Conference Program

"Both in L1 and L2 development, mastering writing involves proficient use of advanced linguistic features. The text features that diagnose analytical writing proficiency identified in developmental studies in L1 have informed L2 research. However, the fact that L2 production is mainly assessed by language teachers raises questions about whether their evaluations align with researchers' views and/or focus on similar features. Understanding teachers’ perspectives can yield valuable insights for pedagogical interventions specifically tailored to L2 learners. This study examines whether the alignment between researchers' and teachers’ appraisals of linguistic indicators of text quality varies by learners’ linguistic backgrounds (L1 and L2 level). We aimed to determine (1) which research-based linguistic features best explain teachers’ assessments and (2) if these features apply across learners’ groups. Two researchers and six experienced L2 teachers assessed texts written by 88 university students of L2 Spanish from four linguistic backgrounds: 31 Hebrew-speakers and 24 English-speakers at the intermediate level; 14 French-speakers and 18 Dutch-speakers at the advanced level. Participants were prompted to write an analytical text on a controversial topic. Research-based assessment included productivity and a set of quantifiable lexical, syntactic, discourse, and structural features (e.g., lexical diversity, discourse markers). Teacher-based assessment involved assigning a global score using an analytical rubric. Inter-rater agreement for both researchers and teachers was strong. A Generalized Linear Model framework was applied to capture differences between researchers’ and teachers’ evaluations, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons. Results showed that only productivity, use of noncanonical discourse markers, and explicitness of the central standpoint aligned significantly between researchers' and teachers' assessments. However, interactions revealed variation across groups, indicating that linguistic background may influence this alignment. The remaining indicators showed no significant associations, signaling discrepancies between teachers’ and researchers’ evaluations. Implications for designing teaching materials and directions for further research on writing quality are discussed."

Syntactic complexity has received considerable attention in the second language (L2) writing literature, with several researchers looking into different aspects related to syntactic complexity, from genre and prompt to proficiency and L1 (e.g., Martínez, 2018; Nasseri, 2021; Norris & Ortega, 2009; Wolfe-Quintero et al., 1998). There is evidence that the development of syntactic complexity is sequential, with three main stages characterized by coordination at the beginning levels, subordination at the intermediate levels, and phrasal sophistication at the advanced levels (e.g., Atak & Saricaoglu, 2021; Biber et al. 2011; Jiang et al., 2019). Recent years have seen a call for explicit instruction on syntactic complexity in the writing classroom (e.g., Kuiken et al., 2019). As coursebooks are the primary instructional materials, their approach to teaching syntax must be aligned with complexity developmental stages, as evidenced by L2 writing research (e.g., Biber et al., 2011). To our knowledge, no coursebooks have been systematically analyzed regarding how they support L2 learners’ syntactic complexity development. In this study, we examine the English coursebook Language Hub by Macmillan Education Limited, answering the following research question: “What are the developmental stages of syntactic complexity in the four levels of the English coursebook Language Hub (Elementary, Pre-Intermediate, Intermediate, and Upper-Intermediate) used in Turkish higher education classes? Drawing on Biber et al.’s (2011) framework for the hypothesized developmental stages for complexity features, we code the content of the grammar and vocabulary sections of the coursebooks for specific syntactic features and calculate the frequency of percentage of each feature across the levels. Our initial findings reveal that the order of the syntactic features taught in the English coursebook demonstrates similarities and differences from the comparable developmental trajectories of syntactic complexity as shown in the L2 writing literature. Implications for pedagogy and research are discussed.

Despite more and more implementation of digital multimodal composing (DMC) by language teachers recently, its effectiveness for language development is indefinite. The inconclusive findings of its linguistic impact are closely linked to the varying assessment practices in different studies and contexts. Research has confirmed the benefits of explicitly sharing the evaluation criteria to learners, which helps improve both end-products and learning processes. The assessment of DMC has remained the least-explored topic in current DMC research. Among the limited exploratory assessment criteria for DMC, nearly all of them are researcher/teacher-generated, with the negligence of how students themselves perceive DMC assessment. Given the current situation, especially the need for more students’ involvement and engagement in the assessment cycle of DMC, this current study endeavors to make students’ voice heard about how DMC should be assessed. Therefore, inspired by sociocultural theory, this study aims to address the following three research questions: 1. What are the key constructs Chinese L2 students focus on when assessing DMC? 2. What are the roles of peer-feedback and teacher-feedback in assessing DMC in Chinese L2 students’ views? 3. Do Chinese L2 students feel fairly treated in the assessment of DMC? If so, in what ways? If no, why? This qualitative study is situated in an English Reading and Writing course for English majors at one Chinese comprehensive university, where an 8-week digital video project was assigned. 5 focal participants (two male and three female students) with distinguishing features (such as English proficiency level, course grade, engagement, and motivation) were chosen to provide a “thick description” of how they think about the assessment of DMC. Multiple data sources were collected, including video projects, self-reflection documents, observation notes, and semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis was adopted to identify and categorize the main and recurrent themes throughout the analytic processes.

