Poster Presentation 2

Session Page

Session Information

This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.

Back to programme overview
Add this session to calendar

Assessing Digital Multimodal Composing in L2 Writing: A Scoping Review

Presenting author
Yu, Nan , Beijing Normal University, China
Keywords
assessment;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;multimodality;writing in a foreign or second language
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

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

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

Keywords
evaluation and assessment of writing competence;fluency;handwriting;writing at school
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

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

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

Keywords
developmental aspects of writing ability;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;fluency;writing processes
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

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

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

Keywords
fluency;keystroke logging;proficiency;writing in a foreign or second language
Domain
Cognitive Science

Abstract

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

Perspective taking and writing motivation on argumentative writing quality

Keywords
evaluation and assessment of writing competence;motivational and emotional factors in writing;writing at school;writing skills
Domain
Motivational, Social and Affective Processes

Abstract

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

What linguistic changes occur in texts after an SRSD intervention?

Keywords
evaluation and assessment of writing competence;instructional design in writing;text analysis;writing models
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

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

Writing Fluency Always Matters, No Matter the Writing Technology

Keywords
errors and error correction;fluency;handwriting;writing tools and writing technology
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

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

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

Keywords
acquisition;fluency;speaking and writing;writing skills
Domain
Teaching and Teacher Education

Abstract

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