SIG Writing Conference 2026 – Methods, Data & Empirical Research

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Yu, Nan , Beijing Normal University, China
Chair: Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Keywords: learning and learner characteristics;meta-analysis;motivational and emotional factors in writing;multimodality
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Assessing argumentative writing through students’ interactions with generative AI

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Bordes, Caroline , CNRS/Université de Poitiers, France
Co-author: Olive, Thierry , CNRS/Université de Poitiers, France
Co-author: Cislaru, Georgeta , Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, France
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Keywords: cognitive processes;keystroke logging;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;writing processes
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Inputlog: New perspectives on keystroke logging

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Van Waes, Luuk , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Co-author: Van Horenbeeck, Eric , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Keywords: AI writing;keystroke logging;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;on-line writing and digital media
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Leblay, Christophe , University of Turku, School of Languages and Translation studies, Finland
Co-author: Caporossi, Gilles , HEC Montréal, Canada
Co-author: Usoof, Hakim , University of Peradeniya/ Dept. Statistics & Computer Sciences, Sri Lanka
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Keywords: data visualisation;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;learning to write;writing at school
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Oblie, Emmanuel Lauren , University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Co-author: Lomotey, Charlotte , University of Education, Winneba, Ghana
Chair: Nottbusch, Guido , University of Potsdam, Germany
Keywords: assessment;EFL and ESL writing;writing skills;writing theory
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Chair: Gerth, Sabrina , University College of Teacher Education Tyrol, Austria
Keywords: AI writing;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;research methodology;writing at school
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kowalska, Emilia Anna , UZH/UniFr, Switzerland
Chair: Nottbusch, Guido , University of Potsdam, Germany
Keywords: assessment;cognitive processes;education;L2
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Teaching narrative writing in grade 2: first findings from FiSBY

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Schilcher, Anita , University of Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Wild, Johannes , Universität Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Knott, Christina , University Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Pronold-Günthner, Friederike , University of Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Dick, Mirjam , University of Regensburg, Germany
Co-author: Nöske, Lea , University of Regensburg, Germany
Chair: Gerth, Sabrina , University College of Teacher Education Tyrol, Austria
Keywords: design-based research;instructional design in writing;intervention study;writing at school
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

The future of writing education

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

Abstract

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

The Working Memory-Writing Connection: Meta-Analytic Evidence

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

Abstract

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

THEtool: A software application for linguistic modeling of writing

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Ulasik, Margo , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Keywords: keystroke logging data processing and analysis;natural language processing (NLP);writing models;writing processes
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Michels, Viktoria , TU Chemnitz, Germany
Presenting author: Wanka, Rebekka , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Co-author: Kaplan, Ina , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Chair: Fitjar, Camilla , University of Stavanger, Norway
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;intervention study;writing at school;written language competence
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Wörfel, Seda Yilmaz , Universität Hamburg, Germany
Co-author: Krelle, Michael , Universität Hamburg, Germany
Chair: Fitjar, Camilla , University of Stavanger, Norway
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;spelling issues;writing at school;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Bouwer, Renske , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Presenting author: Stukker, Ninke , Groningen University, Netherlands
Presenting author: van Drie, Jannet , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Oudheusden, Emma , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: van Gulik, Jan , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Co-author: Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline , Utrecht University, Netherlands
Keywords: design-based research;L1;text genre;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Does seeing writing as changeable matter?

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Outerbridge, Sierra , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Taub, Michelle , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Schneier, Joel , University of Central Florida, United States
Chair: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: academic writing;cognitive processes;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;metacognition
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Eye-tracking recursivity in reading-writing integrated continuation tasks

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Yan, Xiaomeng , South China University of Technology; University of Groningen, China
Co-author: Michel, Marije , University of Groningen, Netherlands
Co-author: Yang, Mei , South China University of Technology, China
Co-author: Liu, Xiqin , South China University of Technology, China
Chair: Konstantinidou, Liana , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: academic writing;EFL and ESL writing;eye tracking;L2
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Modelling the Subskills of Writing in Instructional Texts

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kreutz, Rebecca Maria , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Wolf, Julie , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Schabmann, Alfred , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;writing at school;writing models;writing skills
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Monitoring Strategies in ESL Timed Essay Writing: Insights from Ghana

