Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:29:38 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
31 SES 11 B: Writing
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper Wearable Cameras in research on early writing: Studying Young Children's Composing processes with GoPros Mälardalen University, Sweden Presenting Author:Although early literacy research has extensively explored children’s emergent writing and composing practices, studies repeatedly point to a persistent skills-oriented framing and a predominant focus on the written product (Bingham & Quinn, 2018). In this paper I argue that there is an apparent risk of overlooking the embodied, multimodal, and materially mediated nature of early composing as it unfolds in classroom contexts. In the present study, focus is therefore set to how young learners (multimodal) texts come into being (cf. Prior, 2003) in the first year of schooling, and hence, how early encounters of composing assignments may be studied and understood “otherwise” (Björk, forthcoming). Wearable video technologies such as GoPro cameras provide, out from this approach, a methodological opportunity for capturing early composing processes from the vantage point of the young learner, thereby attending more closely to how modes, materials, spatiality and embodied actions contribute to children’s meaning-making in their early composing. Unlike fixed-position classroom recordings, GoPro cameras may move with the learner and provide close-up data on how children manipulate tools, coordinate gestures, combine modes, and engage with material environments. Such data allow researchers to attend more closely to the sociomaterial entanglements of writing: the ways in which modes, bodies, artefacts, and spaces jointly shape meaning-making practices (Leander & Boldt, 2013). The GoPro-camera, as data collector, is however not to be seen as without challenges. Methodological and ethical questions arise regarding what kinds of data are generated and how such data may contribute knowledge generation, how children’s perspectives are represented, and how researchers navigate issues of ethics, consent, visibility, and participation. Further, the technology itself is not a neutral tool but an actor that also frames, mediates and constrains, i.e. it acts in composing, in classrooms and in research (cf. Wargo, 2018). Against this backdrop, this paper aims to critically examine the methodological affordances and limitations of employing GoPro cameras, mounted on young learners’ chests, to explore early composing processes. It seeks to address a methodological gap concerning how young learners composing processes can be systematically captured, represented, and interpreted within classroom-based studies. Specifically, the study asks: What types of data on early composing processes are generated by children’s GoPro-recordings? How can these data be analysed to yield insights into children’s composing processes in situ? What ethical, practical, and analytical considerations emerge from employing this methodological approach, and how do such considerations shape its potential for researching early composing? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study is situated within a sociomaterial perspective, foregrounding the entanglement of human and non human actors in composing and in research. The study is additionally informed by participatory research, aligning with scholarship that reconceptualises children as active participants with agency and epistemic authority (Sevon et al., 2025). Supporting young children’s participation on more equal terms is, however, challenging. Hart (1992) outlines levels of participation, from consultation to collaboration, but also identifies non participatory forms such as manipulation, decoration, and tokenism. Discussions of children as legible research participants thus involve ontological and epistemological questions concerning what constitutes knowledge and information. Moreover, research has identified a lack of methods that appropriately facilitate young children’s participation and are sensitive to their meaning making processes (Sevón et al., 2025), a gap addressed in this paper. Data were collected during the first school year in a Swedish preschool class with children aged 5–7. Twelve children wore chest mounted GoPro cameras that recorded selected writing assignments across the school year. To date, approximately 162 minutes of video data have been collected (autumn 2025). A comparable amount of additional video data is being collected during spring 2026 and will be included in the analysis presented at the conference. The dataset is complemented by field notes and audio recordings. The analysis proceeded in three steps aligned with the research questions. First, a descriptive mapping identified the types of data produced by the GoPro recordings, available through the camera’s vantage point. Second, a multimodal micro and case analysis examined how one specific recording could be analytically leveraged to illuminate children’s composing processes in situ, focusing on a learner’s modal expressions, tool use, and verbal interaction. Third, ethical, practical, and analytical considerations arising from the use of wearable cameras with young children were documented and critically reflected upon, including issues of visibility, influence on participation, incidental capture of peers, and the partiality inherent in first person recordings. The data collection complied with ethical and legal requirements. Informed consent was obtained from teachers, parents, and participating children. An ethical assessment determined that the study did not involve sensitive personal data as defined by the Swedish Ethical Review Act (SFS 