To this end, we developed an AI-based feedback system that generates (1) ratings of spelling and grammar on separate four-point scales and (2) written feedback summarizing linguistic quality and listing detected errors with suggested corrections. Using this system, feedback was generated for 100 student essays under two conditions: generative AI augmented with rule-based methods and generative AI only.To evaluate the quality of both the ratings and the written feedback, linguistic experts independently scored the essays and reviewed the AI-generated feedback regarding hallucinations and inaccurate corrections. Preliminary results show that the correlation between human and AI spelling ratings increases from r = 0.608 to r = 0.713 when rule-based methods are integrated, while the correlation for grammar remained comparable (r = 0.607 vs. r = 0.576). To contextualize these findings, we present qualitative examples illustrating how the integration of rule-based checks corrected specific linguistic inaccuracies in the generative output. These findings suggest that hybrid systems can improve the accuracy of automated writing feedback, particularly for spelling.References Cheng, J., & Amiri, H. (2025). Linguistic blind spots of large language models. In NAACL 2025 Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics Workshop. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.19260 Jia, Q., Cui, J., Du, H., Rashid, P., Xi, R., Li, R., & Gehringer, E. (2024). LLM-generated feedback in real classes and beyond: Perspectives from students and instructors. In D. A. Joyner, B. Paaßen, & C. Demmans Epp (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 862–867). International Educational Data Mining Society. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12729974

Social Regulation in AI-Supported Feedback Ecologies: Disciplinary vs Non-Disciplinary Peers

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Khuder, Baraa , Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Chair: Perrin, Daniel , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: Learning and Social Interaction; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;feedback;Generative AI;writing processes

Abstract

Research on feedback literacy and social regulation of learning increasingly acknowledges the improtance of multiple feedback sources; however, we still know relatively little about how regulation unfolds across different feedback ecologies, particularly in varied human–AI configurations. Drawing on models of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation of learning, this study examines how doctoral students regulate their writing when revising with (a) AI plus disciplinary peers and (b) AI plus non-disciplinary peers. Fifty-five PhD students were allocated to two conditions: one in which they received AI feedback and discussed their texts with disciplinary peers in groups of four, and another in which they received AI feedback and discussed their texts with non-disciplinary peers in groups of four. Data comprised (1) AI interaction histories, (2) 14 audio-recorded “listening room” discussions, and (3) ~300-word individual reflections comparing AI and peer feedback. Transcripts were segmented into episodes and coded for forms of regulation (self-, co-, and socially shared regulation) and functions of regulation (planning, monitoring, evaluating, adapting). Across ecologies, AI never participated in genuinely socially shared regulation; episodes of shared regulation emerged only in human–human negotiation. In AI + disciplinary peer groups, AI most often functioned as a co-regulator: students tended to follow AI suggestions when a disciplinary peer could “watch over”, with regulation distributed between AI guidance and expert peer oversight. In AI + non-disciplinary peer groups, AI was more often recruited as a resource for self-regulation: students critically evaluated and selectively adapted AI feedback in the absence of disciplinary authority. The study offers a nuanced account of how different actors in feedback ecologies shape regulatory processes, and the presentation will discuss pedagogical implications for designing feedback from multiple resources in doctoral writing courses.

The Effects of ChatGPT Feedback on Student Engagement: A Longitudinal Study

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Katanneck, Stanislav , Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium
Chair: Perrin, Daniel , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;feedback;Generative AI;L2

Abstract

ChatGPT can provide timely, personalized and informative feedback to improve text quality and learning success. It can thus mitigate teachers’ workload, particularly in writing-intensive courses. Despite these advantages, it remains unclear to what extent L2 learners engage with and incorporate feedback in the revision process for the improvement of text quality, as feedback uptake depends on several external and internal factors (Liu & Storch 2010). Furthermore, recent studies emphasize that students’ engagement with written corrective feedback changes over time, and that these dynamics of students’ engagement with feedback have not been explored yet (Mao & Icy 2024: 815). Therefore, the present study analyzes the impact of GenAI-assisted feedback (exemplified by ChatGPT-4) in combination with teacher feedback in extensive university German as a foreign language courses (CEFR, B2/ C1). The study focuses on the following research questions: RQ1: To what extent can the combination of GenAI-assisted feedback and teacher feedback support the revision phase in the writing process?RQ2: Which dynamics can be identified in the learner profiles based on the engagement with ChatGPT-based feedback? This longitudinal study with international students of German as a foreign language adopts a sequential explanatory mixed-methods research design (QUAN ® qual) to answer the research questions. For the quantitative analysis (QUAN) learners’ engagement (including all subtypes: behavioral, emotional, cognitive and social) is measured by using a standardized questionnaire with closed items in 13-week courses. This data (n=74) is used to carry out a hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward-Linkage to identify latent learner profiles and to assess the dynamics of engagement over time. The qualitative component (qual) of the study comprises the analysis of open-ended questions in reflection sheets as well as interviews in focus groups to get a holistic view of the feedback uptake and students’ engagement. Preliminary findings indicate that ChatGPT feedback on syntactic complexity is effective in improving linguistic accuracy and syntactic range, while teacher feedback is beneficial for fostering self-reflection, strategic revision, and writing motivation. The results are transferable to other L2 contexts, in particular for general language courses and academic writing and thus offers a replicable framework for integrating GenAI feedback into writing pedagogy.