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

Abstract

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

Morpheme and syllable boundaries in adult handwriting

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Chanquoy, Lucile , Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Chair: Sturm, Afra , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Keywords: developmental aspects of writing ability;errors and error correction;experimental approaches;writing processes
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Girard, Gabrielle , Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
Co-author: Foucambert, Denis , Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Keywords: cognitive processes;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;writing models;writing processes
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Co-author: Gullberg, Kajsa , Lund University, Sweden
Co-author: Johansson, Roger , Lund University, Sweden
Co-author: Frid, Johan , Lund University, Sweden
Chair: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Keywords: cognitive processes;eye tracking;keystroke logging;writing and linguistics
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Scherer, Sina Verena , University of Münster, Germany
Co-author: Graham, Steve , Arizona State University, United States
Co-author: Busse, Vera , University of Münster, Germany
Chair: Weth, Constanze , Institute for Research on Multilingualism, University of Luxembourg, France
Keywords: AI writing;EFL and ESL writing;L1;meta-analysis
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Schneier, Joel , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Taub, Michelle , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Myrick, Caroline , Independent Researcher, United States
Co-author: Walker, LaVonda , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Outerbridge, Sierra , University of Central Florida, United States
Chair: Jusslin, Sofia , University of Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: keystroke logging;motivational and emotional factors in writing;pause analysis;writing processes
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Encoding the Writing Process: TEI Between Research and Computational Use

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Ammari, Emna , Aix-Marseille Université, France
Presenting author: Bekius, Lamyk , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Presenting author: Darrak, Zahra Ed , Aix-Marseille University, France
Presenting author: Quaranta, Jean-Marc , Aix-Marseille University, France
Keywords: cognitive processes;Generative AI;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;writing process data collections
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Rybicki, Jan-Mikael , Aalto University, Finland
Co-author: Mendoza, Laura , University of Helsinki, Finland
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Keywords: academic writing;assessment;EFL and ESL writing;natural language processing (NLP)
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kessler, Karyn , University of California Santa Barbara, United States
Co-author: Rogers, Paul , University of Caifornia, Santa Barbara, United States
Co-author: Anson, Chris , North Carolina State University, United States
Co-author: Michiels, Paul , Carnegie Mellon University, United States
Keywords: cognitive processes;Generative AI;metacognition;protocol analysis
Domain: -
Related Symposium: Accessing the Epistemological Side of Writing: A Prolegomenon to the Era of AI; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Investigating Emotional Trajectories of Undergraduate Writing Students via Dynamic Time Warping

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Outerbridge, Sierra , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Schneier, Joel , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Taub, Michelle , University of Central Florida, United States
Chair: Jusslin, Sofia , University of Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: data visualisation;education;metacognition;motivational and emotional factors in writing
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

Students’ emotions while writing are considered modulators of the process according to Graham’s (2018) Writer(s)-within-Communities model. This model inherently addresses the community aspect of writing, as writing is impossible to enact in a vacuum, even if you are writing alone. In a study conducted in a lab setting in the United States, 60 (n=60) students spent a 30-minute session writing about their writing process, a tool utilized to help undergraduate students reflect on their writing (Downs & Wardle, 2007). To capture their emotions, we used the Affectiva module in iMotions, a software comparing their facial expressions to their own baseline at 30Hz. To investigate students’ expressed emotions during their 30-minute session, we asked two research questions: (1) What are students’ emotion intensities over time? (2) Do students demonstrate similar emotional trajectories during writing, even if those emotional experiences occur at different moments or rates? After averaging emotion intensities per second, we visualized emotional trajectories across and by participant(s) (Figures 1-2). Our findings demonstrate contempt with fairly high intensity when expressed, whereas anger and disgust have lower intensities, though expressed throughout the 30-minute session. Joy seems to have peaks for some participants, while fear seems to decrease in intensity over time. To analyze our second question, we utilized dynamic time warping (DTW) to investigate where the shapes of students’ emotions while writing were similar across participants. The DTW-matrix suggests some participants hold similar trajectories, where the same emotions are unfolding in a similar order, but at different times or where they are unfolding in a different order, but at similar times. Exploring the shape of the temporal behavior provides insights regarding how students’ emotions might be unfolding over time, while also helping us interpret how writing and emotions might occur within a particular learning community. References Downs, D., & Wardle, E. (2007). Teaching about writing, righting misconceptions: (Re)envisioning “first-year composition” as “introduction to writing studies.” College Composition & Communication, 58(4), 552–584.Graham, S. (2018). A revised Writer(s)-Within-Community model of writing. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1481406