2003:460) and thus did not require formal review. All processing of personal data followed the General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary findings indicate that the use of GoPro cameras elicits considerable enthusiasm and engagement among the participating children. During several collection sessions, the children actively negotiated and competed for the opportunity to wear the device, suggesting that the technology itself holds a certain degree of novelty and attraction. At the same time, the data collection process proved both time consuming and resource intensive, as the young learners typically engaged in composing only for short intervals during the school day. Consequently, obtaining sufficiently rich data required extended researcher presence and substantial temporal investment. The use of wearable cameras with young children also presents clear ethical challenges. Some children expressed discomfort with the chest mounted harness, underscoring the need for sensitivity to bodily and emotional wellbeing when employing this method. Ongoing consent was essential: the researcher needed to be familiar to the children and present in the classroom to ensure that they felt comfortable declining or withdrawing from participation at any point. These observations highlight the ethical fragility of wearable-video data collection in early childhood settings. Nevertheless, with informed consent from children, caregivers, and teachers, the method may generate valuable insights into how early composing unfolds in situ. Micro analytic examination of one focal case, “Beata,” illustrates the analytical potential of the GoPro material. Her recording shows how composing as both drawing and writing emerge in close relation to one another throughout the event, revealing how meaning-making is constructed intermodally across semiotic modes, marks, movements, and dialogues with peers. Such insights suggest that early composing through wearables offers a productive entry point for understanding young learners’ developing writing practices and the diverse modes through which they communicate in classroom settings. References Björk. O. (fortcoming) Listening Otherwise: Rethinking Literacy through the Multimodal Child. Educational Philosophy and Theory General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European Parliament and Council. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679… (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union. Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF International Child Development Centre Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2013). Rereading “A pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46. Prior, P. (2003). Tracing process: How texts come into being. In What writing does and how it does it (pp. 173-206). Routledge. Quinn Margaret F., & Bingham Gary E. (2018). The Nature and Measurement of Children’s Early Composing. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 213–235. doi:10.1002/rrq.232 Sevón, E., Mustola, M., Siippainen, A., & Vlasov, J. (2025). Participatory research methods with young children: a systematic literature review. Educational review, 77(3), 1000-1018. SFS 2003:460. (2003). Lag om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor [The Ethical Review Act]. Svensk författningssamling. Wargo, J. M. (2018). Writing with wearables? Young children’s intra-active authoring and the sounds of emplaced invention. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4), 502-523. 31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper Tool-Mediated Writing in Lower-Level Polish: A Process-Oriented Study of A1–A2 Learners’ AI and Resource Use University of Warsaw, Poland Presenting Author:Generative AI and related language technologies are reshaping how learners write and revise, alongside longer-established resources such as machine translation and online dictionaries (Chapelle, 2025; Karataş et al., 2024). Recent reviews report rapid growth in empirical work on AI in language learning, while also noting that the evidence base remains uneven and is often concentrated in higher education and English-related contexts (Li, 2024; Li, 2025; Lee, 2025). Policy guidance has therefore stressed human-centred implementation and capacity building so that AI supports learning without displacing educational goals (UNESCO, 2023). However, process-oriented evidence is still limited on how beginner learners combine multiple tools during real writing tasks, particularly in less commonly taught language (LCTL) settings. This study thus examines tool-mediated writing in lower-level Polish. It investigates how A1–A2 learners combine AI tools, translators, dictionaries, course materials, and human support while completing short authentic writing micro-tasks. The focus is on learners’ resource orchestration during writing and on how writing quality can be interpreted when multiple tools are available, which is especially relevant in LCTL contexts where exposure and learning resources are often constrained. The study addresses three research questions:
