SIG Writing Conference 2026 – Teaching, Instruction & Writing Pedagogy

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Michels, Viktoria , TU Chemnitz, Germany
Chair: Fitjar, Camilla , University of Stavanger, Norway
Keywords: intervention study;text composition;writing instruction;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Promoting digital text production competences in primary education

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Heller, Kathrin , University of Education Karlsruhe, Germany
Co-author: Anskeit, Nadine , University of Education Karlsruhe, Germany
Chair: Gerth, Sabrina , University College of Teacher Education Tyrol, Austria
Keywords: instructional design in writing;intervention study;on-line writing and digital media;writing at school
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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.

Chinese Students’ Implicit Beliefs about Writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Galbraith, David , University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Co-author: Hao, Jiachen , University of Southampton, China
Chair: Knoph, Rebecca , University of Oslo, Norway
Keywords: education;L1;writing beliefs;writing to learn
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Enhancing academic writing through Systemic Functional Genre Pedagogy in Higher Education

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Yegblemenawo, Stella Afi Makafui , Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Co-author: ISSAKA, MOHAMMED , UVIVERSITY OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Ghana
Co-author: DEBRAH, CECILIA OWUSU , University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana
Chair: Torkildsen, Janne von Koss , University of Oslo, Norway
Keywords: academic writing;L2;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Mendoza, Laura , University of Helsinki, Finland
Co-author: Kleemola, Katri , University of Helsinki, Finland
Chair: Knoph, Rebecca , University of Oslo, Norway
Keywords: academic writing;L1;L2;motivational and emotional factors in writing
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Self-feedback scaffolding through AI in online writing tasks

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

Abstract

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

Student teachers’ self efficacy for academic writing

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Co-author: Magnusson, Petra , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Co-author: Persson, Jenny , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Chair: Knoph, Rebecca , University of Oslo, Norway
Keywords: academic writing;motivational and emotional factors in writing;proficiency;writing skills
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Teaching Reasoning in Argumentative Writing through Explicit Heuristics

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

Abstract

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

University students’ reflections on academic writing with genAI

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

Abstract

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

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.

An Innovative Strategy for Improving Undergraduate Low Writing Fluency

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

Abstract

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

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

Effects of removing visual feedback on writing to learn

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Outerbridge, Sierra , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Taub, Michelle , University of Central Florida, United States
Co-author: Schneier, Joel , University of Central Florida, United States
Chair: Mahlow, Cerstin , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
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.

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Kruse, Otto , 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, Germany
Keywords: academic writing;AI writing;cognitive processes;Generative AI
Domain: -
Related Symposium: Accessing the Epistemological Side of Writing: A Prolegomenon to the Era of AI; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Symposium
Chair: Kruse, Otto , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Organiser: Milićević, Dejana , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Discussant: Schnatz, Nina Isabella , Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), Switzerland
Keywords: academic writing;AI writing;corpus linguistics;Generative AI
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology
Related Symposium: Accessing the Epistemological Side of Writing: A Prolegomenon to the Era of AI; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Corpus Linguistic Methods

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Osenova, Petya , Institute of Information and Communication Technologies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Co-author: Paev, Nikolay , Institute of Information and Communication Technologies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Co-author: Chitez, Madalina , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Keywords: academic writing;corpus linguistics;reading and writing;writing and linguistics
Domain: -
Related Symposium: Accessing the Epistemological Side of Writing: A Prolegomenon to the Era of AI; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Co-author: Ankersborg, Vibeke , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Chair: Van Waes, Luuk , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Keywords: academic writing;literacy;social and cultural aspects of writing;text genre
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Ansah, Alberta Dansoah Nyarko , University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana
Co-author: Lomotey, Charlotte Fofo , University of Education Winneba, Ghana
Co-author: Giera, Winnie-Karen , University of Potsdam, Germany
Chair: Van Waes, Luuk , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Keywords: academic writing;EFL and ESL writing;social and cultural aspects of writing;text analysis
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Chair: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Keywords: cognitive processes;instructional design in writing;intervention study;pedagogy and instruction
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Martínez Arce, Marcia Elena , Universidad San Sebastián, Chile
Co-author: Banales, Gerardo , Universidad Andres Bello, Chile
Co-author: Ortiz, Marcelo , Universidad Andrés Bello, Chile
Co-author: Torres, Maria Lidia , Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile
Chair: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Keywords: instructional design in writing;intervention study;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Jeffery, Jill , Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Netherlands
Co-author: Sturk, Erika , Umeå University, Sweden
Chair: Rønneberg, Vibeke , University of Stavanger, Norway
Keywords: education;pedagogy and instruction;writing instruction;writing theory
Domain: Educational Policy and Systems; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Büttgen, Katrin , Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands
Co-author: Gruwel, Saskia Brand - , Maastricht University, Netherlands
Co-author: Pluymaekers, Mark , Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands
Chair: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Keywords: AI writing;cognitive processes;pedagogy and instruction;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Chair: Conijn, Rianne , Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
Keywords: AI writing;professional writing;text analysis;writing in workplace settings
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

The Limits of Generic Academic Writing Instruction in Technical Universities

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Addo-Danquah, Rosemary gifty , Kumasi Technical University, Ghana
Co-author: Giera, Winnie-Karen , Universität Potsdam, Germany
Co-author: Lomotey, Charlotte Fofo , university of Education Winneba, Ghana
Chair: Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Keywords: instructional design in writing;pedagogy and instruction;text analysis;writing for specific needs
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

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 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.

