SIG Writing Conference 2026 – Writing Processes, Cognition & Psychology

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Assessing argumentative writing through students’ interactions with generative AI

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Villegas, Frank , Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru
Chair: Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Keywords: learning and learner characteristics;motivational and emotional factors in writing;writing at school;writing beliefs
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

The Working Memory-Writing Connection: Meta-Analytic Evidence

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

Abstract

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

THEtool: A software application for linguistic modeling of writing

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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).

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.

The handwriting movement: Linking motor processes and mastery

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Does seeing writing as changeable matter?

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Arias-Gundín, Olga , University of León, Spain
Presenting author: Lopez, Paula , University of León, Spain
Presenting author: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Co-author: Limpo, Teresa , University of Porto, Portugal
Chair: Wanka, Rebekka , Mercator-Institut (Universität zu Köln), Germany
Keywords: L1;writing at school;writing processes;writing skills
Domain: Assessment and Evaluation; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Effects of removing visual feedback on writing to learn

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Monitoring Strategies in ESL Timed Essay Writing: Insights from Ghana

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

Abstract

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

Morpheme and syllable boundaries in adult handwriting

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

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

Abstract

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

Encoding the Writing Process: TEI Between Research and Computational Use

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Investigating Emotional Trajectories of Undergraduate Writing Students via Dynamic Time Warping

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Baaijen, Veerle , CLCG University of Groningen, Netherlands
Presenting author: Johansson, Victoria , Kristianstad University, Sweden
Presenting author: Van Steendam, Elke , KU Leuven, Belgium
Presenting author: Wengelin, Åsa , University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Co-author: Young, Justin , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Keywords: AI writing;cognitive processes;Generative AI;writing theory
Domain: Motivational, Social and Affective Processes; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Quaranta, Jean-Marc , Aix-Marseille University, France
Co-author: Delannoy, Léa , Aix-Marseille University, France
Co-author: Darrak, Zahra Ed , Aix-Marseille University, France
Keywords: creative writing;handwriting;L1;writing and literature
Domain: Culture, Morality, Religion and Education
Related Symposium: In Respect of Writing: Ethical and Legal Challenges Across Writing Supports; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

Digital writing and writing motivation

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Keller, Franziska , PH FHNW, Switzerland
Presenting author: Sturm, Afra , University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland PH (FHNW), Switzerland
Chair: Haake, Lisa , Institute of Educational Science, University of Münster, Germany
Keywords: fluency;motivational and emotional factors in writing;text composition;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Learning and Social Interaction; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

Ethics and Access: Investigating Writing Processes from Manuscripts in Finland

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Bäck, Gunilla Almgren , Linnaeus University, Sweden
Presenting author: Keravec, Silvana Flütsch , University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Chair: Haake, Lisa , University of Münster, Germany
Keywords: speaking and writing;text composition;writing impairment;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Roundtable
Presenting author: Johansson, Baran , Lund University, Sweden
Co-author: Rijlaarsdam, Gert , University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Keywords: cognitive processes;L1;L2;reading and writing
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Wengelin, Åsa , University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Co-author: Kraft, Sanna , Linnaeus University, Sweden
Chair: Haake, Lisa , Institute of Educational Science, University of Münster, Germany
Keywords: spelling issues;text composition;writing impairment;writing tools and writing technology
Domain: Learning and Instructional Technology; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Silverdal, Sara , Umeå University, Sweden
Co-author: Hermansson, Carina , Stockholm University, Sweden
Chair: Grabowski, Joachim , Leibniz University, Germany
Keywords: creative writing;education;Generative AI;writing processes
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Arrimada, María , University of León, Spain
Co-author: Robledo, Patricia , University of León, Spain
Co-author: Algorri, Laura , University of León, Spain
Co-author: Díaz-Burgos, Alberto , University of León, Spain, Spain
Co-author: Algorri Diez, Laura , University of León, Spain
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: developmental aspects of writing ability;learning to write;motivational and emotional factors in writing;writing processes
Domain: Learning and Social Interaction; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Darrak, Zahra Ed , Aix-Marseille University, France
Co-author: Bouzereau, Camille , Université côte d'Azur, France
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: creative writing;text analysis;writing process data collections;writing processes
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Perspective taking and writing motivation on argumentative writing quality

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

Abstract

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

Studiying writing dynamics of students of dyslexia: the DYSTRACKER setup

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

Abstract

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

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”

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Chair: Whitehouse, Marlies , ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Keywords: attention;cognitive processes;learning to write;writing processes
Domain: Developmental Aspects of Instruction; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

Writing Assessment in Primary Education in Spanish-Speaking Contexts

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

Abstract

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

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Berner-Nayer, Simone , University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Chair: Fürstenberg, Maurice , Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Germany
Keywords: acquisition;fluency;speaking and writing;writing skills
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

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.