Research on grammar-focused Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) has progressively blossomed in the last couple of decades, coming to an explosion in the number of published studies pertaining to this area of research during the last few years. This steady increase in interest on WCF has generated an immense pool of knowledge: even though previous reviewers have tried to evaluate it in the past, the body of evidence in regards to grammar-focused WCF is still in need of a systematic assessment that allows both practitioners and researchers to assess the complete picture. For this purpose, 93 articles from 1982 to 2024 have been analysed with three main objectives in mind: determine how research trends have evolved across the years, assess the quality and robustness of the available findings, and identify the research gaps. First, after exploring the theoretical basis of Error Correction (EC) and disclosing the theoretically informed criteria for selecting and reviewing these studies, four delimited periods or waves in research were identified: up to 2007, from 2008 to 2018, from 2019 to 2023, and from 2023 onwards. Then, the results generated by these experiments were examined in detail and the robustness of their findings was discussed. To do so, the appropriateness of the experimental methods used along the way was discussed. While in the light of the available evidence direct EC seems to be the most effective form of WCF, certain common issues hinder a comprehensive assessment of the true impact of WCF across all three periods. For instance, the frequent lack of control group utilization and inadequate reporting practices emerged as the most prevalent and crucial challenges for reproducibility. Finally, the research gaps found along the way were acknowledged, with an emphasis in common methodological concerns and uncovered or only partially covered topics of research.

OASIS Summaries (Open Accessible Summaries in Language Studies) (Marsden et al., 2018) is an ongoing research-pedagogy effort that supports open science practices and accessibility to research. OASIS Summaries, (OSs) are one-page summaries of research articles on language learning, language teaching, language use, and multilingualism. Using non-technical language, they address a broad target audience, including academics, researchers, and language educators (Alferink & Marsden, 2023). While OSs have been practiced for a long time and are important in promoting teacher research literacy and teacher access to research, there is not much research that has looked into the linguistic and rhetorical patterns in this collection of texts, except Alqabba et al. who (2024) have compared the structures, variants, and discursive functions across published research articles and their OSs. Examining these summaries is essential to support teachers' engagement in research-based practice and enhancing the research–practice dialogue (Sato & Loewen, 2022). This study sets out to identify (a) the linguistic and rhetorical features that characterize OASIS Summaries of secondary research. We chose secondary research summaries as secondary research articles as they synthesize a broad range of studies, providing language teachers with a wider perspective. We identified 54 OSs with a total of 20,070 words and 1246 sentences, excluding titles, sub-titles, and references. We identified the rhetorical functions in each section by annotating each sub-section (i.e., 1-What this research was about and why it is important, 2-What the researchers did, 3-What the researchers found, and 4-Things to consider) using four different moves-step frameworks. We also identified phrase frames for each sub-section and compared the sub-sections for syntactic complexity features. Our initial findings demonstrate considerable variation in OS writers' rhetorical and syntactic choices. Our findings can contribute to supporting research-related endeavors of teacher researchers and helping teacher researchers in reading and writing research article summaries.

There is broad consensus that writing is a cognitively and affectively complex activity involving the interplay of linguistic abilities, cognitive resources, and emotional-motivational states (Bazerman, 2011; Kormos, 2012, 2023). Recognizing this, Hayes (2012) revised his early cognitive model of writing to include affective factors and to conceptualize writing as situated within a dynamic task environment—comprising social, physical, and technological elements. Among these, the writing medium (e.g., handwriting vs. digital tools) has emerged as a potentially influential factor. This aligns with embodied cognition theories, which emphasize the integration of mind, body, and environment in shaping cognition and learning (Atkinson, 2011; Clark, 2001). Within this framework, writing is viewed as a deeply embodied activity, engaging motor and perceptual systems along with cognitive and affective processes (Mangen & Balsvik, 2016; Vasylets & Marín, 2021). While digital writing tends to be faster and more disembodied, handwriting fosters greater haptic feedback and spatial stability—factors that may affect cognitive and emotional engagement differently. The exploratory study conducted by Vasylets et al. (2022) indicated that the influence of cognitive individual differences—such as working memory and language aptitude—may vary depending on the writing medium. However, the role of affective variables in this context remains unexplored. To fill this gap, the present study investigated the relationship between affective variables (writing anxiety, self-efficacy, and motivation) and linguistic performance (CAF: complexity, accuracy, fluency) in digital and pen-and-paper (P&P) L2 writing contexts. Forty-two Spanish EFL learners completed affective questionnaires and an argumentative writing task in one of the two mediums. Texts were analyzed for CAF measures. Results revealed medium-specific patterns. In the digital group, affective variables had minimal impact on CAF, except for a negative correlation between proficiency and error ratio. In contrast, the P&P group showed multiple significant correlations between affective factors and CAF, suggesting stronger emotional-cognitive integration. These findings highlight the importance of considering writing medium in research and pedagogy, especially in relation to affective engagement and performance.

