Introduction

Abstract

The last three decades have seen a significant advancement in describing and understanding the processes involved in second language (L2) writing (for recent reviews, see Cumming, 2016; Polio, 2012; Roca de Larios, Nicolás-Conesa, & Coyle, 2016). Much of the existing research has been cognitive in orientation and concerned with capturing the online behaviors of L2 writers (i.e., directly observable characteristics of the writing process such as pausing) and the cognitive operations that underlie L2 written production (e.g., planning, linguistic encoding). In the cognitive paradigm, the motivation for studying L2 writing processes comes from two main sources. First, research into L2 writing processes is important for theory-building purposes. When constructing and assessing theoretical models of L2 writing, it is not sufficient to look at the linguistic product of the composing process. To avoid the risk of construct underrepresentation (Norris & Ortega, 2003), it is also crucial to provide evidence about the behaviors of L2 writers and the cognitive activities underlying those behaviors. Second, it is believed that information about what L2 writers do when they compose a text can yield useful insights for L2 instruction and assessment. There is increasing evidence, for example, that understanding the processes in which good L2 writers engage may help identify what strategies may be beneficial to teach (e.g., Olson & Land, 2007; van Gelderen, Ootsdam, & van Schooten, 2011). Knowledge about how observable writing behaviors relate to underlying cognitive processes could also help diagnose sources of writing difficulty, and thereby enable educators to adjust instruction to better meet their students' needs. Last but not least, research into L2 writing processes can also provide instructors with insights into the language learning potential of writing, that is, how the act of written production may foster cognitive processes,

Exploring working memory and language dominance in heritage bilinguals’ writing processes

“…Participants’ verbalizations were recorded with Audacity 2.0.5 and a digital recorder. A concern with TAs as a research methodology, however, is the reactivity it can induce in the experimental results (e.g., Bowles, 2010; Révész & Michel, 2019). Reactivity occurs when the act of completing two tasks—writing and verbalizing their thoughts—affects the very processes that verbalizations are supposed to unveil.…”

“…Second, as Mikulski and Elola (2011) pointed out, a combination of both quantitative (e.g., keystroke logging) and qualitative (e.g., TAs) data are needed to elucidate HL bilinguals’ writing processes to clearly address the source problem (e.g., text organization, surface linguistic structures) for HL writers’ pausing and revision behaviors when composing texts in the heritage vis-à-vis the societal language. Along these lines, such methodological consideration of combining keystroke-logging and TA methods has been addressed in second language writing research to gain more valid insights into writing processes (see Révész & Michel, 2019). Both methods also complement each other by addressing the limitations of only using one of these methods.…”

Rara and Her Bedtime Story Journey

“…The second language acquisition has always been an interesting topic to discuss. Particularly, The disagreement regarding to whether second of foreign language acquisition follows exact route and stage as the first language acquisition (Doughty & Long, 2008;MacWhinney, 2015;Révész & Michel, 2019;Saville-Troike, 2012). However, the SLA researchers tend to have the same view when it comes to the relation between age and language acquisition efficiency.…”

Language Reflection Fostered by Individual L2 Writing Tasks

“…Another limitation of the study is its reliance on participants’ online verbalizations, texts, and notes as the only data source. In this respect, the combined use of data from multiple sources and modalities (i.e., stimulated recall interviews, eye-tracking, keystroke logging, digital screen capture) has been advocated as an alternative to strengthen and complement the analyses and interpretation of writing processes (Gánem-Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018; Révész & Michel, 2019). Future research should explore whether the application of these new methodologies to the units of analysis suggested in the present study provide a more accurate understanding of the composition process, especially at the moment-by-moment levels.…”