The study adopts a process-oriented perspective on technology-mediated second language writing. It conceptualises tool use as part of learners’ strategic decision-making rather than as a uniform “treatment effect”. It is informed by research on second language writing processes (Cumming, 2001; Manchón, 2011) and by discussions of learner agency and authorship in technology-supported language production (Little, 1991; UNESCO, 2023). In beginner-level writing, where learners often have clear communicative intentions but limited linguistic resources, tool use may shape both the writing trajectory and the perceived ownership of the final text. By focusing on writing pathways rather than only final texts, the study clarifies how beginner writing is produced, perceived, and evaluated when multiple tools are available. It also supports current European and international discussions on language education in the age of AI by highlighting assessment challenges in LCTL contexts and the need to distinguish improved textual fluency from deeper learning-related development (Tolstykh & Oshchepkova, 2024; Al-Hoorie & AlShakhori, 2025). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts a mixed-methods design combining descriptive quantitative summaries with qualitative process analysis. Participants are 13 Chinese university students at A1–A2 level enrolled in a Polish programme at a foreign-language-specialized university in China. Each participant completes seven guided writing tasks, producing 91 learner texts (13 × 7). The tasks are feasible at beginner level and cover everyday communicative topics: self-introduction, introducing family members, describing a typical day, describing one’s hometown, describing favourite food, describing a favourite outfit, and describing hobbies. The task design aligns with CEFR descriptions of beginner writing as producing short, simple messages in familiar contexts (Council of Europe, 2018). After each task, learners submit their final text and report time-on-task and resource use. When applicable, they provide process evidence such as AI chat logs or translation histories, which enables reconstruction of tool-mediated writing sequences. Learners also write a short reflection on how the text is produced and what challenges they encounter. Two Likert-scale instruments capture learner perspectives. The first measures learners’ self-evaluation of the final text in terms of lexical choice, grammatical structure, clarity and completeness, appropriateness/politeness, naturalness, and task appropriateness. The second measures perceived helpfulness of the resources used, including support for idea generation, lexical choice, sentence construction, grammar, politeness, naturalness, and confidence. Writing quality is also evaluated independently by the course teacher and by a Polish native-speaker rater, enabling systematic comparison between learner perceptions and external judgements. Analysis proceeds in three stages. First, tool use is summarised descriptively across tasks and individuals (e.g., combinations of AI, translators, and dictionaries; time-on-task; frequency of tool reliance). Second, qualitative coding of reflections and process evidence identifies recurring writing pathways, such as tool-led drafting, draft-first revision, and iterative comparison of alternatives. Third, associations between writing pathways, learner self-evaluations, and external ratings are examined, focusing on points of alignment and mismatch in order to interpret agency and authorship under tool support. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study provides fine-grained evidence of how beginner learners in an LCTL context orchestrate multiple digital tools during short writing tasks. Drawing on 91 learner texts together with learner self-reports, reflections, and optional tool-use records (e.g., AI chat logs and translation histories), the analysis identifies a small set of recurring tool-mediated writing pathways. These pathways differ in how learners sequence independent drafting, tool-led sentence generation, and iterative revision through alternative formulations. The findings show that the use of tools is not uniform. Learners vary substantially in how strategically they use AI, translators and dictionaries, and these differences are linked to the amount of time spent on the task and the demands of the topic. Triangulation between learner self-evaluations and external ratings by the course teacher and a Polish native speaker shows both matching and mismatching patterns. In some cases, learner confidence is influenced by surface-level fluency and perceived naturalness, whereas external evaluations place greater emphasis on communicative adequacy, clarity, and task fulfilment. In other cases, the opposite pattern emerges, with learners underestimating their performance even when receiving favourable external ratings. These results enhance the interpretability of beginner writing outcomes in AI-rich environments. They also provide empirical evidence for ongoing European and international discussions on learner agency, authorship and the validity of assessments in tool-mediated writing, particularly for lower-level learners in LCTL programmes, where the use of tools is an integral part of everyday learning (Tolstykh & Oshchepkova, 2024; Al-Hoorie & AlShakhori, 2025). References Chapelle, C. A. (2025). Generative AI as game changer: Implications for language education. System, 132, 103672. Council of Europe. (2018). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Council of Europe. Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 1–23. Lee, S. (2025). Generative AI (GenAI) in the language classroom. Interactive Learning Environments. Li, B. (2024). A systematic review of the first year of publications on ChatGPT in language learning and teaching: Exploring research findings and gaps. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik. Manchón, R. M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. John Benjamins. O’Neill, E. M. (2019). Online translator, dictionary, and search engine use among L2 students. CALL-EJ, 20(1), 154–177. UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. UNESCO. 