Research on the depth of processing (DoP) in written corrective feedback (WCF) has been conducted in recent years (Fujisawa et al., 2024). Those studies began with Leow’s (2015) adaptation of the concept of DoP. Leow divided the category of DoP into three, including low, medium, and high. Also, he noted what cognitive behaviours each entailed; research on DoP in the WCF has judged DoP based on those categories. The current case study investigated an EFL (English as a foreign language) learner’s DoP when receiving reformulation on essay writing. This case study recruited one university student in Japan. He wrote an essay in English and received reformulation (Cohen, 1982). In order to provide reformulation, Cloud2-100k, the latest large language model (LLM), was adopted when this study was conducted. When he received reformulation, he was allowed to compare it with his original writing. His cognitive data was collected with think-aloud protocols (TAPs), and he verbalised his thoughts while processing the reformulation. In order to analyse his DoP, 14 categories based on previous studies on DoP in WCF were employed. The results showed that the participant processed the reformulation twice. He first tried to grasp the whole picture of WCF by reading his original writing and the formulation. Compared to the first process, he started a more profound analysis in the second process and sometimes created hypotheses on grammatical rules. In this process, sets of reading, analysing, and note-taking were frequently observed, which was gradation from low DoP to high DoP. Furthermore, he mostly remained uncertain about his errors, but he provided an accurate metalinguistic explanation and reached an understanding only once during the process. This case study has limitations in the number of participants but provides insights into the use of LLM and the novel way of analysing DoP in WCF.

Lexical complexity indices serve as important measures of L2 writing development (Bulté & Housen, 2012); however, these empirical findings often defy straightforward generalizations across studies. One reason for this difficulty is that there are notable differences in operationalizing proficiency across studies (Gablasova et al., 2017). The present study contributes to research on lexical complexity and L2 writing proficiency by examining lexical complexity across L2 English timed-writing essays in four proficiency bands as established on the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (2012). Data consists of 800 argumentative essays from the International Corpus of Learner English v3 (ICLE v3; Granger et al., 2020) randomly but evenly sampled from 4 L1s (Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Persian). Texts were assigned proficiency scores using a rubric adapted from the ACTFL writing proficiency guidelines (2012) by two of five trained raters as part of a larger endeavour to score ICLE v3 texts for future research. Only texts scored in intermediate mid, intermediate high, advanced low, and advanced mid are included as the most represented proficiency bands. Lexical complexity analysis adopted 14 indices from TAALES (Kyle et al., 2018) and TAALED (Kyle et al., 2021). Measures include lexical density (percent content words), diversity (measure of textual lexical diversity moving average wrap, McCarthy & Jarvis, 2010), and several measures of lexical sophistication targeting British National Corpus (BNC, 2007) spoken and written frequencies, Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA; Davies, 2008-) academic and magazine frequencies, BNC and COCA bigram frequencies (MI scores), and SUBTLEXus (Brysbaet & New, 2009) movie and television frequency. Preliminary MANOVA analysis and pairwise comparisons of 295 currently scored essays indicate significant differences exist across proficiency bands in SUBTLEXus, BNC spoken, diversity and density measures. Implications for learner corpus research, L2 language pedagogies, and the observed importance of vocabulary range and sophistication are discussed. L2 comparisons are also considered.

Existing literature on second language writing has widely emphasized that mastering argumentative writing is crucial due to its impact on effective communication, critical thinking, and academic success (Nemeth & Kormos, 2001). Understanding the essential steps or moves in the genreis therefore pivotal for constructing coherent and convincing arguments (Chuang & Yan, 2022; Qin & Karabacak, 2010; Rinnert, 2001). However, research on the language learning outcomes resulting from instructional interventions with argumentative tasks is relatively scarce. To address this gap, our study investigates the impact of a literature-based teaching unit focused on the topic of ethnicity on tertiary level students’ ability to produce argumentative moves in their written compositions. We conducted a pedagogical intervention with 25 Primary Education teacher students (enrolled in a bilingual program) who completed one argumentative composition before and after being instructed with a teaching sequence centred around Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s novel Americanah (2013). The students’ task on each occasion was to express their opinion on hiring the most suitable candidate for a teaching position in a school, considering applicants from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Within the teaching unit, the instructional approach to the argumentation component consisted of a sequence of activities involving the guided analysis of a model text, followed by joint reading and writing tasks that preclude independent writing and help make language explicit and visible. The argumentative compositions from the pre- and post-tests were analysed following Toulmin’s model (2003) with a view to identifying students’ employment of genre moves. The results revealed significant improvements in students’ mastery of argumentative moves after instruction.. At an ideational level, students were found to entertain a more nuanced and complex understanding of issues related to ethnicity by referring to issues related to race, religion, or physical appearance. Additionally, it was also observed that students’ post-test compositions demonstrated an enhanced ability to use genre-specific syntactic constructions and exhibited a more advanced repertoire of lexical choices in their argumentative writing. In addition to skill development, our study also explores the educational implications of this approach.

