Single Paper

This page shows all conference presentations with the type Single Paper.

Presentations

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

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

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

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.

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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.

Promoting digital text production competences in primary education

Abstract

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

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

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

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.

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

Abstract

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

Teaching narrative writing in grade 2: first findings from FiSBY

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

The Working Memory-Writing Connection: Meta-Analytic Evidence

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.

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Enhancing academic writing through Systemic Functional Genre Pedagogy in Higher Education

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Self-feedback scaffolding through AI in online writing tasks

Abstract

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

Student teachers’ self efficacy for academic writing

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

Teaching Reasoning in Argumentative Writing through Explicit Heuristics

Abstract

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

The handwriting movement: Linking motor processes and mastery

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.

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

Abstract

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

An Innovative Strategy for Improving Undergraduate Low Writing Fluency

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.

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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?

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

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).

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

Abstract

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

Effects of removing visual feedback on writing to learn

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

Abstract

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

Eye-tracking recursivity in reading-writing integrated continuation tasks

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Modelling the Subskills of Writing in Instructional Texts

Abstract

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

Monitoring Strategies in ESL Timed Essay Writing: Insights from Ghana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Abstract

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

Corpus Linguistic Methods

Abstract

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

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

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.

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

Abstract

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

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

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.

Implementing AI in a multilingual newsroom: The role of ethics and creativity

Abstract

Based on research with Laura Delaloye, University of Lausanne & Yulia Kukles, University of Fribourg
Writing tools and practices have developed together, influencing each other on material, cognitive, and social levels. In this co-evolution, the latest landmark is artificial intelligence (AI). AI has disrupted the professions focussing on text mediation, such as translation and interpreting. Now, AI is about to disrupt the professions focused on authoring text, such as journalism (Haapanen & Perrin 2024). In my presentation, I look into how a media company tackles this challenge, with a particular focus on ethics and creativity.
Drawing on document analyses of guidelines for the use of AI in newsrooms and on exploratory findings from progression analyses (Perrin, 2026), I identify and systematize ethical concerns raised and creative solutions explored. Comparing our findings with those from meta-analyses of studies on AI in the newsroom (e.g., Schaetz & Schjott 2025), I locate white spots and avenues of research-based organizational development of media which aim at navigating the storm in ways considered responsible and creative by themselves and their stakeholders.
Findings include a landscape of to-dos, organized into four layers of tools environments (Wasserman et al. 2009): a) instrumental – handling and understanding AI tools; b) operational – using the tools to get and have things done; c) economical – following and setting pace in competition; and d) societal – respecting and developing norms and ethics at the interfaces of the profession of journalism, text production research, and society-at-large. I conclude by highlighting some parallels between doing journalistic writing and doing research on it in an AI-shaped world.
Haapanen, Lauri, & Perrin, Daniel. (2024). Embracing the unexpected. Exploring the role of serendipity in newswriting. Discourse & Communication, 19(1), 25–45.
Perrin, Daniel. (2026). Visualising real-world writing processes with Progression Analysis. In Christophe Leblay, Gilles Caporossi, & Hakim A. Usoof (Eds.), An introduction to data visualisation of the writing process (pp. 178–192): Brill.
Schaetz, Nadja, & Schjott, Anna. (2026). AI hype and its function. An ethnographic study of the local news AI initiative of the Associated Press. Digital Journalism, 14(2), 220–237.
Wasserman, Jason Adam, Clair, Jeffrey Michael, & Wilson, Kenneth L. (2009). Problematics of grounded theory. Innovations for developing an increasingly rigorous qualitative method. Qualitative Research, 9(3), 355–381.

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

Abstract

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

Investigating Emotional Trajectories of Undergraduate Writing Students via Dynamic Time Warping