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Karl, Kristina , IQS - Institut des Bundes für Qualitätssicherung im österreichischen Schulwesen, Austria
Presenting author: Speyer, Lydia , Institut des Bundes für Qualitätssicherung im österreichischen Schulwesen, Austria
Co-author: Winter, Sabrina , IQS, Austria
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Keywords: assessment;education;EFL and ESL writing;evaluation and assessment of writing competence
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Díaz-Burgos, Alberto , University of León, Spain, Spain
Co-author: Fidalgo, Raquel , University of León, Spain, Spain
Co-author: Robledo, Patricia , University of León, Spain
Co-author: Graham, Steve , Arizona State University, United States
Co-author: Diez, Laura Algorri , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Cao, Yucheng , Middle Tennessee State University, United States
Chair: Jusslin, Sofia , University of Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;handwriting;motivational and emotional factors in writing;spelling issues
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Blomqvist, Per , Stockholm University, Sweden
Keywords: academic writing;assessment;Generative AI;writing processes
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Weintraub, Naomi , Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Co-author: Gahshan, Nagham , The Hebrew University of Jerusalem., Israel
Chair: Rønneberg, Vibeke , University of Stavanger, Norway
Keywords: assessment;education;writing instruction;writing skills
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Ethics and Access: Investigating Writing Processes from Manuscripts in Finland

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Karhu, Hanna , University of Helsinki, Finland
Presenting author: Pulkkinen, Veijo , University of Helsinki, Finland
Keywords: handwriting;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;open source and open access;writing and literature
Domain: Culture, Morality, Religion and Education
Related Symposium: In Respect of Writing: Ethical and Legal Challenges Across Writing Supports; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Bingham, Gary , Georgia State University, United States
Co-author: Gerde, Hope , Texas A&M University, United States
Chair: Rønneberg, Vibeke , University of Stavanger, Norway
Keywords: assessment;education;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Bekius, Lamyk , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Co-author: Van Ongeval, Isabelle , Letterenhuis, Belgium
Keywords: creative writing;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;L1;writing and literature
Domain: Culture, Morality, Religion and Education
Related Symposium: In Respect of Writing: Ethical and Legal Challenges Across Writing Supports; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Symposium
Chair: Leblay, Christophe , University of Turku, School of Languages and Translation studies, Finland
Organiser: Delannoy, Léa , Aix-Marseille University, France
Discussant: Barbier, Marie-Laure , Aix-Marseille University, France
Keywords: handwriting;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;open source and open access;writing and literature
Domain: Culture, Morality, Religion and Education
Related Symposium: In Respect of Writing: Ethical and Legal Challenges Across Writing Supports; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Rakedzon, Tzipora , Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Co-author: Jaber, Amani , Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Chair: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Keywords: AI writing;case study;pedagogy and instruction;social and cultural aspects of writing
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Assessing Digital Multimodal Composing in L2 Writing: A Scoping Review

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Yu, Nan , Beijing Normal University, China
Co-author: Lin, Dunlai , Beijing Normal University, China
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: assessment;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;multimodality;writing in a foreign or second language
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Linnemann, Markus , University of Koblenz, Germany
Presenting author: Stephany, Sabine , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Springstein, Sander , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Griepentrog, Anne , Mercator-Institute (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Co-author: Koch, Alina Marlene , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Co-author: Vogt, Birgit , University of Koblenz, Germany
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;fluency;handwriting;writing at school
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Winkes, Julia , University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Co-author: Schaller, Pascale , PHBern, University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: developmental aspects of writing ability;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;fluency;writing processes
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Effects of oral language instruction on children's writing

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Díaz-Tejedor, Rubén , University of León, Spain, Spain
Co-author: Arias-Gundín, Olga , University of León, Spain
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: L1;learning to write;meta-analysis;written language competence
Domain: Developmental Aspects of Instruction; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Emergent Literacy Development: A Socio-Constructivist Program in Preschool

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Salvador, Liliana , ISPA - University Institute, Portugal
Co-author: Martins, Margarida Alves , ISPA-Instituto Universitário EDUNOVA.ISPA, Portugal
Co-author: Maruta, Filipa , ISPA - University Institute, Portugal
Co-author: Laranjeira, Ricardo , ISPA - University Institute, Portugal
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: collaborative writing;experimental approaches;intervention study;learning to write
Domain: Learning and Social Interaction; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Haake, Lisa , Institute of Educational Science, University of Münster, Germany
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: fluency;keystroke logging;proficiency;writing in a foreign or second language
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Demonstration Session
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: Rybicki, Jan-Mikael , Aalto University, Finland
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;feedback;Generative AI;natural language processing (NLP)
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: data visualisation;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;research methodology;writing processes
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Perspective taking and writing motivation on argumentative writing quality

