Since the launch of ChatGPT, the use of and debate around generative AI has grown rapidly. Professionals whose work depends on writing have expressed concern about the potential impact of such tools on their roles. But are these concerns justified? Can ChatGPT truly take on the responsibilities of a professional writer? This study investigates that question by comparing the performance of ChatGPT with that of professional editors tasked with optimizing business communication. We conducted two studies, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. In the first, three experienced editors were asked to rewrite four business letters. Their editing processes were recorded using the Microsoft Snipping Tool, and immediately afterward, we conducted retrospective interviews using stimulated recall. These interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Insights from the observations and interviews informed the design of the prompt instructions used in the second study. In the second study, we asked ChatGPT to revise the same four letters using three different prompt types. The Simple prompt instructed the model to “make this text reader-focused.” The B1 prompt referred explicitly to the CEFR B1 language level, requiring ChatGPT to tailor the text for intermediate readers. Finally, the Process prompt simulated the editing steps observed in the professional editors’ workflows. To evaluate outcomes, we conducted both a qualitative comparison of the revised texts and a quantitative readability analysis using LiNT, a validated tool developed for Dutch texts. Our results show that the human editors substantially improved the readability of the original letters, reducing the use of unfamiliar words, shortening complex sentences, and increasing personal engagement through pronoun use. Among the AI outputs, ChatGPT B1 achieved results most comparable to the editors, both in readability and accuracy. In contrast, ChatGPT Simple fell short in terms of clarity and introduced errors through faulty inferences. Surprisingly, ChatGPT Process also underperformed compared to ChatGPT B1 and the human editors. Only the editors' and ChatGPT B1versions were free from errors. In the discussion, we reflect on how generative AI is reshaping the concept of writing within organizations, the skills required to produce effective written communication and the impact on writing pedagogy. Rather than replacing human editors, we argue that generative AI can play a valuable role as a collaborative tool in the organizational writing process.

This empirical exploration investigates how integrating a handwritten diary with a generative AI writing companion can strengthen elementary school students' writing habits and interests in a naturalistic classroom setting. The AI companion serves as a personalized assistant, offering real-time ideas, suggestions, and feedback. By encouraging students to handwrite daily experiences and emotions, then digitize their entries, the approach fosters both reflection and skill development. Over 18 weeks, 32 students from grades three to five (average age 10.5 years old) recorded their diary in Chinese and interacted with the AI companion. This exploratory study employed a pre-post, single-group design, analyzing diary entries, interaction logs, and questionnaire data to assess changes in writing participation and interest. The findings indicate three major outcomes: a notable increase in writing participation, reflected by a rise in the number of ideas and entry length; an enhanced level of writing interest, demonstrating the effectiveness of merging traditional handwriting with AI tools; and improved writing behavior through more frequent and diverse writing activities. When students encountered challenges—such as topic selection or content organization—the AI companion supplied up to three suggestions, preventing information overload and preserving independent thinking. Overall, this interactive, AI-supported environment transformed writing from a solitary task into a dynamic, collaborative process, boosting motivation and quality. The study thus illustrates how strategically blending handwritten diary with innovative AI systems can enrich writing education and sustain students' long-term engagement, while acknowledging its exploratory nature and the need for further research to establish causal links.

This study investigates the impact of peer orthographic revision using a self-reflection tool on orthographic performance in order to improve the understanding and applying of phonological, contextual and morphological rules in third-grade students. Children were assigned to one of three groups: two experimental groups (individual group, dyadic interaction group) and a control group. In the experimental training programme, a self-correction orthographic rubric was used, but while children in the individual group self-corrected the words, children in the dyadic interaction group did it in pairs and interacted in a way such that they should always reach an agreement on the correct spelling. The results showed that although both experimental groups decreased the number of misspellings in the post-test, the dyadic interaction group had the best results, differing significantly from the others, suggesting that self-correction strategies based on rubrics that explicitly display orthographical rules along with collaborative peer learning have a very positive impact on orthographic.