While research in second language (L2) argumentative writing has received attention in pen and paper contexts (Chuang & Yan, 2022; O’Halloran, 2014;), very little is known about how EFL learners transitioning from primary to secondary education engage in multimodal argumentation. Given the inescapable digital condition of present-day reality (Cope & Kalantzis, 2010), exploring the effect of instructional practice on the development of students’ multimodal argumentation is crucial, since effective command of the argumentative genre (whether monomodally or multimodally) leads to enhanced communication, heightened critical thinking, and greater chances for academic success (Nemeth & Kormos, 2001). At the same time, the potential of employing cinema-based instruction as an innovative technique for the development of multimodal argumentative skills is also under-researched in EFL contexts. To address these gaps, we conducted an instructional intervention with seventy Year 1 secondary education students (aged 13 to 14) in three ethnically diverse classrooms. The film Brave (Chapman, 2012) was used to provide evocative content for the development of argumentation by focusing students’ attention on the topic of arranged marriage. Instruction in argumentation involved the guided analysis of monomodal and multimodal texts. Before and after instruction, students designed a PowerPoint presentation expressing their opinion on the epistemological core of the film. These pre and post-test digital multimodal compositions were analyzed to identify (i) student’s argumentative moves, specifically claims and claim data (reasons and evidence) (Qin & Karabacak, 2010), and (ii) their use of modal resources (Kim et al, 2021). The results revealed improvements, after instruction, in the overall quality of students’ argumentation for both the linguistic and non-linguistic modes. Of special relevance was the incorporation of evidence in support of reasons, which constituted clear progress in comparison to the pretest. The final multimodal compositions also showed students’ enhanced ability to employ genre-specific syntactic constructions and a more advanced repertoire of lexical choices, especially the use of linkers. At an ideational level, students were found to entertain a more nuanced and complex understanding of arranged marriage, thus overcoming the predominantly monovalent outlook on this phenomenon identified in the pretest. Using qualitative data, we will take an in-depth look at the ways in which multiliteracies instruction impacted the multimodal argumentative meaning-making of two EFL students at different proficiency levels.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) has traditionally been the primary method of feedback in L2 writing instruction and research, where teachers provide written corrections on students' written texts; as a result, WCF is considered a form of monomodal feedback. However, the incorporation of real-world technologies in the classroom has introduced more realistic and contemporary ways for students to practice and learn the L2. These technologies have also allowed teachers to adopt more innovative and engaging methods to help learners identify errors in their written work, such as through multimodal feedback. One example of multimodal feedback is screencast feedback (SCF), which involves digital video recordings of a teacher’s on-screen activities, accompanied by a narration that is recorded while the video is being created (Séror, 2012). SCF is grounded in the dual-channel assumption, which suggests that "humans possess separate information processing channels for visually/spatially represented material and auditorily/verbally represented material" (Fiorella & Mayer, 2022, p. 59). The empirical evidence on the learning potential of screencast feedback (SCF) remains limited, with research primarily focusing on how teachers provide SCF and how learners perceive it. From a WLL perspective (e.g., Manchón, 2011), it is important to examine both the effectiveness of SCF and the level of learner engagement with it. Consequently, the aim of this study is to investigate the impact of SCF on grammatical, lexical, and mechanical accuracy, as well as to elicit low-proficiency learners' attitudes toward SCF. This research was conducted as part of the researcher’s teaching practicum with low-proficiency EFL students. As a pre-test, participants wrote a descriptive essay in Google Docs, following the course syllabus. One week later, the teacher shared SCF videos with the students, and they completed a questionnaire regarding their experience with SCF. A week after that, as a post-test, the students were asked to rewrite their initial essays, applying the corrections suggested in the SCF videos (without access to the corrections), and they filled out a questionnaire about their perceptions of SCF’s effectiveness. Errors in the pre-tests were categorized as grammatical, lexical, or mechanical, while post-tests were coded based on the (un)successful incorporation of corrections, no incorporation, or deletion. The results indicated that (i) low-proficiency EFL learners were able to improve their grammatical, lexical, and, to a lesser extent, mechanical accuracy through SCF, and (ii) these learners found the feedback "directly from the teacher" motivating, engaging, and, from an SLA perspective, easier to notice and remember. Furthermore, participants valued SCF for enhancing other language skills, including listening comprehension, pronunciation, and intonation.

The early introduction of second languages (L2) in educational settings has created an interest for suitable methodologies and techniques to make the learning process the most effective. One of these strategies is the use of form-focused instruction in the form of written corrective feedback (WCF), which has been found to have a positive impact on L2 learners’ performance (Bitchener & Storch, 2016). However, some aspects regarding the WCF effect are still unclear. The present study aims to contribute to the literature on WCF by addressing two under-researched topics: on the one hand, the participants of this study are young learners (11-12 years old), a population generally overlooked in the field (Lira-Gonzales & Nassaji, 2023). On the other hand, the effect of WCF types (direct vs indirect) on learners’ motivation and attitudes towards the corrections has not been sufficiently researched, particularly as far as young learners is considered (Author 1 & Co-Author, 2024). To that end, two classes of 11-12 year-olds (N=27) were divided into two experimental groups and completed two writing tasks: one group received direct feedback while the other was given indirect feedback on the errors related to the target form (present simple tense) in their first task. Afterwards, the learners were requested to analyse the corrections and they carried out the second writing task. The data analysis considered the learners’ scores in a pre-test and a post-test as well as the errors in the two writing tasks. Results show that direct feedback led to greater grammatical accuracy, in line with some previous studies (Lira-Gonzales & Nassaji, 2023). However, the findings also revealed that students' motivation and attitudes significantly influenced their performance, highlighting the importance of affective factors in feedback efficacy. These and other aspects are discussed in light of WCF research and pedagogical implications are suggested.

