Single Paper Session 28

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

An Innovative Strategy for Improving Undergraduate Low Writing Fluency

Keywords
cognitive processes;fluency;intervention study;writing instruction
Domain
Cognitive Science

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.

Does seeing writing as changeable matter?

Presenting author
Kraft, Sanna , Linnaeus University, Sweden
Keywords
cognitive processes;experimental approaches;keystroke logging;writing beliefs
Domain
Learning and Special Education

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.

Writing deceit: The influence of veracity on writing processes in personal narratives

Keywords
cognitive processes;eye tracking;keystroke logging;writing and linguistics
Domain
Cognitive Science

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.