- Type
- Single Paper
- Time
- 15:30 - 17:00
- Room
- SM O1.08 (Lecture Room)
Session Information
This page shows the session details and the presentations assigned to this session.
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.
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
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.