31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper Language as a Cognitive Tool: Writing Skills and the Development of Critical Thinking in Upper Secondary Education 1: Lusófona University, CeiED, Portugal; 2: Lusófona University, HEI-Lab Presenting Author:This paper reports on LINKING – Neuroscience and Education Perspectives on Language Ability and Critical Thinking: An Interdisciplinary Approach – a project that investigates how mother‑tongue writing and comprehension skills operate as a cognitive tool in the development of critical thinking (CT) in upper‑secondary students. Situated in Portuguese public schools (grades 10–12), the study is designed to engage with wider European debates on 21st‑century competences, social inclusion and democratic participation, and to respond to international concerns about how language curricula can effectively foster CT as envisaged in policy documents and comparative research. The central research questions are: (1) How do students in grades 10, 11 and 12 perform in the cognitive dimension of CT? (2) How do mother‑tongue writing skills influence CT levels and developmental trajectories during upper secondary education? (3) How is CT performance supported by neural activity in language‑related networks during the comprehension of complex texts? This ECER paper addresses the first two questions by presenting quantitative classroom‑based data on CT and writing. The theoretical framework combines three complementary strands. The first is a social‑interactionist view of language, rooted in Vygotskian psychology and further developed in text‑mediated approaches (Bronckart, 2006, 2007). In this perspective, language is not merely a means of expressing pre‑existing ideas, but a semiotic instrument through which higher mental functions are constituted and reorganised. Through the internalisation of culturally and historically shaped language practices—such as argumentation, explanation and evaluation—learners acquire tools to regulate their own thinking, coordinate perspectives with others and construct shared meanings. The second strand is a neurocognitive account of language inspired by the Memory–Unification–Control (MUC) model (Hagoort, 2013). This model proposes that language processing draws on (a) memory systems that store lexical, syntactic and semantic knowledge; (b) unification processes that integrate linguistic elements into larger structures in real time under contextual constraints; and (c) control mechanisms that adapt language use to goals, interlocutors and joint activities. In CT tasks, these components are mobilised when learners interpret problem situations, integrate dispersed information, preserve coherence across extended discourse and flexibly shift between perspectives and solution paths. The third strand is an educational construct of CT based on Facione’s cognitive skills dimension: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation and self‑regulation (Facione, 1990, 2020). Rather than treating CT as an abstract “generic skill”, the project emphasises that each of these operations is linguistically realised within concrete communicative genres and practices. Interpretation involves construing meanings from texts and situations; analysis entails segmenting and relating ideas; evaluation requires judging the credibility and coherence of claims; inference consists in drawing warranted conclusions; explanation means articulating reasons and justifications; and self‑regulation presupposes monitoring and revising one’s own reasoning. All of these depend critically on language comprehension and production, particularly in writing, where reasoning must be stabilised, sequenced and made explicit. By weaving these strands together, LINKING advances a view of CT as a family of language‑dependent cognitive practices that unfold in specific curricular contexts. Mother‑tongue writing, especially argument‑based genres such as opinion texts, is understood as a privileged arena in which students learn to formulate positions, mobilise and coordinate reasons, anticipate objections and propose alternatives. The project therefore examines how control of genre conventions, management of topic and relevance, and organisation and cohesion of texts are implicated in students’ capacity to perform CT tasks. This conceptualisation resonates with European and international policy agendas that emphasise the integration of literacy, critical reflection and democratic participation, and it allows findings from the Portuguese context to inform wider debates on the role of language education in cultivating CT. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts a quantitative design embedded in a broader mixed‑methods project that integrates educational and neuroscientific perspectives. Classroom‑based data on CT and writing were collected from students in grades 10, 11 and 12 in public secondary schools in Lisbon, using intact classes and yielding a convenience sample of 75 participants. Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant university committees; all procedures complied with institutional ethical charters and the General Data Protection Regulation, and informed consent was secured from students and their parents or legal guardians. CT was assessed with the Teste de Pensamento Crítico (TPC) (Lopes et al., 2018). The instrument consists of a short text describing a problematic situation, followed by six open‑ended questions, each mapped onto a specific CT sub‑skill: interpretation, analysis, explanation, evaluation, synthesis. Students answered individually in a 35–40‑minute classroom session. Each response was scored from 0 to 3 on the basis of standardised performance descriptors, yielding a maximum total of 25 points. After a calibration phase, two trained raters independently scored all protocols. Inter‑rater reliability was estimated separately by grade using unweighted Cohen’s kappa, with agreement percentages close to or above 