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

Strong but Not Static: Reading-Writing Connections in Primary Grades

Abstract

Strong but Not Static: Reading-Writing Connections in Primary Grades Aim: This study examines the relations between reading comprehension and written composition and the predictors of these relations, using longitudinal data from U.S. primary grade children.Theoretical Framework: The Interactive Literacy Model (Kim, 2020, 2025) posits that reading and writing are related through shared underlying skills (shared skills hypothesis). However, the magnitude of this relation is not fixed; rather, it varies as a function of multiple factors (dynamic relations hypothesis). We investigated three research questions: (1) What is the relation between reading comprehension and writing quality? (2) Does this relation vary by grade level (a proxy for development)? (3) What shared predictors explain reading comprehension and writing quality?Methods: We analyzed longitudinal data from 263 children across grades 1 and 2. Reading comprehension and written composition were assessed using multiple tasks. Shared predictors included oral discourse skills and lexical literacy skills (word reading and spelling), also measured by multiple tasks.Findings: Reading comprehension and writing quality were strongly related across grade levels, though the correlation was stronger in grade 1 (.81) than grade 2 (.70), supporting the dynamic relations hypothesis. Both oral discourse skills and lexical literacy skills explained the reading-writing relation. Furthermore, the relative contributions of these predictors to reading comprehension and writing quality differed between grades 1 and 2.Relevance: Writing is not an isolated skill. Many writing tasks involve reading source materials, and effective revision requires reading proficiency. Understanding the nature of reading-writing relations has important implications for both writing theory development and instructional practice. This study contributes empirical evidence for the dynamic nature of literacy connections during early development.Keywords: Reading-writing relations, shared skills, dynamic relations, interactive dynamic literacy model ReferencesKim, Y.-S. G. (2020). Interactive dynamic literacy model: An integrative theoretical framework for reading and writing relations. In R. Alves, T. Limpo, & M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading-writing connections: Towards integrative literacy science (pp. 11-34). Springer.Kim, Y.-S. G. (2025). The science of reading-writing connections. In C. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The Handbook of Writing Research, 3rd Edition (pp. 109-124). Guilford Press.

The linguistic impacts of generative AI on L2 writing output

Abstract

In recent years, research on generative AI (GenAI) and its use for language learning has proliferated, highlighting affordances of the tools, while remaining conscious of potential limitations (Warschauer et al., 2023). Previous work on the use of GenAI tools for L2 English writing has explored the roles ChatGPT can fulfil by employing mainly (quasi-)experimental designs where AI training was provided (e.g. Fang & Han, 2025). However, there is a lack of work focusing on preexisting GenAI usage patterns in EFL students and their effect on L2 writing outcomes. While previous studies focus on the role of GenAI and its potentials, the impacts of such tools on linguistic factors, specifically in synthesis writing, remain underexplored (Yoo, 2025). This study aims to broaden our understanding of students’ preexisting GenAI practices and their impacts on synthesis writing. Participants in this cross-sectional study will complete a synthesis writing task twice (with and without GenAI). Screen recordings, semi-structured interviews, and measures of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) will be used to analyze their practices, engagement, and language. We expect to find improved performance on the GenAI-assisted task, potentially dependent on the methodical use of GenAI throughout the process, leading to more complex, accurate, and fluent texts. Theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study will also be discussed during the presentation. Keywords: GenAI, EFL learning, L2 writing development, CAF References Fang, S., & Han, Z. H. (2025). On the nascency of ChatGPT in foreign language teaching and learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 253-273. Warschauer, M., Tseng, W., Yim, S., Webster, T., Jacob. S, Du, Q., Tate, T. (2023). The affordances and contradictions of AI-generated text for writers of English as a second or foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing 62, Article 101071. Yoo J. (2025). Reading-Writing Connections: A Systematic Review of Second Language Synthesis Writing. L2 Journal: An Open Access refereed Journal for World Language Educators, 17(1), 1-55.

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

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

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

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?

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

Digital writing and writing motivation

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.

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

Learning to write in grade 4: Support with didactic writing tasks

Abstract

Tasks are the didactic core of learning arrangements. For written assignments in primary school, it is particularly important to discuss solutions and approaches to solving them (Vode 2023). In written argumentation, this allows peers to be brought into the writing situation, which would otherwise be missing in a monological structure in written instruction . This makes the content and linguistic expectations transparent for all learners, which is necessary for effective feedback (Busse, V., Graham, S. & van Keer, H. 2024). School writing requires academic language which in turn must be learned in all areas. Cohesive devices are particularly challenging in this regard, as they clarify and unambiguise logical relationships within and between parts of sentences in texts (Domenech, M. & Mundt, E. 2024). These are special learning tasks for primary school students.As part of this elaboration project, the influence of oral task introduction on cohesion building in fourth-grade pupils' texts (n = 38) was investigated. For this purpose, the learning groups were given oral task introductions of varying scope and length for an otherwise uniform argumentative writing task. The design of the task and the task introductions were based on the principles of the task profile concept, scaffolding (Gibbons 2002) and the SRSD approach (Harris & Graham 1996).The text products were analyzed offline using a custom-made script and natural language processing via the Stanza Library of the Stanford NLP Group with regard to their cohesion devices.The evaluation of the categories (connectors; subordinate clauses per sentence; number of repeated lemmas and pronouns; overall cohesion), it was observed that students with the more comprehensive task introduction wrote significantly longer texts (mean number of words = 79.23 vs. mean number of words = 106.06 with p = 0.022) and, overall, used more cohesive devices per word (p = 0.032; Cohen's d = -0.648 (Hₐ: μ1 < μ2)). It is noteworthy that subordinate conjunctions and comparative particles were used more frequently by students who received the shorter introduction.For teaching practice, this means that even a structured introduction to a writing task lasting 5 to 10 minutes can have a measurable effect on students' texts.

