Single Paper Session 10

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

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

Keywords
AI writing;cognitive processes;pedagogy and instruction;writing tools and writing technology
Domain
Learning and Instructional Technology

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.

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

Keywords
AI writing;professional writing;text analysis;writing in workplace settings
Domain
-

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

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

Keywords
AI writing;case study;pedagogy and instruction;social and cultural aspects of writing
Domain
Learning and Instructional Technology

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.