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Weth, Constanze , Institute for Research on Multilingualism, University of Luxembourg, France
Chair: Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Keywords: corpus linguistics;learning and learner characteristics;writing in a foreign or second language;writing models
Domain: Teaching and Teacher Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Type: Single Paper
Presenting author: Sliepenbeek, Leonie , Tilburg University, Netherlands
Co-author: van der Loo, Janneke , Tilburg University, Netherlands
Chair: Álvarez-Moreno, Carmen , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Keywords: Generative AI;L1;writing beliefs;writing processes
Domain: -; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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.

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.

Teenagers writing expository texts with and without gen-AI

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

Abstract

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

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.

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.

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Jozipović, Marija , Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, Croatia
Co-author: Lenček, Mirjana , Faculty of Education and rehabilitation Sciences (University of Zagreb), Croatia
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Keywords: acquisition;cognitive processes;developmental aspects of writing ability;language-specific and cross-linguistic studies
Domain: Cognitive Science; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

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

Writing workshop in classrooms, what for ?

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

Abstract

Writing workshops in classrooms, what for ? Dubois-Keller, L., Quaranta, J.M., Barbier, M.L. Creative writing workshops are, in principle, suitable and adaptable to all school levels (Butzek, Barbier & Quaranta, 2023). They are based on a didactic model of "spiral reading, writing, rereading, rewriting " (Oriol-Boyer, 2013), and teachers who use them report numerous cognitive and conative benefits for students, including improved writing skills, motivation, and literacy skills. However, little scientific research has been conducted on the effects of creative writing workshops in schools.This study presents a systematic literature review conducted using the PRISMA method, with the aim of identifying the possible impacts of creative writing training in a secondary school context. 681 articles were identified across eight databases in social sciences. 23 were selected for this review based on exclusion and inclusion criteria. The following were excluded: articles not dealing with the teaching of creative writing; or on its effects on cognitive, conative, or literacy skills; theoretical studies and studies dating from before 2005. The following were included: articles that offered participants, high school students, a creative writing intervention; open access articles; articles in English or French. The results showed that creative writing in general is used almost worldwide and could have beneficial effects on the cognitive skills (creativity, problem solving), conative skills (motivation, self-efficacy, agency), and literacy skills (reading, writing) of high school students. However, these effects were not always similar across the studies analyzed. It seems that creative writing is a concept that needs to be adapted to the school setting according to teachers' objectives and class level. However, studies show that the skills developed during creative writing activities are transferable to other academic texts expected in the school context. Oriol-Boyer, C. (2013). Ateliers d’écriture, quarante ans d’élaboration, Mémoires d’un parcours entre théorie et pratiques. Dans C. Oriol-Boyer & D. Bilous (dir.), Ateliers d’écriture littéraire (pp. 25-89). Paris : Hermann.Quaranta, J.-M., Barbier, M-L, & Butzek, A.-M. (2023). écriture créative et formation, In N. Bonnardel, F. Girandola, E. Bonetto & T. Lubart (Eds.). La Créativité en Situations : Théories et applications (pp. 285-294). Paris : Dunod.

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

Type: Poster Presentation
Presenting author: Taha, Juhayna , University College London, United Kingdom
Co-author: Salloum, Shada , Birzeit University, Palestine
Co-author: Dockrell, Julie , Institute of Education, United Kingdom
Chair: Weder, Mirjam , University of Basel, Switzerland
Keywords: language-specific and cross-linguistic studies;spelling issues;writing for specific needs;writing impairment
Domain: Learning and Special Education; See Session Schedule

Abstract

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

Writing Processes, Cognition & Psychology

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