Much attention has been paid to the complexity underlying writing, but the versatile roles that collaborative writing can encourage in elementary students remain scarcely understood. In this exploratory study, we developed a framework for observing the participatory roles that elementary students spontaneously adopt as they engage in collaborative writing in environmental and social studies classrooms. To concretize the applicability of the framework, we illustrate how five students shift between the roles across task types. We identified 18 participatory roles and allocated them into six categories: content-, literacy-, performance-, process-focused, expressive, and off-task roles. While these generally align with previous research on participatory roles, literacy-focused and expressive role categories emerged as new data-driven findings. The concrete examples provided for illustrating how these roles are reflected when students engage in collaborative writing deepen the understanding of the variety and flexibility in roles adopted across the students and task types. We expect the framework to be beneficial for both teachers and researchers, to observe how flexibly students adopt roles from different categories when writing collaboratively. This can provide insights into designing instruction and selecting task types to effectively promote flexible and meaningful participation among all students when writing collaboratively in subject-area classrooms.

In 1966, more than 50 scholars from the UK, US, and Canada convened at Dartmouth College to discuss the state of the profession of English teaching, ultimately proposing a “growth” model of language learning which contrasted with the skills-based models of curriculum sequencing prevalent at the time. While debates about the impact of the 1966 Dartmouth conference on the teaching of English continue to ebb and flow, from contrasting early accounts by seminar participants (Muller, 1967; Dixon, 1969) to more modern work which situates the conference as a harbinger of the process movement (Trimbur, 2008) or Writing Across the Curriculum (Palmquist et al., 2020), its continued provocation of scholarly discussion has become a legacy in its own right. Even if the Dartmouth Seminar didn't change anything happening in the classrooms of its era and thereafter, which is unlikely (Harris, 1991), it would remain a rare moment of international, professional collaboration and consideration virtually unparalleled in our field's history.

Twictée, a portmanteau of Twitter and dictée (French for dictation), is a collaborative method for teaching spelling that promotes the metacognitive reasoning needed to understand and assimilate the morphosyntactic features of French spelling. The present study evaluated Twictée’s impact on spelling performance in 40 classes of 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-grade students (N = 893 students). Mixed-model analyses showed a significant improvement in global spelling performance over time, but the impacts of the interaction between time and condition reached significance for only four specific aspects of spelling performance. Nevertheless, further analyses showed that Twictée’s overall impact on spelling performance was significantly greater in schools in disadvantaged urban areas and in large classes. We discuss these results in the light of previous qualitative analyses carried out on this corpus

Written communication is an important skill across academia, the workplace, and civic participation. Effective writing incorporates instantiations of particular text structures - rhetorical moves - that communicate intent to the reader. These rhetorical moves are important across a range of academic styles of writing, including essays and research abstracts, as well as in forms of writing in which one reflects on learning gained through experience. However, learning how to effectively instantiate and use these rhetorical moves is a challenge. Moreover, educators often struggle to provide feedback supporting this learning, particularly at scale. Where effective support is provided, the techniques can be hard to share beyond single implementation sites. We address these challenges through the open-source AcaWriter tool, which provides feedback on rhetorical moves, with a design that allows feedback customization for specific contexts. We introduce three example implementations in which we have customized the tool and evaluated it with regard to user perceptions, and its impact on student writing. We discuss the tool's general theoretical background and provide a detailed technical account. We conclude with four recommendations that emphasize the potential of collaborative approaches in building, sharing and evaluating writing tools in research and practice.

While previous research on peer feedback in L2 writing has stressed the importance of training in giving useful comments on peer’s writing, very few studies have specifically explored metacognitive training in peer review interaction in terms of the perception and actual reviewing practices of L2 learners. This mixed-methods study employed a 12-week intervention course in L2 writing, in which eighteen Secondary One students, aged 12–13 years, received metacognitive training in peer review interaction. The training focused on metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulations. The results showed that, first, metacognitive training in peer review interaction helped change the perception of these young learners and increased their level of engagement and collaboration during the five peer review tasks. Second, metacognitive training appeared to encourage students to provide more content-related feedback than language-related feedback during dyadic interactions. Finally, it was found that the students were able to seriously consider their peer feedback when revising the peer-reviewed drafts, but written feedback had a much higher chance of being incorporated than did oral feedback. The pedagogical implications of these findings were discussed.