80% and coefficients in the substantial to almost perfect range, supporting the robustness of the scoring procedure. Written language ability was measured through an opinion‑text writing task administered to the same students in 45–50‑minute sessions. The task included an introductory text on a contemporary topic relevant to adolescents and instructions specifying the opinion genre, text length (200–350 words), explicit stance, at least two supporting arguments, illustrative examples and an evaluative discourse. An analytic rubric adapted from national examination criteria comprised three parameters: (A) genre/format; (B) topic and relevance of information ; and (C) organisation and cohesion. Each parameter was scored on four ordered levels, converted into points (e.g., 10, 8, 5, 3), for a maximum of 30 points. Two judges independently rated the texts after joint training; inter‑rater reliability for this task follows the same framework and will be detailed in the full paper. Analyses comprise descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations and score distributions) for total and component scores in CT and writing by grade, alongside estimates of inter‑rater reliability. The main inferential strategy is structural equation modelling, specifically latent growth curve models, to estimate developmental trajectories of CT and model inter‑individual variability, with writing scores entered as predictors of CT intercepts and slopes. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary analyses indicate progressive gains in overall CT scores from grade 10 to grade 12, with higher means and upper‑range values in the final year, especially in explanation and synthesis‑type tasks. Performance across CT sub‑skills remains uneven, as interpretation and evaluation tend to be stronger than creative or generative components, suggesting that school practices may privilege comprehension and critique over solution creation and innovation. Written opinion texts show parallel improvement in control of genre conventions, argumentative pertinence, and textual cohesion, yet many students in all grades still demonstrate only partial mastery of the opinion genre, either by restricting the number of argument–example pairs or by presenting arguments in a weakly structured way. The linkage between writing and CT appears in both assessment criteria and performance profiles. The CT test asks students to interpret a problem, identify and compare possible solutions, justify a chosen option, identify weaknesses, and propose improved or alternative solutions, all of which presuppose clear written expression, coherent organisation, and sustained argumentative discourse. The writing task, in turn, explicitly requires stance‑taking, reasoned argumentation, relevant examples, and structurally coherent texts, closely mirroring the inferential and explanatory demands of CT. Using structural equation modelling and latent growth curve models, the project estimates the overall trajectory of CT development and inter‑individual variability, while examining whether earlier writing performance significantly predicts later CT levels and growth. The multi‑level design—combining classroom assessments of CT and writing with functional MRI during naturalistic listening of CT‑related texts and EEG alpha‑band analyses during CT tasks—is expected to clarify how language comprehension and writing underpin CT. These converging results aim to inform mother‑tongue curricula and pedagogies that intentionally mobilise language for CT development and to support evidence‑based guidelines for integrating CT into language education and aligning assessment with higher‑order learning goals in secondary schooling. References Bronckart, J.-P. (2006). Atividade de linguagem, textos e discursos. EDUC. Bronckart, J.-P. (2007). Theories of language, theories of learning. Palgrave Macmillan. Butler, H. A. (2012). Halpern critical thinking assessment predicts real‑world outcomes of critical thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 721–729. Dantas, L., Oliveira, J., & Galego, C. (2025). From Curriculum Goals to Classroom Practice: Uncovering the Critical Thinking Gap in Portuguese Language Education. Futurity Education, 5(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.57125/FED.2025.09.25.11 Dantas, L. A., Galego, C., Koppe, B., Almeida, E. S., Neves Gonçalves, M., & Brás, J. (2024). Mother tongue teaching and skills development: an analysis of secondary education curricula in European countries and Brazil. In: Y. Waghid & A. Alasfour (Eds.). Values Education and Beyond: Implications for Emotional Learning. WCCES-Brill Book Series Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. American Philosophical Association. Facione, P. A. (2020). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Fink, A., & Benedek, M. (2014). EEG alpha power and creative cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–15. Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. Hagoort, P. (2013). MUC (Memory, Unification, Control) and beyond. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 416. Hagoort, P. (2018). The myth of modularity in cognitive neuroscience of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(9), 1315–1325. Instituto de Avaliação Educativa [IAVE]. (2022). Exame Final Nacional de Português. 12o ano de escolaridade. Decreto-Lei n.o 55/2018, de 6 de julho | Decreto-Lei n.o 27-B/2022, de 23 de março Vygotsky, L. S. (1962, 1991). Thought and language; Pensamento e linguagem. MIT Press; Martins Fontes. Lopes, J., Silva, H., & Morais, E. (2018). Test de pensamiento crítico para estudiantes de enseñanza básica y secundaria. Revista de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación, 5(2), 82-91. | ||