While task-based language teaching (TBLT) is gaining in popularity across the world, how best to improve L2 writing skills within the context of TBLT remains underexplored. Also, little attention has been paid to how writing instruction may influence L2 learners' cognitive writing processes. The current study aims to address these gaps by investigating how two different implementations of a TBLT writing course, incorporating more explicit versus less explicit genre instruction, may influence L2 learners' cognitive writing processes and products. The study employed a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design with 9 treatment sessions. The participants were 78 Chinese learners of English from three comparable, intact classes in a Chinese high school. The three classes received one of three types of instruction: a) TBLT with more explicit genre instruction, b) TBLT with less explicit genre instruction, and c) presentation-practice-production (PPP). A computer-delivered pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest were administered, which involved writing three letters, during which the participants' keystrokes were recorded. Three participants from each class took part in stimulated recall interviews after each test. The delayed posttest occurred one month after the intervention. Preliminary results show that significant interaction effect was found between treatment and time in total pause frequency per minute in invitation letter. These results, along with the stimulated recall data, suggest that the TBLT with less explicit genre instruction group generally wrote more fluently and encountered less difficulties than the more explicit group and the PPP group in the less cognitive demanding text type after the treatment. Regarding learners’ text quality, all three groups displayed significant improvement in text quality in the posttest and delayed posttest, with the less explicit group outperforming the more explicit group in all three letters, e.g., invitation, application, complaint letter, and outperforming the PPP group in complaint letter, the more cognitive demanding one.

L2 writing can be a powerful site for language learning, as the deep linguistic processing fostered in writing can engage learners in language learning processes (e.g. noticing or focus on form), change their underlying linguistic system, or facilitate the retrieval and automatization of explicit L2 knowledge (Manchón & Cerezo, 2025). Research on L2 writing from an SLA perspective has provided empirical evidence for the language learning potential of writing. However, this research has primarily been concerned with writing in monomodal conditions, where the written text has been examined on its own rather than in combination with other modes (e.g. visual, aural, spatial). Recently, multimodal writing has gained attention in SLA, raising the question of how beneficial it might be for language learning. Although results suggest that multimodal writing might lead to language development, studies have mainly centered around class projects that frequently involve collaborative work, that last several weeks, and/or for which students receive feedback and scaffolding at different stages. Consequently, the effect of multimodal writing on language gains or learners' attention to language cannot be isolated from other variables (e.g. teacher/peer feedback). This pilot study aimed to design a multimodal task that could be completed under controlled experimental conditions to investigate the language learning affordances (CAF measures) of multimodal writing compared to monomodal writing. Several tasks were tested, including an informative/welcome video (n=2), digital story (n=2), and photo essay (n=5). Findings indicated that (i) multimodal task instructions should explicitly specify the expected word count to ensure that monomodal and multimodal products are comparable in terms of language production; (ii) multimodal tasks requiring voiceovers are closer to oral than to written language, making the linguistic comparison of monomodal and multimodal products challenging; and (iii) monomodal and multimodal tasks should belong to the same genre, but without distorting its essence.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) is a crucial tool for improving accuracy in second language (L2) writing, yet its effectiveness can be mediated by several factors, including the conditions under which WCF is processed and learners’ attitudes towards writing tasks and feedback. While previous research has examined writing and feedback processing conditions as mediators of WCF effectiveness, little attention has been given to how these conditions interact with learners' opinions and attitudes. This study explores the combined influence of these factors—writing and processing conditions (individual vs. collaborative), learners' attitudes, and their opinions on feedback—on error reduction after processing WCF through written languaging (WL). The study involved 202 EFL secondary students, divided into six groups based on their writing and processing conditions, including two control groups who wrote either individually or collaboratively but did not engage in WL. Students’ completed background and exit questionnaires, and their responses were correlated with their error reduction scores. Results indicated that participants’ preferences aligned with their assigned conditions. Individual writing and processing proved more effective for improving accuracy. Individual writing groups exhibited more positive attitudes towards learning English and English writing tasks and error reduction was mainly driven by a strong focus on grammar and independent reflection. In contrast, collaborative writing and processing groups benefited from positive attitudes toward learning English and writing , but these attitudes did not sustain long-term improvements. Positive opinions about the languaging session were linked to error reduction across all groups. Collaborative processing students particularly benefited from the collaborative nature of the languaging, which eased cognitive load and sustained feedback engagement over time. These findings are discussed within the framework of Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA), emphasizing the need to consider both cognitive and affective factors, such as feedback processing, grammar focus, and learners’ attitudes, in WCF effectiveness.