In clinical nursing simulations, a group of students provide care for a robotic patient during a structured scenario. As care is transferred from one group to another, they participate in a patient handoff, with outgoing students passing key information onto incoming students. In healthcare, the nursing handoff is a critical and perilous communication moment that is mediated by a range of participants and texts. Drawing on observations and video recordings of 52 simulation handoffs in the United States, this article examines how two student-designed texts – a collaborative patient chart and individual notes – are leveraged during the handoff. I also consider how handoff talk and writing changes as student nursing knowledge increases over the course of a year. By focusing on textual mediation of the simulated nursing handoff, this article contributes to existing research on professional writing pedagogy and to nursing scholarship on the handoff. Ultimately, it argues that a textual mediation framework can help bridge classroom and professional contexts by evaluating student writing not for how successfully it meets a set of imposed criteria but for how effectively it supports classroom activities.

This qualitative study investigates an approach to mentoring that offers guided practice in authentic disciplinary activities prior to the dissertation stage. The mentoring project under investigation was unique in that it was designed to double as an authentic collaborative research study and as an opportunity for professional development. Starting from the assumption that writing is a function of the activities that underlie it, this article examines the embedded practices out of which writing emerges—namely, the forms of participation taken up by the doctoral student participants during their research and writing, as well as the mentoring practices enacted alongside. Findings show that participants devoted considerable attention to negotiating individual roles and responsibilities throughout the project and to negotiating emerging research objectives in response to a variety of unexpected obstacles posed by the research environment. Additionally, participants encountered significant difficulties constructing claims in the collaborative setting, owing in part to their status as disciplinary newcomers. Findings also show that the design of the collaborative project helped facilitate and distribute mentoring across the diverse research team in productive ways.

This paper introduces a special issue on forms of collaboration in writing. The four contributions in the issue present a range of perspectives on collaborating to produce and construct text. The studies are outcome-driven and/or process-oriented and use a range of research methodologies. Taken together, the papers in the issue confirm the complexity of collaboration in writing and show that many questions remain and much more research is needed. However, the papers also illustrate that the future research focus in collaborative writing might focus on the interactions of variables on the individual, collaborative and contextual level that count rather than the variables separately. Only an all-encompassing picture of the complex interplay between the different variables may allow us to grasp and exploit the full potential of collaborative writing both as an instructional or working method and as a research methodology.

This study investigated how struggling adult writers solve a writing task and what they know about writing and themselves as writers. The writing process of the adult writers was examined by combining three elements: the observation of collaborative writing tasks, analyses of their written texts, and structured individual interviews that included both retrospective and prospective parts. This methodical approach provides productive tools to assess writing processes and writing knowledge of struggling adult writers. The triangulation of data from the different sources is visualized in a case study. Findings from the case study suggest both similarities and differences between struggling adult and younger writers. Concerning the writing process of both groups, planning and revision play a limited role. However, alongside these similar limitations in their writing process, struggling adult writers distinguish themselves from their young counterparts through their relatively extensive knowledge about themselves as writers.

In this study, university students are faced with the task of collaboratively writing an argumentative synthesis from multiple sources. Specifically, in writing, they must integrate conflicting information on a particular issue obtained from reading two texts that present different perspectives. As research in this field has shown, university students’ transactional beliefs about writing have a bearing on the quality of the texts that they write. In addition, studies on collaborative learning have demonstrated the role of constructive strategies in addressing controversy. Constructive strategies require an epistemic approach, which implies understanding and integrating opposing positions and rationales. Therefore, the specific aims of the study are to analyze the relationships between the following: (a) writing beliefs and the joint written synthesis, b) writing beliefs and the strategies used to address the controversies that emerge during collaborative writing, and (c) how students resolve controversies and the quality of their joint syntheses. The participants were 52 fourth-year psychology students at a state-run university in Madrid. The results show that transactional writing beliefs are associated with both the controversy strategies employed by members of student dyads and the quality of the joint syntheses. Furthermore, the strategies for addressing controversy are associated with the quality of the joint syntheses.

The aim of the present study was to improve learning from texts via strategies that train students how to process synthesis texts. Processing such texts requires goal-oriented interaction between reading and writing activities. The participants were 62 sixth-grade students, 33 in the experimental and 29 in the control group. In a pretest-posttest design –with a control group- the effects of an experimental programme were tested on (a) the level of learning achieved, (b) the quality of the written texts produced, and (c) the synthesis text-processing activities (in a sub-sample of 32 participants). The experimental group was trained in the processes involved in writing a synthesis using two expository texts about history via a strategy-oriented programme, while the control group worked on the same content using the more conventional tasks in their regular text book. Findings show that the experimental group outperformed the control group on a deep-learning content measure, wrote better texts, and exhibited more sophisticated text-processing activities.

