Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study

Abstract

Most research into second language (L2) writing has focused on the products of writing tasks; much less empirical work has examined the behaviours in which L2 writers engage and the cognitive processes that underlie writing behaviours. We aimed to fill this gap by investigating the extent to which writing speed fluency, pausing, eye-gaze behaviours and the cognitive processes associated with pausing may vary across independent and integrated tasks throughout the whole, and at five different stages, of the writing process. Sixty L2 writers performed two independent and two integrated TOEFL iBT writing tasks counterbalanced across participants. While writing, we logged participants’ keystrokes and captured their eye-movements. Participants took part in a stimulated recall interview based on the last task they had completed. Mixed effects regressions and qualitative analyses revealed that, apart from source use on the integrated task, L2 writers engaged in similar writing behaviours and cognitive processes during the independent and integrated tasks. The integrated task, however, elicited more dynamic and varied behaviours and cognitive processes across writing stages. Adopting a mixed-methods approach enabled us to gain more complete and specific insights than using a single method.

Changes in Revision Behaviours of L2 Writers in an Intensive English for Academic Purposes Program

“…Another potential limitation of this study concerns the participants' computer skills including the typing style and typing speed were not taken into consideration. As rightly pointed out by Michel et al (2020), the students who are not touch-typists are more likely to lose track of their writing by looking at the keyboard.…”

Early prediction of writing quality using keystroke logging

“…Previous work already showed that keystroke data is sensitive to small differences in writing tasks, such as copy writing versus email writing (Conijn et al, 2019). In addition, differences in source usage, such as independent and integrated tasks, have been shown to have an effect on students' pausing and revision behavior (Michel et al, 2020). Therefore, the relationship between keystroke data and writing quality might also differ across tasks.…”

Exploring the depths of second language processing with eye tracking: An introduction

“…Chukharev-Hudilainen et al (2019) quantified L2 writing fluency through time-aligned eye tracking and keystroke logging during English-learners’ online writing. Michel et al (2020) conducted similar work, but added stimulated recalls to the eye tracking and keystroke logging to further investigate learners’ thought processes during fluent and non-fluent writing behaviors, and this time across various writing-task types. Objective methodologies can also be used to investigate the cognitive processes underlying eye tracking, for example, brain-based techniques like event-related brain potentials (ERPs, which are electrophysiologically measured brain responses to external stimuli).…”

“…As demonstrated in this special issue, eye tracking, an exquisitely versatile methodology, is an excellent tool to do this because it can show how language users allocate, shift, or divide their attention between multiple channels. Thus, the present special issue features eye tracking used in spoken discourse processing (McDonough et al, 2020), reading-while-listening (Conklin et al, 2020), the visual world paradigm (Andringa, 2020), and in an integrated writing task (Michel et al, 2020). Although the specific research questions in each study differ, the authors share a common interest in how language users integrate multiple sources of information (e.g.…”

“…Although not a study on conscious vs. unconscious processing, Michel et al (2020) carried out an ambitious mixed-methods project on L2 writing. The authors collected keystroke logs, eye-movement data, and stimulated recalls from international university students in the UK.…”