Cognitive-oriented studies of second language (L2) writing have explored how task-related variables may mediate writing processes and behaviours. Given Sweller’s (1988) assumption of limited cognitive processing capacity, more complex tasks might impose a higher cognitive load on learners, which in turn has a systematic influence on language production (Robinson, 2011). Among these task features, content support—visual or linguistic resources that contribute to task response—is expected to alleviate conceptual demands during planning, freeing attentional resources for translation operations (Révész et al., 2017). However, despite theoretical predictions, research on content support pays little attention to low- and intermediate-level learners. This study investigates the role of content support in writing processes and overall text quality among Chinese lower-intermediate EFL learners (N = 24, Mage = 16). Participants were divided into two groups: one received content support while the other did not. Each group wrote two argumentative essays and descriptive articles over four weeks. To assess L2 writing cognition, retrospective questionnaires and semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample (N = 12) were conducted. Overall text quality was rated on a 5-point holistic scale, and interview recordings were analyzed for writing processes (planning, translation, and monitoring). Results showed that content support significantly improved overall text quality over time, while its absence produced a gradual decline. In both conditions, learners tended to report more on planning-related processes than translation operations. Content support was found to significantly reduce learners’ pressure on idea generation and linguistic formulation, enabling more focus on content planning. In contrast, learners without content support invested greater mental effort in metacognitive activities. These findings suggest that content support facilitates more efficient cognitive resource allocation, enhancing the writing quality for lower-intermediate learners. Pedagogically, the study highlights the importance of content planning and targeted support in L2 writing tasks and offers insights into designing effective writing activities.

Research on pre-task planning (PTP) in L2 writing remains less extensive compared to monologic and interactive oral tasks. Most empirical evidence has focused on university contexts, producing mixed results regarding its effect on CALF measures (Ellis 2021). PTP may be conceptualized through two theoretical lenses. From a sociocultural perspective (Vygotsky, 1978), collaborative PTP may foster opportunities for co-construction of ideas and linguistic scaffolding. From a cognitive perspective, two contrasting L1-based theories may be considered: Kellogg (1996, 2013) considers PTP an alleviatory mechanism to reduce cognitive load; whereas Robinson (2011) warns that this reduction in cognitive demand may decrease task complexity and constrain opportunities for elaborated output. To expand prior research, this study examined the impact of individual and collaborative PTP on Spanish secondary school students’ (i) CALF measures and (ii) writing intelligence—understood as learners’ beliefs about the capacity of writing ability to improve through effort (Waller & Papi, 2017), an underresearched variable in L2 writing and PTP research. It also analyzed learners’ attitudes toward planning. A quasi-experimental pre-/post-test design was employed across three groups: individual PTP (n = 21), collaborative PTP (n = 22), and no-planning control (n = 26). In the pre-test, participants wrote an argumentative text and completed questionnaires on writing intelligence and attitudes (experimental groups only). Then, experimental groups received an instructional session on outlining (Neumann & McDonough, 2015) and developed an outline (individually or in pairs) for a discussion essay. They did not write a final text based on it. In the post-test, participants planned (experimental groups) and wrote a second writing text and repeated the questionnaires. Data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model with a random intercept. Results revealed significant differences in syntactic complexity, favoring collaborative PTP (Fan, 2024; Kang & Lee, 2019; Liang & Xie, 2023; McDonough et al., 2018). No significant effects emerged for writing intelligence. While writing beliefs did not influence performance, the study offers insight into how beliefs and planning mode may interact in L2 writing, with both theoretical and pedagogical implications.

While written corrective feedback (WCF) is intended to aid learners in constructing new knowledge, student engagement with WCF is not always optimal, partly due to limited feedback literacy. Despite recent advancements in understanding feedback literacy and engagement with WCF, two groups have received limited attention: learners of languages other than English (LOTEs), such as Japanese, and beginner-level learners. In particular, little is known about how high achievers and struggling learners within the same curriculum engage differently with WCF. This is a crucial gap to address, as learner and contextual factors are known to influence engagement with WCF; however, beginners and LOTEs have not yet received extensive scholarly attention. To address this gap, this study explored the feedback literacy and engagement with WCF of eight beginner Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) learners at a U.S. college. A multi-case study design was adopted to capture the complex individual and contextual factors influencing feedback literacy and engagement. Data were collected through background questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, student essays, stimulated recall sessions, reflective accounts, classroom observations, and course documents. To analyze the data, Chong’s (2022) feedback literacy framework was applied, as it explicitly integrates feedback literacy and engagement while considering learners' experiences. Data analysis included text and thematic analyses. Text analysis was used to classify error types, feedback, and revisions deductively, while thematic analysis involved coding verbal data inductively to identify patterns and themes. The findings indicate that feedback literacy and engagement are multi-faceted, dynamic, and context-dependent. Some unique findings not previously discussed include (1) the role of learners’ L1 writing experiences, (2) reflections on and adjustments to writing processes, (3) perceived power dynamics between teacher and learners, and (4) discrepancies between beliefs and practices.

