1 Introduction

Not only writing technology, but also educational technologies, and in particular online learning, have created new contexts for learning that offer various opportunities for writers to exchange papers, give feedback to each other, construct knowledge, and acknowledge the writings of others. Many of the technologies discussed in this book straddle writing and learning technologies. E-portfolios, authoring tools, learning platforms, mind and concept mapping software, digital note-taking tools, annotation environments, feedback platforms, and automated feedback—none of these tools can be clearly or uniquely assigned to either the learning or the writing domain alone. Research on these tools is as often done within educational disciplines as within the writing sciences. Writing and learning technologies have melded into a large field that includes learning, writing, communication, publication, presentation, and research. It has become common to speak of “literate landscapes” to refer to the interconnectedness of media in integrated activity fields.

We will not be able to assess the entire scope of the new interconnections of writing/learning technologies as this is widely uncharted territory. We do, however, aim to demonstrate that the existing or upcoming transformations in selected areas mentioned in this book form hybrid arrangements in which learning and writing can no longer be separated. Today, learning contexts almost universally include writing in some form, and most writing tools supported or employed in those contexts have an open or underlying agenda that involves learning.

2 Traditional Views on the Connections Between Writing and Learning (the Past)

The connection between writing and learning belongs to the theoretical fundamentals of the writing sciences and bridges writing with education. A highly influential notion was Emig’s (1977, p. 122) thesis that writing “represents a unique mode of learning-not merely valuable, not merely special, but unique.” Her research (Emig, 1971) qualified writing as a self-directed way of developing, shaping and structuring knowledge. She highlighted the role of language, and in particular writing, as a mediating tool for learning. Her suggestion provides a justification for writing pedagogy despite critiques of the validity of writing as a driver for learning (Ackerman, 1993; Applebee, 1984).

The complementary concept to Emig’s “writing-to-learn” has been seen in “learning-to-write,” which stresses the domain-specific acquisition of disciplinary modes of writing rather than the domain-general learning processes as in writing-to-learn. It seems commonplace that these two kinds of learning cannot be fully distinguished but refer to different sides of the same coin.

In this chapter, we discuss writing and learning in more general terms, encompassing both variations. In this, we follow Klein and Boscolo’s (2016, p. 312) description that writing:

has shown a remarkable capacity to shape learning, from the relatively simple means of learning (where, for instance, writing aids memory), to its role in the solution of conceptual problems in a variety of disciplinary fields. […] Writing is not an all-purpose ability, but a pattern of activities which can have productive effects on knowing and thinking by interacting with different knowledge fields and learning contexts. (Klein & Boscolo, 2016, p. 312)

Understanding writing as a “pattern of activities” broadens the scope to include the many sub-actions and thinking processes that may be involved in writing and connects it in various ways to learning. These connections between writing and learning have been considered from several theoretical perspectives:

  • Activity theory and socio-cultural approaches: positioning writing as an activity that connects the learner with action fields mediated by genres and writing technologies (Russell, 1997, 2009).

  • Constructivist positions: stressing the self-generated and self-organized nature of knowledge by writing (Nelson, 2001).

  • Socialization theories: connecting writers with their communities (Carter et al., 2007) drawing on theories such as Lave and Wenger’s (1991) Communities of Practice or Duff’s (2010) language socialization into academic discourses approach.

  • Cognitive theories: focussing on mental processes (cf. Klein et al., 2016) and their gains for knowledge constitution (Galbraith, 1999) and transformation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987) or symbol processing (Flower & Hayes, 1981; Hayes & Flower, 1980).

  • Learning of disciplinary discourse: In a practical sense, learning-to-write has been used as a cover term for the learning of specialized disciplinary discourses and has become the reference field for WAC/WID programs (Anderson et al., 2015; Finkenstaedt-Quinn et al., 2021).

While these theoretical perspectives may need to be adapted in response to new digital contexts, we may assume that they maintain their validity through the current technological transformations. For instance: activity changes its nature when performed in networked and virtually structured cultures; self-organized learning as conceptualized in constructivist positions happens in many new ways in digital contexts; socialization takes place differently in virtual communities than in person-to-person contexts; cognitive processes involved in digital writing differ from those in using typewriters or paper and pencils; writing-to-learn in disciplinary discourses has been re-shaped by new opportunities to communicate, interact, and publish with digital media. The common factor here is the addition of technology to a writing activity and context. Therefore, the key question to address in order to begin to explore and understand these new digital contexts is technology's mediating effect in each of these that leads to a change in the nature of the activity. We explore this now by interrogating the ways in which writing in learning contexts is changing through digitalization today.

3 Current Dimensions of the Writing-Learning Nexus

The theoretical perspectives outlined above prioritise different dimensions of the writing-learning relationship. In this section, we examine four ways in which this relationship has been transformed through digitalization in recent years, drawing on all three sections of this collection. We use the notion of patterns of activities to consider how different aspects of writing and learning processes have changed and assess the affordances and opportunities these offer writers, learners and educators.

