Browse Presentations by Type

Browse presentations in this presentation type

Roundtable

This page shows all conference presentations with the type Roundtable.

Back to presentations overview

Presentations

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

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

Abstract

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

Encoding the Writing Process: TEI Between Research and Computational Use

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
-

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.

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

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

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.

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

Presenting author
Blomqvist, Per , Stockholm University, Sweden
Keywords
academic writing;assessment;Generative AI;writing processes
Domain
Higher Education

Abstract

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

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

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

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.

Reading and writing in flow

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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.

Career Development for Early Career Researchers

Presenting author
Aramayo, Hairenik
Presenting author
Elf, Nicolaj
Presenting author
Konstantinidou, Liana , Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Presenting author
Newton, Moira , University of Auckland and Papatoetoe West School, New Zealand
Presenting author
Pogner, Karl-Heinz , Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Presenting author
Vandermeulen, Nina , University of Antwerp, Belgium
Keywords
academic; network; outside academia; publish; research; researcher; teach; volunteer
Domain
-

Abstract

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