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

Abstract

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

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

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

The influence of early oral language on later narrative and expository writing in primary school

Abstract

Oral language underpins the development of subsequent literacy skills, yet longitudinal studies that investigate how children’s oral language contributes to later writing performance are rare. Further, it remains unclear whether the influence of oral language is uniform across writing genres. The aim of this study was to examine how vocabulary, grammar, and narrative skills shape later writing development, and specifically whether oral language exerts distinct effects on narrative and expository writing. We report data following a cohort of monolingual English-speaking children (N = 62; 24 males) for four years from school entry. Oral language skills (vocabulary, grammar and narrative skills) were initially assessed at school entry (authors published). Spelling, handwriting, reading and writing were assessed 18 months later (Time 2) (authors in press). In this presentation we report on participants’ writing skills assessed a further 30 months later (Time 3: final age of participants 8-10 years) using two writing tasks - one narrative and one expository prompt. Writing products were assessed for productivity, accuracy and text quality. The impact of predictive and concurrent dimensions of oral language on written compositions were examined for both writing genres. Productivity and scores of text quality were significantly higher for the narrative writing task, with large effect sizes. By contrast, no differences were found for spelling accuracy and handwriting legibility in the two writing genres. Associations between oral language measures and writing productivity and quality also differed by writing task. Clarifying the mechanisms linking early oral language to later written expression in different genres is critical for theory development and has practical relevance for classroom instruction.

The Limits of Generic Academic Writing Instruction in Technical Universities

Abstract

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

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

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.

Writing Quality on a LEGO-Based Procedural Writing Task: Gender Differences in Analytic Traits

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Young writers demonstrate substantial potential for composing texts, and measures of cognitive capacity related to writing show no gender differences (Bourke & Adams, 2012). Despite this, boys often report lower motivation for school-based writing and greater difficulty with transcription and text production (Olinghouse, 2008), and girls consistently outperform boys on writing assessments (Kim, 2017). These differences may be partly genre- and topic-related, as girls more often prefer narrative texts and boys factual or expository materials (McGeown, 2016). This study therefore examined gender differences in writing quality on a hands-on procedural task designed to broaden engagement and explicitly specify audience and purpose.METHODS: Seventy Norwegian sixth-grade students viewed an image of a six-piece LEGO figure and wrote instructions so a peer could rebuild the figure without the image. Texts were then rated using the six subdimensions of the 6+1 Traits framework (Culham, 2003).RESULTS: Girls outperformed boys on all dimensions except Word Choice, with the most robust gender difference observed for Voice (Hedges’ g=0.83). Smaller but underpowered gender differences were observed for remaining traits (0.15-0.48). All subscores were strongly correlated with total score (rs=.67-.94), and the correlational structure was equivalent between genders. Girls produced longer texts than boys (d = 0.48), and word count was moderately related to writing quality (rs=.38-.64). Adjusting for word count partially attenuated gender differences (38-71%), though controlling for word count may remove substantively meaningful variance, as word count likely reflects underlying differences in fluency and task engagement.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, gender differences in writing persisted even on the hands-on task designed to broaden engagement. Specifically, girls continued to outperform boys in expressive voice even after adjusting for word count, suggesting that while engaging task design is important, it may be insufficient to reduce gender differences in writing quality and potentially a focus on expressive voice for instruction, particularly for boys.REFERENCES:Bourke, L., & Adams, A.-M. (2012). Educational and Child Psychology, https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2003.20.3.19.Culham, R. (2003). Scholastic Publishing, ISBN-10: 0439280389Kim, Y.-S. G. (2017). Reading and Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9719-6.McGeown, S. P. (2016). Journal of Research in Reading, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12055. Olinghouse, N. G. (2008). Reading and Writing, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9062-1.

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Examining Stakeholders’ Perspectives on Literacy Plan Development

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

Monitoring Rater-reliability in Decentralized Organizations

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

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

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

Collaborative Writing Processes in Science Education

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.

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

Abstract

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

Literary Writing Process Modeling: across manuscript drafts and digital traces

Abstract

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

Peer Feedback and Text Evaluation

Abstract

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

Perspectives on writing curricula implementation: Insights from an international survey

Abstract

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

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

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

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.

Teenagers writing expository texts with and without gen-AI

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.

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

Abstract

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

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

Abstract

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

Trends in writing intervention research: 1930s and onwards

Abstract

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

Typing Instruction: Teachers’ Professional Competence and Instructional Practices

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.

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

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

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

Abstract

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