3.1 New Spaces for Writing and Learning

A fundamental change in both writing and learning accompanying digitalization is that both now happen in new virtual and physical spaces, contexts, and frames, breaking out of the traditional parameters and locations for these activities in the past. By the time Learning Management Systems (LMS) became the new virtual home for teaching, for the organization of pedagogy, and the exchange and communication of documents, writing was already firmly established in its own virtual home, the word processor, a space for text creation. In the early stages, LMSs were not yet able to make their users write and word processors were not yet able to make their writers communicate what they had produced. With the advent of the world wide web, the boundaries between these distinct and separate spaces became blurred and cross-overs became increasingly common. New spaces emerged where writing, text management, and learning were much more closely integrated. The most important among these are:

Each of these tools or platforms provides a space in which writing and learning meld to new and potentially unique kinds of activities. Each of them demands its own pedagogical strategy and its own set of instructions as a writing tool. The term “space” in this context is used both metaphorically (as a place where people can work and get together) and literally (as a visually represented, interactive digital environment that can be manipulated by the user).

3.2 Convergent Trends in Knowledge Work

Both writing and learning aim to deal with intellectual activities such as accessing, acquiring, managing, applying, or constructing knowledge even if they traditionally approach knowledge from different angles. While learning in higher education was primed to strengthen analytic skills by reading written sources and decomposing them into learnable units, writing usually went in the opposite direction by synthesizing and linearizing knowledge from separate knowledge units into a coherent text. Today, digital technologies provide many opportunities to undermine this traditional division of labour in order to re-mix writing and learning activities.

There is a growing range of new tools and technologies to support knowledge work in much more detailed ways than before. Subprocesses of writing support knowledge construction through the elaboration of narratives, arguments, concepts and discussions. Similarly, learning proceeds through a process of construction and connection between prior and new learning which may be scaffolded by tools or educators within the learning environment. A number of chapters in Part 2 “Web Applications and Platform Technology” of this volume address these digital tools:

  • Idea generation and mapping software: Kruse et al. (“Creativity Software and Idea Mapping Technology”) highlight how this kind of software functions both as a creative tool to generate ideas and a structuring support to organise ideas. Such tools have applications for both writing and learning and for both simultaneously. They can be used for analytic activities (reducing theory or writings to core features) and also for synthetic ones (conceptualizing the content of one’s own writing).

  • Tools for argumentation: Benetos (“Digital Tools for Written Argumentation”) explores the range of tools available to support the development of a discursive argument. This activity includes elaborating pro and con positions, providing justification for these positions, and generating a cohesive synthesis. Again, this is a process of organising and structuring ideas, layering in elements to bring depth and substance. This activity is a quintessential writing-to-learn process where through the development of a cohesive argument in writing, the knowledge of the context and content are deepened and connected.

  • Electronic Portfolios: Bräuer and Ziegelbauer (“The Electronic Portfolio: Self-Regulation and Reflective Practice”) examine the use of these tools for self-reflection where the digital tool serves as a scaffold for drawing meaning and constructing knowledge from one’s own or other’s experiences. These tools support the reflective process of identifying (what?), interrogating (so what?) and evaluating (now what?) critical moments of experience to generate new understandings and potential for action. In this case the reflective process is often, though not necessarily, undertaken as a written activity where understanding is developed and knowledge is generated through writing.

Chapters in Part 3 “Writing Analytics and Language Technologies” of this volume explore more techno-centric knowledge construction and generation through automated processes:

  • Information retrieval: Benites (“Information Retrieval and Knowledge Extraction for Academic Writing”) discusses the important role of automated information retrieval within the digital writing landscape in the era of Big Data. In many fields, the volume of content available as source or reference material has exploded. In this context, it is vitally necessary to automate processes of search and data extraction in order to make exploration of content feasible. The technology in this case mediates the process of knowledge discovery and even knowledge construction that can then be re-articulated or further developed through the writing process.

  • Automatic text generation and summarisation: Benites et al. (“Automated Text Generation and Summarization for Academic Writing”) explore the even more active role of technology as mediator in the role of automatic text generation and summarisation within the digital writing landscape. The degree to which the human is involved in this process can diminish from curation and re-construction of generated text to little more than copy-editing. This is an increasingly difficult issue in formal learning contexts where learning is often assessed through written outputs. However, both the process and product of text generation can be valuable for the writing process, requiring writers to set the parameters of the generation process as a kind of chef de cuisine managing the writing resources at their disposal. Still, much of the effect that formulation used to have on the learning process will probably disappear in favour of more analytic or evaluative kinds of text work.

