How students perform synthesis tasks: An empirical study into dynamic process configurations.

Abstract

In this study we examine process configurations in synthesis tasks. We study whether these configurations are students traits or vary within students per task. In a national survey with a representative sample of 658 Dutch upper-secondary school students, we collected writing tasks, registered students’ writing behaviors (via keylogging) and their task perceptions and assessed the quality of their texts. Each participant completed two informative and two argumentative synthesis tasks. Writing process configurations were based on a preselected set of writing behaviors that proved to be related to text quality: time spent on sources and production activities, switching between sources and between sources and text production, and speed of production; with reference to the phase in the process (first, mid, final part). Latent profile analyses distilled four process configurations, some of which were more likely to occur with the informative genre. One process configuration, that is, “Fast text production,” was related to qualitatively higher text quality scores than the others. Additionally, at the age of 16–18 a writing process configuration is not a student trait: in most instances, we observed two or more task configurations within students. Writers' task experiences such as topic knowledge and topic interest predicted the occurrence of certain process configurations which could indicate adaptivity. The finding that writing configurations of writers vary even between similar tasks has important implications for the generalizability of (synthesis) writing research on the basis of a single writing task and process per student.

Writing Process Feedback Based on Keystroke Logging and Comparison With Exemplars: Effects on the Quality and Process of Synthesis Texts

“…The rationale is the following: when giving feedback on specific writing process variables, we may expect to find an effect of the feedback on these writing process variables. Secondly, from previous research we know that these process variables are correlated with text quality (see, e.g., Vandermeulen, van den Broek, et al (2020) for source-related variables and Van Steendam et al (2022) and Van Waes & Leijten (2015) for fluency-, pausing-, and revision-related variables). For this reason, these variables were also incorporated into the Inputlog writing process report.…”

The Role of Executive Function in an Integrated Writing Task

“…Du and List (2020) also found that American undergraduate students were not able to effectively connect various information between notes taken and writing episodes made during a read-to-write task. Recently, Van Steendam et al (2022) explored a large sample of 658 Dutch upper secondary students' synthesis writing process and found that higher-level writers tended to rely on fewer integration activities (e.g., less time in reading sources or switches between written products and sources).…”

“…Extant studies have argued that the capacity to write from sources goes far beyond the combination of independent literacy skills such as listening, reading, and writing (Chan, 2017; Liao et al, 2021; Zhu et al, 2016). When tackling this task, students are typically required to utilize integration skills to incorporate various pieces of information from multiple source materials into a new text (Cumming et al, 2016; Plakans & Gebril, 2013; Van Steendam et al, 2022). The process of integrating information indeed characterizes the IW task as a complicated literacy activity, involving selecting (distilling key ideas from less important details), organizing (making meaning of texts and reconstructing the meaning), and connecting (linking information from various sources (Nelson & King, 2022; Spivey, 1997).…”

“…Whereas prior empirical research has highlighted the importance of the integration process during integrated writing tasks, researchers have also suggested that this process was characterized by a series of recursive and temporal integration activities (Du & List, 2020; Martínez et al, 2015; Mateos et al, 2008; Van Steendam et al, 2022). Based on the principal components analysis of 900 variables generated from keystroke logging, Leijten and his associates (2019) identified eight significant indicators of source integration during a reading-to-write task among Dutch postgraduates, such as the number of switches between sources , initial reading time , relative time spent on text during process , etc.…”

“…In recent years, integrated writing tasks (IW, also named writing from sources, Cumming et al, 2016) have gained popularity in language assessments, such as the Internet-based Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL iBT), that aim to reflect students' written literacy in a more authentic way (Cumming et al, 2005). There are various formats under the umbrella of IW tasks in previous studies (Xie, 2023), such as summary writing based on one or more texts (Kim & McCarthy, 2021;Yang, 2014), integrated reading-to-write argumentative, informative or narrative writing tasks (Cheong et al, 2022;Leijten et al, 2019;Plakans & Gebril, 2013;Van Steendam et al, 2022;Ye & Ren, 2019), and listening-reading-writing tasks involving listening to audio before composing essays (Plakans, 2008;Zhu et al, 2016). This study was conducted in a listening-reading-writing context that required students to compose an argumentative essay for a specific purpose based on one audio and six texts.…”