Most professional education tracks combine school learning with practical workplace training. Although in theory alternating between these two settings is a great opportunity for learning, vocational education students encounter difficulties in integrating the formal explicit knowledge imparted in school with the informal tacit knowledge acquired in the workplace. This design study explores the potential of writing and peer collaboration as mediating tools to facilitate the articulation of conceptual and experiential knowledge. In the context of a school for social and health care assistants, 40 first- and second-year students wrote about critical situations encountered in the workplace, shared them with their classmates, and engaged in written and oral discussions with colleagues and the teacher. A web-based collaborative writing tool (wiki) was used for writing and facilitating participants’ interactions. The results showed significant gains in self-efficacy beliefs and performance on a case-based competence test for the first-year students, but not for those in the second-year. In addition, all students reported a high level of satisfaction with the instructional scenario and particularly its collaborative dimension. The discussion raises some issues and recommendations regarding the design of learning activities involving writing and peer feedback to support students in articulating conceptual and experiential knowledge

This study investigated students' practice of philosophical thinking through collaborative writing in secondary education. A philosophy course was developed following the rationale of the learning communities in which writing was used as an epistemic tool. 45 students organized into 13 teams participated in the course. In this study, a subsample of six students working in 2 teams during one collaborative argumentative writing activity were analyzed. These groups were selected on the basis of their output (high and medium quality) and because both followed an integrating construction strategy for collaborative writing. Data collected included audio, video and computer screen recordings of both groups' discourse and writing activity during collaborative writing (using Camtasia and Atlas-ti software). Analysis focused on collaborative writing interaction (types of talk; evidence of philosophical competences - problematization, argumentation and conceptualization; regulation of the collaborative writing activity and group dynamics) and the quality of individual and collaborative texts.Results indicate that quality of the interaction was related to text quality. Collaborative writing helped the students: 1) to transform abstract ideas into more concrete and appropriate philosophical concepts using examples related to their experiences, 2) to use these philosophical concepts in their own discourse and 3) to problematize their own ideas and provide arguments to support them. From these results, the importance of a structured context of learning to promote critical thinking through writing is discussed as well as the need to train students to develop efficient peer discussion for learning through collaborative writing.

Research on writing to learn is conceptually rich and pedagogically important. This special issue contributes to our growing knowledge about the variables that mediate and moderate the effects of writing on learning. One group of studies addresses individual writing; it adds to the growing evidence for the effects of several moderators, including cognitive, metacognitive, and personal utility prompts in journal writing (Wäschle et al.); and discipline-specific prompts for argument writing (Van Drie et al.). The individual-level studies also suggest moderator roles for discipline-general strategies of argumentation (Smirnova); and open-ended informational writing assignments (Wilcox et al.). Additionally, the Wäschle et al. study provides the strongest evidence for a specific sequence of mediation: Prompted journal writing to comprehension to interest to critical reflection. The second set of articles focusses on collaborative writing (Corcelles & Castelló; Ortoleva and Bétrancourt). It suggests moderating roles for discipline-specific analytic strategies, and peer interaction; and suggests mediating roles for exploratory discourse and group regulation. Further experimental research on collaborative writing is needed to conclusively test hypotheses about specific mediator and moderator variables. The studies in this special issue, like many recent studies, are incommensurable with some influential theories of writing to learn. Rather, individual and collaborative studies converge to suggest that writing to learn may be conceptualized as a guided process of cognition and self-regulation.

When students are composing a collaborative text together and share responsibility for the writing task, cognitive and metacognitive processes become external and visible and thus amenable to research. The aim of this study was to clarify how students interact and how the different student roles and activities are divided up when students engage in collaborative writing face-to-face. In this study 19 university students performed a collaborative writing task in 6 groups consisting of 2-4 students each. The purpose of the task was to assist students in learning the theories of development presented in their course book. The most frequent activities observed during the collaborative writing task were discussing concepts (31%), writing and revising (25%), planning the text (16%) and steering the group's performance (9%). The students engaged rather seldom in evaluative activities and the proportion of off-task talk was also small. Cluster analyses revealed four participant profiles: Cognitively versatile thinkers, Cognitively focused thinkers, Performance steering writers, and Textbook consulters. The participant profiles were the same for all the group members in four groups out of six.We conclude that participant profiles are not individual roles but are dependent on the discursive interaction through which collaborative groups approach the writing task.