Literary Writing Process Modeling: across manuscript drafts and digital traces

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Ammari, Emna , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Co-author: Bellot, Patrice , Aix-Marseille University/CNRS, France
Co-author: Leblay, Christophe , University of Turku, School of Languages and Translation studies, Finland
Chair: Chanquoy, Lucile , Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;creative writing;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;writing models

Abstract

Investigating literary writing dynamics and authors’ revision signatures is increasingly recognized as a crucial field, drawing on both genetic criticism and psycholinguistics, as well as advanced generative AI systems. Despite this growing interest, a combined analysis of heritage manuscripts alongside contemporary keystroke logging data remains largely uncharted. Therefore, this proposal aims to bridge this gap by proposing a fine-grained modeling of literary writing and revision processes, developed within the Cré@LAME project (Literary Cre@tion and Author Manuscript Analysis), supporting an interactive assisted rewriting system, attuned to the author’s profile and revision strategies.The approach relies on a set of LLM-based agents specialized in context-aware rewriting, each performing a specific editorial role aligned with distinct revision intentions. These agents are coordinated by a multi-layer, multi-view Graph Neural Network (GNN) that models the evolution of textual states across heterogeneous materials, from linear manuscript transcriptions to digital writing traces.This network captures both linguistic (lexical, syntactic, semantic) and revision-oriented dimensions, reflecting editing operations and authorial intentions, across multiple levels, while guiding the agents’ rewriting operations according to learned patterns of textual evolution. This GNN thereby maintains coherence in editing operations while tracking author-specific revision practices.Accordingly, this work introduces a novel computational framework for textual genesis that addresses key aspects, including multi-granular data heterogeneity across manuscripts and digital log files, the inference of relevant indicators of authorial revision trajectories, and unified hierarchical representations formats of revision processes, integrating cross-source materials, suitable for multi-level graph modeling.Overall, this contribution advances research on textual genesis by highlighting how the integrated modeling of manuscript materials and digital traces provides deeper insights into authorial practices and the dynamics of literary creation.

Teenagers writing expository texts with and without gen-AI

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Co-author: Wengelin, Åsa , University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Co-author: Lindgren, Eva , Umeå University, Sweden
Co-author: Sturk, Erika , Umeå University, Sweden
Co-author: Hermansson, Carina , Umeå University, Sweden
Co-author: Silverdal, Sara , Umeå University, Sweden
Chair: Chanquoy, Lucile , Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

AI writing;writing models;writing process data collections;written language competence

Abstract

Writing with generative AI (gen-AI) introduces new affordances and constraints that invite reconsideration of long-standing writing models, such as Hayes and Flower’s (1980) framework and Kellogg’s (1996) model of working memory in writing. This study examines how key writing processes—planning, translating, and revising—and related subprocesses such as goal setting, audience adaptation, reading, and evaluation unfold when students write with gen-AI. Adopting a developmental perspective, it qualitatively compares writing with and without AI support in a cross-sectional design involving students (n = 52) aged 13, 15, and 18. In a classroom setting, the students produced comparable expository texts first without and then with a gen-AI tool of their choice, while their writing was captured through screen recordings. Post-task interviews probed their strategies and reflections on differences between the modes.These questions guide the study: (1) How do writing processes unfold with and without using gen-AI, and are there age-related differences? (2) How do writers interact with the gen-AI tool (e.g., prompting), and how do they make use of the generated text?Initial results show that all students produce coherent and linguistically appropriate expository texts without AI, consistent with earlier descriptions of developmental writing (e.g., Johansson, 2009; Wengelin et al., 2014). In contrast, age-related patterns emerge when AI is introduced. The 13-year-olds often use gen-AI to produce full texts based on task prompts and report valuing the tool’s ability to generate lengthy responses. The 15-year-olds tend to use gen-AI primarily for idea generation, rewriting the AI-generated material to align with their own voice. The 18-year-olds more often use gen-AI to refine their existing ideas and strengthen the logic of their texts.This developmental trend demonstrate that the youngest writers rely on gen-AI mainly to support translating processes, the middle group for planning processes, and the oldest group for revising processes. The findings are discussed in relation to how gen-AI may differentially support components of the writing process depending on writers’ developmental needs and strategic awareness, and how the use of gen-AI during writing can reshape existing writing models. Understanding these evolving practices is also essential for instructional approaches including assessment.