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Hagelund, Silje , University of Oslo, Norway
Co-author: Torkildsen, Janne von Koss , University of Oslo, Norway
Co-author: Lervåg, Arne , University of Oslo, Norway
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;motivational and emotional factors in writing;writing at school;writing skills
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Formative Thesis Writing Assessment

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Gautschi, Curtis , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Milićević, Dejana , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Rapp, Christian , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Ott, Jakob , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Heierli, Jasmin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Chair: Rybicki, Jan-Mikael , Aalto University, Finland
Keywords: academic writing;AI writing;assessment;evaluation and assessment of writing competence
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Studiying writing dynamics of students of dyslexia: the DYSTRACKER setup

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Mazur, Audrey , Université de Lyon, France
Co-author: Quignard, Matthieu , CNRS, France
Co-author: Bigarnet-Bucher, Luce , Université Lumière Lyon 2, France
Co-author: Evain, Simon , Sierra Neurovision Company, France
Co-author: Rouillard, Michaël , Sierra Neurovision Company, France
Co-author: Moiroud, Lionel , Sierra Neurovision Company, France
Chair: Rybicki, Jan-Mikael , Aalto University, Finland
Keywords: eye tracking;handwriting;writing and linguistics;writing impairment
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

What linguistic changes occur in texts after an SRSD intervention?

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Cutillas, Laia , Universitat de Lleida, Spain
Co-author: Mañas-Navarrete, Iban , Universitat de Barcelona, Spain
Co-author: Lamas, Elsa Liste , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Co-author: Cuberos-Vicente, Rocío , Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
Co-author: Salas, Naymé , Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;instructional design in writing;text analysis;writing models
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Writing Assessment in Primary Education in Spanish-Speaking Contexts

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Real, Sara , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Tacuri, Héctor Loja , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Arias-Gundín, Olga , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Loja Tacuri, Héctor , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Arias-Gundín, Olga , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Chair: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Keywords: assessment;education;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;handwriting
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

#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
Keywords: assessment;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;L1;text linguistics
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: academic writing;design-based research;instructional design in writing;writing instruction
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

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

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
Keywords: feedback;Generative AI;keystroke logging;writing processes
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology
Related Symposium: Writing process feedback; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: experimental approaches;eye tracking;handwriting;writing impairment
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: case study;education;literacy;pedagogy and instruction
Domain: Educational Policy and Systems; See Session Schedule

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

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
Keywords: AI writing;design-based research;text genre;writing instruction
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

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

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
Keywords: assessment;corpus linguistics;education;evaluation and assessment of writing competence
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: academic writing;design-based research;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum;writing in the disciplines
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: assessment;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;research methodology;written language competence
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: literacy;research methodology;social and cultural aspects of writing;writing and linguistics
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

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

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
Keywords: cognitive processes;creative writing;education;keystroke logging
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: academic writing;research methodology;writing models;writing theory
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

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
Keywords: academic writing;education;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;professional writing
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: case study;intervention study;motivational and emotional factors in writing;therapeutic writing
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: learning to write;meta-analysis;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education
Related Symposium: Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: academic writing;case study;corpus linguistics;professional writing
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: developmental aspects of writing ability;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;language-specific and cross-linguistic studies;literacy
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

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

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
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;feedback;Generative AI;writing at school
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

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

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
Keywords: evaluation and assessment of writing competence;feedback;Generative AI;natural language processing (NLP)
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: AI writing;creative writing;keystroke logging data processing and analysis;writing models
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: collaborative writing;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;intervention study;writing instruction
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: assessment;writing at school;writing instruction;writing tasks
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: academic writing;Generative AI;keystroke logging;writing processes
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

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.

Trends in writing intervention research: 1930s and onwards

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Skar, Gustaf , Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Keywords: intervention study;meta-analysis;writing at school;writing instruction
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education
Related Symposium: Approaches to Writing Instruction Around the World; See Session Schedule

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.

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
Keywords: keystroke logging data processing and analysis;natural language processing (NLP);writing and linguistics;writing models
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

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.

Methods, Data & Empirical Research

Presentations

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract