Poster Presentation 3

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

AI and I: A rhizomatic analysis of writing processes with AI tools

Keywords
creative writing;education;Generative AI;writing processes
Domain
Teaching and Teacher Education

Abstract

AI and I: A rhizomatic analysis of writing processes with AI toolsSara Silverdal, Umeå University and Carina Hermansson, Stockholm UniversityAs writing practices continually co-evolve with societal and technological change, the emergence of generative AI poses new challenges and opportunities for schools and students. This paper investigates how relationships between student writers and AI technologies are enacted during the writing process, and how these relationships reshape notions of authorship, agency, and textual production. Drawing on a socio-material framework and specifically employing a rhizomatic analytic approach (Mac Lure, 2013; Alvermann 2000), the study maps the assemblages that emerge when upper-secondary students in Sweden compose short stories with access to AI tools.The empirical material consists of 24 filmed writing sessions capturing students’ screens, facial expressions, and part of their intra-actions in the room. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six students - one group interview with four participants and two individual interviews. The paper focuses in depth on three exemplifying student cases to trace divergent pathways of becoming-with AI during writing.Initial findings reveal markedly different orientations toward AI: one student delegates much of the writing to the AI; another engages in iterative, reciprocal intra-actions with AI; and a third takes a critical stance refusing to use AI at all. Across these cases, authorship emerges as fluid and negotiable, shaped by the dynamic entanglements between students, tools, and texts. The analysis also highlights how critical thinking and reading of the AI generated products appears as a valuable asset to be able to work with these tools and interpret their responses.The study contributes to writing research by providing an empirically grounded account of how generative AI reshapes writing processes and writer identities. For pedagogy, the findings highlight the need to equip both teachers and students with critical, transparent, and equitable practices for working with AI tools. Such preparation is essential to ensure that AI becomes a resource for inclusive learning rather than a source of stratification in students’ writing development. Keywords:Writing process, creative writing, generative AI, upper secondary education

Genre awareness in Dutch L1 writing education

Keywords
acquisition;education;L1;text genre
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

Genre awareness in Dutch L1 writing educationJan van Gulik, Renske Bouwer, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Erwin Mantingh & Ninke StukkerContemporary approaches to genre education often put an emphasis on genre-specific writing schemes, lists of rules that texts from a specific genre adhere to (Devitt, 2004; Johns, 2008). However, such schemes suggest to students that there is only one way to write a text. Another limitation of implementing genre education through prescriptive schemes is that students only learn to write in a limited number of genres.An alternative approach is to invest in a more general genre awareness. This provides students with a metalanguage for interpreting unfamiliar genres and variations of familiar genres (Devitt, 2004; Tardy et al., 2020). However, we know little about the extent to which genre awareness is already addressed in the current Dutch L1 curriculum. The new core objectives for Dutch, for example, seem to require more genre knowledge than before. Therefore, we examine how these core objectives and Dutch course materials for pre-vocational secondary education address genres. In this material analysis, we examined for each language domain (reading, speaking, and writing):• which terms are used for genres (e.g., text forms and text types)• which specific example genres (e.g., reviews) are mentioned• which genre characteristics (e.g., content) are addressed.Results show that both materials contain useful ingredients for fostering students’ genre awareness, but that a more integrative approach is needed, as different aspects of genre theory are scattered across language domains. In the writing domain, connections between the communicative purpose and conventions of genres are addressed. However, a discussion of the communicative context of genres (e.g. relationship between language users) remains underexposed. Furthermore, the core objectives address both common, popular genres and macro-genres (such as persuasive texts), while course materials focus on the latter in the writing domain.We discuss implications for improving course materials, and for successful implementation of genre pedagogy in the Dutch context.BibliographyDevitt, A. (2004). Writing Genres. Southern Illinois University Press.Johns, A. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 235-252.Tardy, C. et al. (2020). Teaching and researching genre knowledge. Written Communication, 37(3), 287-321.

Institutional policies on generative AI in BA thesis writing: Evidence from Romanian universities

Keywords
academic writing;education;Generative AI;pedagogy and instruction
Domain
Learning and Instructional Technology

Abstract

LLMs have changed educational practices in universities across the world. This impact might be even greater in the case of bachelor theses, often written by less experienced students who might need more support with writing and might resort to LLMs to provide it. Universities have responded by creating policy frameworks that set the limits of permitted and disallowed uses of generative AI (e.g., Jin et al., 2025). Not all institutions, however, have been equally quick to respond to these challenges. In Romania, many universities have preferred to wait for models of action to become available from leading international institutions or official boards and have not yet articulated clear AI-related policies, which often leaves students and supervisors without clear guidance about how AI may be used in bachelor theses.In the present study, we analyse data from questionnaires and interviews, as well as publicly available policy documents from universities in the country to answer the following questions: Do Romanian higher education institutions have AI-related policies, and when were they implemented? Do these policies include specific provisions regarding Bachelor theses? Are students and supervisors aware of the existence of such policies, and do they integrate them in their work? Our findings show that, to date, not many Romanian universities have explicit policies regarding the use of AI. When they do exist, these often include only limited sections dedicated to the use of AI and few offer practical guidance on how to use AI in an ethical manner. By contrast, respondents to the interviews and questionnaires emphasize the need for institutional policies and for a consistent approach to the use of AI tools. Finally, we problematize this tension between the expressed needs of the academic communities and what the educational system currently provides, and make recommendations for the development of practical, discipline-sensitive guidance to support students’responsible use of AI in university contexts.Jin, Y., Yan, L., Echeverria, V., Gašević, D., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2025). Generative AI in higher education: A global perspective of institutional adoption policies and guidelines. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100348

Negotiating Rhetorical Traditions in Post-Communist Romania: A Collaborative Autoethnography

Keywords
academic writing;education;EFL and ESL writing;social and cultural aspects of writing
Domain
Higher Education

Abstract

Teaching and researching writing are situated within specific socio-economical contexts, and pedagogical decisions made by writing teachers are embedded both in diverse rhetorical traditions and broader historical, ideological and institutional structures (Street, 1995). Teachers’ own literacy trajectories move across institutional, discoursal and power structures, and, like their students, teachers have developed as writers by using a varied repertoire of strategies and discourses to negotiate different contexts and identities. In this study, we use collaborative autoethnography to investigate the literacy trajectories of five writing teacher-researchers. Collaborative autoethnography brings researchers together to generate, interpret, and analyze autoethnographic data (Chang et al., 2004) and thus helps access the relationship between individual experience and the broader socio-historical contexts in more depth. The participants are five Romanian-born academics with very different professional trajectories who have all studied in Romania but then worked and researched across different contexts. We worked collaboratively to generate autoethnographic data, reflecting on the most important turning points in our evolution as academic writers, researchers and teachers, and on our understanding of our positions as writing teachers and researchers within our institutions, but also within the broader international context. We next analysed the autoethnographic data, first individually and then in collective meetings, identifying commonalities and contrasts across our trajectories and identifying common themes. The themes identified speak to how we see ourselves as Romanian academics researching and teaching English in an Anglo-Centric environment, how we have adapted, adopted or transcended the multiple rhetorical traditions we have been exposed to, and how the way we negotiated these tensions shapes our teaching. Finally, we consider the broader implications of these examples of researcher-teachers’ trajectories and their impact on pedagogical practice. Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F. W., & Hernandez, K.-A. C. (2016). Collaborative autoethnography. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315432137Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844282

Understanding and Assessing Effective Note-Taking with a Digital Pen in Middle School

Keywords
education;handwriting;pedagogy and instruction;writing skills
Domain
Teaching and Teacher Education

Abstract

Handwriting requires the interaction of language, cognition, and motor skills (Odersky, 2018). Once motor skills as a lower-level process have been acquired, additional resources become available in the areas of cognition and language (Speck-Hamdan et al., 2016). These higher-level processes are for instance reflected in the quality of handwritten notes and personal thoughts.Note-taking is an effective strategy to support learning in the classroom. Different forms of handwritten notes exist: Linear notes include outlining and the sentence method (writing one sentence for each topic). Non-linear forms of notes include tables, mind maps, Cornell notes, SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review), and guided notes, in which students are provided with an external framework with headings, guiding questions, or important key terms. Not only is note-taking an important skill, but reviewing and learning with notes also correlates with test performance (Kiewra et al., 1991). Studies in secondary education revealed that writing speed correlates with the quality of notes (Graham et al., 1997). Writing instruction in primary education (legibility) is related to the length and quality of notes in advanced school careers (Berninger et al., 1997; Graham et al., 2000). Peverly et al. (2007) investigated which cognitive skills contribute to high-quality note-taking. The results show that writing fluency was the only predictor of the quality of the notes. We will present a project in one middle school class (n=25) over three years (start October 2025). The students use a digital pen during note-taking. The teachers will instruct different types of note-taking in class, while the researchers will evaluate the quality of notes, legibility and the performance correlation. The teachers involved in the project can enhance their professional skills by reflecting on their instructional methods in a cooperative team with the researchers. This leads to transparent lesson planning and didactic self-reflection. Additionally, we will annually conduct partially structured interviews with the students. The poster will present the research design and preliminary results of the first year.

What Does My Reader Need? Audience Awareness in Sixth-Graders’ Written LEGO Instructions

Keywords
education;writing at school;writing skills;writing tasks
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

Purpose: Audience awareness is central to effective writing, requiring writers to anticipate readers’ needs and misunderstandings (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Hayes, 2012). Failures to support and consider readers have contributed to catastrophic consequences, including fatal radiation explosions linked to technical instructions that failed to anticipate user interpretation (Leveson & Turner, 1993). This study examines how Norwegian sixth-grade students demonstrate audience awareness through reader supports when writing LEGO-based procedural texts for real readers (though low-stakes), and whether these demonstrations differ by writer gender.Method: Seventy sixth-grade students wrote instructions for a specific peer to build a six-piece LEGO figure using only the written instructions, ensuring genuine communication. Three researchers independently coded texts for reader supports indicating audience awareness using a deductively-developed, inductively-refined rubric with seven categories: reader connection, adaptation, emphasis, sequential markers, figurative language, goals, and action support. Patterns of reader support use were compared by author gender using frequency counts and qualitative examples.Results: Sixth-grade writers demonstrated audience awareness in procedural writing. Sequence markers were almost always present, and action support appeared in over half of essays, whereas reader-oriented supports (e.g., reader connection and goal orientation) appeared in only about one third. Girls produced substantially more reader supports than boys, with more than four times as many reader connection instances and twice as many adaptation, action support, and goal orientation instances. Discussion: Authentic, hands-on writing tasks can elicit clear demonstrations of audience awareness through reader supports, even in relatively short procedural texts (approximately 100 words). Despite the task being designed to align with boys’ LEGO-building interests and spatial reasoning strengths, girls more consistently and flexibly supported their readers. These findings suggest gender differences in how young writers conceptualize and enact audience awareness, underscoring the need for instructional approaches that explicitly support students in anticipating and responding to readers’ needs.ReferencesBereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260Leveson, N. G., & Turner, C. S. (1993). An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents. Computer, 26(7), 18–41.https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1993.274940

Writing Assessment in Primary Education in Spanish-Speaking Contexts

Presenting author
Real, Sara , Universidad de Leon, Spain
Keywords
assessment;education;evaluation and assessment of writing competence;handwriting
Domain
Assessment and Evaluation

Abstract

Writing Assessment in Primary Education in Spanish-Speaking Contexts: A Systematic Review of Instruments and Tasks Writing is a core component of school literacy and a strong predictor of academic success; however, its assessment has traditionally received less attention than reading. International research emphasises that effective writing assessment is essential for informing instruction and supporting the development of competent writers, particularly when it is grounded in authentic text production tasks (Graham et al., 2011). In Latin America, the SERCE regional study provided early evidence of the value of assessing writing through complete texts, taking into account both written products and the processes involved (Atorresi, 2010).This study reports the results of a systematic review of empirical studies published between 2010 and 2025 on literacy assessment in primary education (approximately ages 6–12) in Spanish-speaking countries. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study was coded according to country, educational level, assessed skills (reading and/or writing), types of writing tasks used, and the availability of reliability and validity evidence.The findings reveal a clear dominance of reading-focused assessment. Only 8 of the 28 studies (28.6%) included an explicit evaluation of writing. When writing was assessed, it was mainly operationalised through transcription tasks, such as dictation and spelling, whereas text production and composition were addressed infrequently and in an unsystematically manner. This pattern contrasts with approaches that advocate formative writing assessment as a key mechanism for improving teaching and learning (Graham et al., 2011).Overall, the results point to a gap between the theoretical conceptualisation of writing as a complex, multidimensional skill and its assessment in applied research. The study highlights the need to strengthen writing assessment in primary education by incorporating text production tasks and explicit assessment criteria. Such advances are essential for the early identification of writing difficulties and for supporting evidence-based educational intervention in Spanish-speaking contexts.ReferencesAtorresi, A. (2010). Escritura: un estudio de las habilidades de los estudiantes de América Latina y el Caribe. OREALC/UNESCO Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Alliance for Excellent Education.

Writing to learn in the new A(I)ge

Keywords
academic writing;education;Generative AI;writing to learn
Domain
Higher Education

Abstract

Writing-to-learn (WTL) can increase students’ understanding of disciplinary content (Armstrong et al., 2008; Bangert-Drowns et al., 2004). However, since generative artificial intelligence (genAI) was made freely available, we observe in our courses (Utrecht University, Bachelor Biology) that students use genAI during their thinking and writing processes for writing assignments. When genAI helps with or even takes over processes in the students’ writing process, the question arises whether WTL is still relevant as learning approach in future education. This study aimed to gain insight into how third-year university students perceive writing assignments and use genAI. Students from the final bachelor thesis course were invited to fill in an anonymous survey on genAI-use, self-efficacy for academic writing, writing beliefs, and how they experience academic writing in general. Results from close ended questions showed that students (n = 29) generally report that writing helps them understand content better, with no significant difference between students who do use genAI (n = 19) and students who do not use genAI (n = 10), t(26,637) = 1,75, p = 0,093. We also found no significant difference in how they experience academic writing (t(19,056) = -0,29, p = 0,774) and writing self-efficacy (H(1) = 0,544, p = 0,461) between these groups. Students who use genAI for writing assignments mostly use it as a brainstorm partner and to improve self-written texts and spelling. They least use it to generate texts, to compare literature, and to verify if their own text corresponds to the content of the source. Students give different reasons not to use genAI. Mainly low reliability and quality of AI-generated texts and it’s negative influence on learning were mentioned. This study forms a basis for a follow-up study across our whole student population to see if and how genAI-use poses a risk on the WTL-process throughout the bachelor.