What Can Sentence-Centric Writing Models Reveal about the Writing Process?

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Ulasik, Margo , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Piotrowski, Michael , University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Chair: Chanquoy, Lucile , Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

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

Abstract

Sentences are fundamental communicative units (Bühler 1918), and written texts are generally understood to consist of these units, but research on how writers produce sentences remains limited. Although linguistic modeling of the writing process has gathered interest in recent years, existing approaches, whether grounded in linguistic theory or in writing research, remain insufficient to explain how writers actually produce and revise text at a linguistic level. Prior work has investigated correspondences between writing bursts and linguistic structure (e.g., Kaufer et al. 1986; Cislaru and Olive 2018; Feltgen et al. 2023), examined revisions from a linguistic perspective (e.g., Manseri and Jouvenel 2025), proposed methods for transforming writing-process data into linguistic units (e.g., Leijten et al. 2019), and provided initial contributions to sentence-level analyses of the writing process (Miletic et al. 2022; Mahlow et al. 2024; Ulasik and Miletic 2024).We advance the state of the art by building on these developments and on the theoretical framework for sentence-centric modeling introduced by Ulasik et al. (2025). Our approach enables detailed tracking of sentence production through the analysis of sentence transformations and the detection of pauses at sentence boundaries. It supports systematic identification of bursts within sentence production and offers a method for characterizing the scope of transformations and bursts with respect to individual sentences.To investigate the potential of the model, we apply our software tool for sentence-centric modeling of writing, THEtool (https://github.com/mulasik/wta), to real-world data from the KLiCKe corpus (Yu Tian et al. 2025). This demonstrates the potential insights that emerge when shifting the analytical perspective from bursts or revisions to a sentence-centric view.

Secondary Students’ Decision-Making Processes Underlying L1 Writing Processes with GenAI

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Sliepenbeek, Leonie , Tilburg University, Netherlands
Co-author: van der Loo, Janneke , Tilburg University, Netherlands
Chair: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Keywords

Generative AI;L1;writing beliefs;writing processes

Abstract

Since the emergence of ChatGPT, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has been widely adopted by students in secondary and higher education for different tasks, such as writing. Yet empirical evidence how usage of GenAI affects writing processes has been scarce. In this qualitative pilot study we investigated how (Dutch) secondary school students’ L1 writing processes unfold when allowed to write with unguided support of GenAI when taking individual factors (self-efficacy and writing beliefs) into account.Three participants from grade 10 of pre-university secondary education were selected upon their scores on a Self-Efficacy for Writing Scale with statements regarding both writing with pen and paper and with support of GenAI. They were asked to write a synthesis text based on three sources, which meant they had to select relevant information, organize this and integrate these ideas into a new argumentative text. They were instructed to use GenAI as seen fit and their writing process was captured with both screen recording and keylogging software. To understand their decision-making process an additional questionnaire about their writing beliefs was filled out and semi-structured interviews were held afterwards.During our presentation we will demonstrate our findings about the interplay between individual factors and participants’ writing behaviour, as seen in the following example. One participant scored relatively high on both dimensions of self-efficacy, indicating they felt rather confident about their writing. Accordingly, this participant used GenAI only once (to ask for a definition) and wrote his text without returning to this output. The assessment of their own decision-making process during the interview showed that they explicitly refrained from using GenAI due to their beliefs about the value of learning to write for themselves. Early analyses of the other participants’ decision-making processes also suggest that the degree and type of GenAI usage may be closely linked to both self-efficacy and writing beliefs. We believe this study contributes to our understanding of how LLMs may be situated within theoretical models of writing and may provide a valuable starting point for effective writing interventions, as findings show which challenges and opportunities GenAI brings to writing classrooms.

Thesis Writing with Generative AI: A Multi-Session Process Analysis

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Co-author: Van Waes, Luuk , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Chair: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

academic writing;Generative AI;keystroke logging;writing processes

Abstract

The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) in education has had a substantial influence on the way students write. Given the rapid adoption genAI across higher education, it is important to ensure that its use does not compromise learning. However, to make informed pedagogical decisions on how to (or not to) use genAI in academic writing, teaching and assessment, we must first understand how students - and in the next stage also experts - interact with these tools.Previous studies have shown that genAI affects students’ writing processes in different ways. For example, some students use genAI more instrumentally, whereas others use it more reflectively, leading to distinct patterns in how their writing develops. However, prior studies have primarily relied on single-session writing processes. In the present paper, we extend this line of research by analyzing multi-session writing processes in the context of writing a master's thesis. Specifically, we followed the writing process of three master theses students in Cognitive Psychology and Social Sciences over a period of 20 weeks. The number of writing sessions varied substantially among the three students, with totals ranging from 42 to 78 and 110 sessions. Their writing processes were collected using keystroke logging and complemented with students’ interactions with genAI. Inspired by recent writing research, we analyze the keystroke and genAI-interaction data from three perspectives: (1) macro level: examining overarching process management and identifying the intensity of genAI use throughout the full thesis trajectory; (2) meso level: characterizing the individual writing sessions based on revision strategies, writing fluency, and interactions with external sources, including genAI; (3) micro level: identifying how specific genAI interactions influenced moment-to-moment revising and pausing behavior. Preliminary results show that the participants’ use of genAI differed considerably: one participant relied heavily on genAI in the early stages for searching and summarizing sources; another used it moderately in the middle stages to gain an understanding of theories, methodologies, and analytical approaches; and the third interacted with genAI primarily towards the end, using it as a conversational partner to discuss results. Further macro-, meso- and micro-level analyses are currently underway.

Typing Instruction: Teachers’ Professional Competence and Instructional Practices

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Lindauer, Nadja , School for Teacher Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland
Presenting author: Schüler, Lisa , Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Chair: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Keywords

proficiency;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum;writing instruction;writing tools and writing technology

Abstract

Typing is a fundamental skill for producing written texts and participating in digital communication. For these reasons, many countries have included typing in their curricula, thereby assigning schools an important role in developing these skills (e.g., KMK, 2022). However, because the curricular integration often remains unspecific, typing is rarely taught systematically in schools (Pinet et al., 2025). In addition, there is a lack of basic training in teacher education. As a result, teachers feel inadequately prepared to teach typing (Donne, 2012). Research on the teachers’ professional competences in typing instruction is limited (Schüler & Lindauer, 2025). The project TasDi (Didaktik des Tastaturschreibens und der Textverarbeitung) addresses this research gap: In one sub-study, the teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and teaching practices were examined in order to derive implications for teacher training and the development of teaching materials. Expert interviews were conducted with 23 teachers involved in typing instruction in the German-speaking countries (Germany, Switzerland, Austria), including, for example, German and computer science teachers. The interviews were semi-structured, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2024).The presentation provides insight into selected findings on teachers’ prerequisites and teaching routines. The interviews show, for example, that teachers enter the profession via significantly different training paths. With regard to teaching practices, it becomes clear that typing instruction is not uniformly integrated into specific subjects and that different approaches are used for guiding learners (e.g., collaborative vs. individual work). Further differences can be seen in the role of teachers when working with digital learning programs.Donne, V. (2012). Keyboard Instruction for Students with a Disability. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(5), 201–206.KMK. (2022). Bildungsstandards für das Fach Deutsch. Primarbereich i.d.F.v. 23.06.2022.Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz. Beltz Juventa.Pinet, S., Zielinski, C., Alario, F.-X., & Longcamp, M. (2025). On the acquisition of typing skills without formal training by school-aged children. Reading and Writing. Schüler, L., & Lindauer, N. (2025). Die Rolle der Lehrperson im (digitalen) Tastaturschreibunterricht. In L. Schüler & N. Lindauer (Hrsg.), Didaktik des Tastaturschreibens (S. 147–182). Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Hayes Award 2024 Lecture – Writing Fluency in the Perspective of Fluency Research

Type: Keynote Presentation
Presenting author: Linnemann, Markus , University of Koblenz, Germany
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

Writing fluency is a fundamental aspect of writing development and is closely related to other 'fluencies', such as reading and speaking fluency. Research on fluency highlights that proficient performance relies on the interaction of automatised, low-level processes, such as transcription in writing or word recognition in reading, and controlled, attention-demanding processes like translating ideas into text or reading with prosody. Over time, writing fluency develops as these fundamental processes become more automated, freeing up cognitive resources for higher-order writing skills such as planning, revising, and producing text strategically. While training programmes targeting fluency can improve these fundamental processes, evidence suggests that isolated practice often has limited impact. Integration into broader literacy instruction is therefore essential for achieving long-lasting results. This keynote will discuss theoretical and developmental perspectives on writing fluency, its connections to reading, speaking and listening fluency, and the implications for designing effective, integrated instructional approaches.

Wednesday June 3, 2026

Presentations

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract

Keywords

Abstract