Form-focused instruction (FFI) in the form of focused tasks involving collaborative writing has been proved to be effective as a means to draw learners’ attention to formal aspects of the language (Author 2 & Co-author, 2019), although they may not always focus on the target feature selected. Additional treatments before the performance of the focused task have been proposed to maximize the learning potential of FFI in this respect, but research has yielded mixed results warranting further exploration of a wider range of pre-task grammar instruction (PTGI) treatments, particularly with young learners in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts (Calzada & García Mayo, 2023; Li et al., 2018; Pladevall-Ballester et al., 2024). Recent research also calls for the examination of individual factors that may affect the effectiveness of FFI, such as language-analytic ability (Kachinske & DeKeyser, 2019; Li et al., 2019; Roehr-Brackin, 2024). This study examines FFI consisting of explicit PTGI before the performance of a collaborative dictogloss task targeting the possessive determiners his/her. It also looks into the interface between PTGI and language-analytic ability, as measured by the MLAT-ES. To this end, twenty-one 10-to-11-year-old EFL learners were split into a task-only and PTGI+task group, and paired up to carry out two dictogloss tasks. Participants completed a grammaticality judgement task (GJT) in a pretest/post-test design to gauge the effect of adding PTGI to collaborative writing, and their gains were then correlated with their language-analytic ability. Results show that, despite the improvement observed between the pretest and the post-tests in both groups, no intergroup differences exist suggesting that the decontextualized and deductive provision of rules before the task did not maximize its learning potential. As regards language-analytic ability, a compensation pattern was attested, in line with other explicit treatments (Author 1 & Author 3, in press; Suzuki, 2022).

Collaborative writing, defined as the joint creation of a written text by learners, has gained significant attention in L2 writing research. While it is widely believed to foster language learning opportunities, there is limited understanding of how writing collaboratively affects the cognitive demands involved in completing tasks. This study, drawing on Robinson’s (2001) work on task complexity and task difficulty, aimed to address this gap. Specifically, it sought to explore (a) whether writing tasks of varying complexity would lead to differing perceptions of task difficulty between collaborative and individual writing, and (b) the reasons behind such differences in perception. The participants were 111 Chinese users of advanced L2 English. Participants completed two computer-mediated writing tasks in a counterbalanced order, either individually on MS Word (N = 55) or collaboratively with a randomly assigned partner using Google Docs (N = 56). The two tasks took the form of reading-to-write tasks and differed in cognitive task complexity. The designed-to-be-less-complex version required participants to summarise one text, while the designed-to-be-more-complex version asked them to synthesise three texts. Text length and linguistic complexity were controlled across the task versions. Participants rated required mental effort and task difficulty for each task in the post-task questionnaire. Thirteen pairs were invited to one-to-one semi-structured interviews after the second task. The questionnaire data showed that both collaborative and individual writing groups perceived the complex task as requiring more mental effort. However, while the collaborative writing group did not report a significant difference in task difficulty, the individual writing group did. A preliminary thematic analysis of interview data identified four possible reasons for this outcome. When writing collaboratively, learners may benefit from improved linguistic control, topic-related knowledge, rhetorical awareness, and task management. The implications of these results will be discussed for theoretical models of writing and task-based pedagogical practice.

Writers often produce longer pauses within and between words while composing in their second language (L2) than their first language (e.g., Leijten et al., 2019). Although pausing at these lower text levels has been associated with formulation processes (e.g., Révész et al., 2019), highly proficient writers do not always pause more briefly than less proficient writers (e.g., Barkaoui, 2019). The lack of a ‘proficiency effect’ might be due to the different aspects of proficiency that studies measure, with certain language knowledge being more relevant to writing than others. As previous research found a connection between sophisticated language use and higher pause rates (Medimorec & Risko, 2017), proficient writers’ higher lexical complexity might also ‘blur’ a proficiency effect. The present study aimed to find out how different types of proficiency are connected to lower-level pausing when controlling for word choice. Students from a Dutch university (N = 32) composed two English texts, during which Inputlog (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013) registered their keystrokes. Participants also completed a typing task, a questionnaire and three proficiency tests: a C-test for general proficiency, a lexical decision task for passive vocabulary knowledge and a written picture naming task (PNT) for active vocabulary knowledge. We obtained accuracy scores for each proficiency test and a mean reaction time (MRT) for the PNT. The keystroke data were analysed using existing macros (Hall et al., 2021; 2022) to determine mean pause length within and between words. As writing is an active process, we hypothesise that measures from the active tests (PNT and C-test) show the strongest connection with pause length. We expect MRT to be the strongest predictor as both pause length and MRT are time-based. The findings will shed light on how proficiency-related factors affect L2 pausing.