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Miftah, Hamza , Université Clermont Auvergne, France
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: academic writing;Generative AI;writing processes;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Baniceru, Ana Cristina , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Presenting author: Doroholschi, Claudia Ioana , West University of Timisoara, Romania, Romania
Co-author: Dinca, Andreea , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Co-author: Rogobete, Roxana , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Co-author: Chitez, Madalina , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Chair: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Keywords: academic writing;education;Generative AI;pedagogy and instruction
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Baniceru, Ana Cristina , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Presenting author: Doroholschi, Claudia Ioana , West University of Timisoara, Romania, Romania
Presenting author: Ene, Estela , Indiana University, United States
Co-author: Dinca, Andreea , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Co-author: Chitez, Madalina , West University of Timisoara, Romania
Chair: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Keywords: academic writing;education;EFL and ESL writing;social and cultural aspects of writing
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

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

Type: Demonstration Session
Presenting author: Rakedzon, Tzipora , Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Co-author: Haddad-Najjar, Laila , Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Chair: Rybicki, Jan-Mikael , Aalto University, Finland
Keywords: academic writing;AI writing;EFL and ESL writing;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

The Emergence of Orthographic Revision in Early Writing

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Lopez, Paula , University of León, Spain
Presenting author: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Peña, Lorena , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Fernández, Sandra , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Arias-Gundín, Olga , University of León, Spain
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: developmental aspects of writing ability;errors and error correction;L1;writing processes
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Gerth, Sabrina , University College of Teacher Education Tyrol, Austria
Chair: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Keywords: education;handwriting;pedagogy and instruction;writing skills
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

What 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 Fluency Always Matters, No Matter the Writing Technology

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Furer, Yves , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Co-author: Kolovou, Dimitra , University of Teacher Education of the Grisons, Switzerland
Co-author: Berger, Stéphanie , Institute for Educational Evaluation, Switzerland
Co-author: Philipp, Maik , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: errors and error correction;fluency;handwriting;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Writing to learn in the new A(I)ge

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Staats, Julia , University Utrecht, Netherlands
Chair: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Keywords: academic writing;education;Generative AI;writing to learn
Domain: Higher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: van Drie, Jannet , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Holdinga, Lieke , Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands
Chair: Arrimada, María , University of León, Spain
Keywords: L1;literacy;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum;writing in the disciplines
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

Reading and writing in flow

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Peze, Anouk ten , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: van Weijen, Daphne , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Co-author: Rijlaarsdam, Gert , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Keywords: creative writing;education;instructional design in writing;reading and writing
Domain: Instructional Design; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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 process feedback

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

Collaborative Writing Processes in Science Education

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

Abstract

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

Cooperative Writing: Perspectives from Three Intervention Studies

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

Abstract

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

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.

Does hybrid feedback foster L2 writing development?

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: De Clercq, Orphee , Ghent University, Belgium
Presenting author: Özturan, Tuba , Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Türkiye
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Keywords: EFL and ESL writing;feedback;Generative AI;natural language processing (NLP)
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Examining Writing and Reasoning in Dutch History Textbook Questions

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

Abstract

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

From 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.

From research to classroom: Implementing evidence-based writing practices

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Vettori, Giulia , University of Florence, Italy
Co-author: Dockrell, Julie , Institute of Education, United Kingdom
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Keywords: developmental aspects of writing ability;literacy;pedagogy and instruction;reading and writing
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Peer Feedback and Text Evaluation

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

Abstract

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

Perspectives on writing curricula implementation: Insights from an international survey

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Debrah, Cecilia Owusu , University of Energy and Natural Resources, Ghana
Co-author: Yegblemenawo, Stella Afi Makafui , Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
Chair: Keller, Stefan , Zurich University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Keywords: academic writing;AI writing;intervention study;L2
Domain: Developmental Aspects of Instruction; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

Teaching writing in primary school: Future teachers’ conceptions

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Katanneck, Stanislav , Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium
Chair: Perrin, Daniel , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: AI writing;feedback;Generative AI;L2
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

Typing Instruction: Teachers’ Professional Competence and Instructional Practices

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Lindauer, Nadja , School for Teacher Education, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Switzerland
Presenting author: Schüler, Lisa , Universität Bielefeld, Germany
Chair: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Keywords: proficiency;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum;writing instruction;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Using writing for memorising: pen vs. mobile phone

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Breuer, Esther , Universität zu Köln, Germany
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Keywords: acquisition;cognitive processes;EFL and ESL writing;writing to learn
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Teaching, Instruction & Writing Pedagogy

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