Single Paper Session 26

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

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

Keywords
Generative AI;L1;writing beliefs;writing processes
Domain
-

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.

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

Keywords
academic writing;Generative AI;keystroke logging;writing processes
Domain
Higher Education

Abstract

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

Typing Instruction: Teachers’ Professional Competence and Instructional Practices

Keywords
proficiency;writing across disciplines or across the curriculum;writing instruction;writing tools and writing technology
Domain
Teaching and Teacher Education

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.