This presentation covers findings from a doctoral study at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), exploring how German language learners engage with three types of written corrective feedback (WCF) used in UOC's online courses. The study aimed to enhance understanding of how different feedback types support deep processing and foster self-regulation. Eleven participants created think-aloud protocols (TAPs) while revising feedback documents in three formats: (1) indirect feedback with marked errors and correct forms in footnotes, (2) standardized indirect feedback with error codes and metalinguistic information, and (3) screen-recorded, orally transmitted indirect feedback. TAPs were screen-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results showed all feedback types triggered deep processing and self-regulation strategies. Differences emerged in how feedback was processed, depending on the information type (correct forms vs. information), and the format (written vs. oral). Correct forms led to significantly more reflections on rules and errors, metalinguistic feedback promoted more self-correction, and oral feedback produced more causal attributions explaining errors. The results hold both practical and theoretical significance. Practically, they can inform decision-making in feedback strategies for foreign language learning (FLL) or instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). Theoretically, they deepen our understanding of how learners engage with written corrective feedback (WCF) in real-world, non-experimental settings.

As automated writing evaluation tools continue to advance, AI technologies like ChatGPT are becoming invaluable for providing feedback on students' writing. ChatGPT offers L2 students instant, interactive, and personalized responses, creating opportunities for meaningful discussions about their work. Unlike traditional AWE tools, it goes beyond just correcting grammar; it also helps students develop critical thinking and analytical skills (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Essel et al., 2024; Herbold et al., 2023). This study is grounded in sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), which highlights the importance of tools in learning. In this case, ChatGPT acts as a helpful mediator, shaping how students understand and improve their writing. Research comparing ChatGPT feedback with teacher feedback has produced mixed results. Some studies indicate that ChatGPT is more effective (Sistani & Tabatabaei, 2023), while others find that teacher feedback is more beneficial (Cao & Zhong, 2023). Given this, more exploration into the impact of AI feedback on L2 students’ writing is essential, especially in Saudi Arabia, where traditional teacher feedback is still the norm. This quasi-experimental study, employing a pre- and post-design, aimed to assess how AI-generated feedback (ChatGPT) can enhance EFL Saudi learners’ writing. The participants, upper-intermediate to advanced English learners in a Master's program at a large university, were divided into two groups. One group wrote a compare-and-contrast essay and received teacher feedback, while the other received ChatGPT feedback on the same task. At the end of the study, students shared their thoughts through a questionnaire. Results showed that those who received ChatGPT feedback excelled in content and organization, although both groups performed similarly in accuracy, as evidenced by the post-test. Students valued ChatGPT for its innovative, less intimidating, and more explicit feedback. These findings provide important insights for educators and suggest directions for future research.

Writing is a complex process where writers negotiate meaning and deploy (extra)linguistic resources to achieve a specific communicative goal (Durrant et al., 2021). This process largely relies on retaining ideas and concepts and organizing them into a coherent whole. The ability to build coherent mental representations can be measured by the situation model building ability. A situation model is the overarching understanding of a text or situation, including the concepts and relationships between them (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). Writing may involve building such models and therefore, we explore whether this ability can affect L2 writing processes and products. Since situation models consist of coherently organized phonological and visuospatial information, we can assume that they are stored in the episodic buffer (Baddeley, 2012). Interestingly, the role of this part of working memory has not been studied in L2 writing research yet. Therefore, we aim to investigate the relationship between 1) the situation model building ability and the L2 writing processes and products; 2) the episodic buffer capacity and the L2 writing processes and products. We have recruited 30 L1 Chinese L2 English learners and monitored their writing processes (Inputlog9.5, Leijten & Van Waes, 2013). We have also tested their situation model building ability (instruments based on Raudszus et al., 2019) and episodic buffer capacity (based on Kofler et al., 2018). We will analyze the writing process data in terms of speed fluency, pause and revision and the writing products in terms of human-rated quality (rubric by Hou et al., 2016). Then, we will use the linear mixed effect models to analyze how learners’ situation model building ability and episodic capacity influence their writing process indices and their writing quality. Through the analysis, we hope to gain insights into the potential cognitive individual differences that influence L2 writing processes.

Developing a better understanding of the composing process is essential to improving writing assessment and pedagogy practices. Though many writing process models have been proposed, researchers are still struggling for reaching a complete understanding of the composing process dynamics. This paper reports on a remodeling attempt of the written text production process. The author argues for remodeling writers’ cognitive processes through reviewing the changing conceptualizations in six notable global writing process models (Chenoweth and Hayes, 2001, Flower & Hayes, 1981, Hayes, 1996, 2012, Kellogg, 1996; Leijten, van Waes, Schriver, & Hayes, 2014), and discussing the modeling gaps yet to be addressed. Literature-based evidence suggests that there is a need for reconceptualizing the multi-role translating/text production/formulation process in these models, and for explicating the roles of the search for content, reviewing and monitoring processes. Based on the literature-guided analysis of a set of think-aloud protocol data, the author proposes a model in which the written text production process is composed of the following seven components: monitoring, searching for content, ideational planning, linguistic rehearsing, reviewing, transcribing, and revising. The author provides detailed descriptions of the strategies each component includes, and explains the interaction among these components. The author also explains how working memory and short-term and long-term memories operate within the proposed writing process model. The paper ends with highlighting the relevant writing research and assessment implications.