3.3 Writing and Learning as a Collaborative Activities

Perhaps one of the most exciting developments of recent years has been the potential for collaboration afforded by more and more technologies within the writing landscape. With the expansion of the world wide web and the widespread use of cloud computing technology, there is much greater potential for writers and learners to operate within shared spaces, on shared documents and platforms towards shared objectives, both synchronously and asynchronously. This technological revolution has opened up new ways of producing shared thinking, creating, and writing that can be deployed to support learning as a social activity. A number of chapters in Part “Web Applications and Platform Technology” of this volume focus on harnessing the power of technology for collaborative activity during different aspects of the writing process:

  • Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing: Castelló et al. (“Synchronous and Asynchronous Collaborative Writing”) highlight how the act of producing a collaborative written artefact has evolved over recent times from asynchronous collaboration afforded by early tools such as email to live synchronous fully collaborative writing which is possible within cloud-based tools such as Google Docs. The technology has shifted the nature of the collaboration from parallel and sequential activity to a fully reciprocal process.

  • Content Management System or Wikis: Cummings (“Content Management System 3.0: Emerging Digital Writing Workspaces”) explores the role of collaborative knowledge management, as evidenced in wiki creation. Similar to idea mapping software discussed by Kruse, Rapp, and Benetos, this inherently collaborative process supports both creation and curation of knowledge for writing and learning.

  • Social Annotation: Hodgson et al. (“Social Annotation: Promising Technologies and Practices in Writing”) explore the focused writing activity of annotation within a collaborative context and its role in learning and in learning to write. The social dimension provides a discursive environment to engage with and through text.

  • Social Media for Writing and Learning: Bowen and Whithaus (“Multimodal Chat-Based Apps: Enhancing Copresence When Writing”) examine multimodal chat which plays an overtly social and affective role within the process of writing and learning. They highlight how writers make use of the social support of others through social media while engaged in the challenging task of writing.

3.4 Writing, Learning and the Role of Feedback and Assessment

Here we turn our focus to learning-to-write and in particular how technology has transformed summative and formative assessment processes in this area. Today, technology routinely facilitates self, peer, teacher, and automated assessment with feedback on writing as evidenced in a number of chapters in this volume. The combinability of instructional prompts and assignments, writing genres, and different types of assessment provides a vast educational space that has not yet been fully explored. We offer two examples:

4 Conclusions: What Are the Developments Pointing to (the Future)?

It is clear from this presentation of only four areas of writing and learning that technology has radically transformed how writing and learning processes can interact and complement each other. The breadth of bespoke and domain general tools available and in common use today across each of these four areas highlights the affordances that learners and educators have capitalised upon to scaffold complex and demanding writing and learning tasks.

The ever-increasing role of digital technology forces us to ask: in an age where Generative AI has succeeded in writing student essays of high quality, what remains for the writer and which aspects of writing should still be taught? What kind of learning will take place when writers are disburdened from content generation and formulation?

Furthermore, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the broader landscape of artefacts that learners can generate either as part of the writing process or parallel to it and not to consider the role of these artefacts in both learning and assessment. A written output is only one means of representing learning; taking the perspective of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018), there is an imperative to offer learners multiple means of representing what they know and can do. The ecosystem of digital writing tools offers many options for alternative mechanisms to generate a written output and alternative outputs that can allow learners to demonstrate key aspects of the cognitive processes underpinning writing, even perhaps without generating a final written text. As regards generating written output, learners can make use of speech recognition software, for example, or even text generation software to generate a written output. As such, assessment may have to redefine what it recognizes as indicators of learning and to focus more on selection, curation, and organisation of information into meaningful (multimodal, non-linear) representations that include text, rather than a traditional textual page that aims to elicit a mental model of learners’ acquired knowledge.

As regards writing to learn, programmes of learning may include learning outcomes that do not require a traditional full essay written output. The ecosystem of digital writing tools offers a range of options for representations of structured thinking other than written essay text, such as mind maps or other structured graphic representations, which could be used for the purposes of representation and assessment. These artefacts have at least some components of the core aspects of writing-to-learn noted by Applebee (1984) and discussed above: permanence, explicitness, conventional discourse forms, and active nature. This can allow learners to produce valid and persistent representations of their knowledge and skills which can then be assessed by instructors without having to produce a full written text. In terms of inclusion, this allows access to the curriculum for diverse learners, some of whom may have difficulties with text-based media for a range of physical, cognitive, or affective reasons.

Not only can tools within the digital writing ecosystem be used to capture valuable dimensions of the writing (and writing-to-learn) process, other multi-modal digital technologies now offer valid alternative options to achieve the four core characteristics of writing noted above without producing written text. In particular, the proliferation of digital image, audio and video capture and editing tools in recent years puts the production of multimodal artefacts of learning well within reach of learners of all ages across a range of contexts. While access to these tools may still be more restricted than those required for writing, with the ubiquity of the smartphone this may become more widely distributed across populations. With the exponential growth in the ability to create, edit, and share multimodal content, the long-dominant position of the written word may well be in jeopardy.