Tracking the Real‐Time Evolution of a Writing Event: Second Language Writers at Different Proficiency Levels

Abstract

The current study focused on emergent processes during real‐time second language (L2) writing activity in an English as a foreign language university context, examining differences in these processes across individual capacities. Participants included 22 adult Japanese learners of L2 English and their tutor. The data were collected using digital screen capture and eye‐tracking technologies while the learners wrote a 35‐minute argumentative essay. Supplementary stimulated retrospective recalls were also conducted to document the learners’ and the tutor's reflections on the writing event. Results revealed clear differences in L2 writing activity at different periods in time as well as differences in cognitive activity that appear to be mediated by L2 proficiency. Importantly, the obtained patterns differed depending on whether duration or frequency data were considered. These findings thus demonstrate the need to broaden the study of the temporal dimension of L2 writing and to consider more nuanced mixed‐methods approaches in future work.

Exploring Second Language Writers’ Pausing and Revision Behaviors

“…Although there is a growing number of studies utilizing a combination of methods to tap the writing process (e.g., Gánem-Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018;Khuder & Harwood, 2015;Révész, Kourtali et al, 2017;Stevenson et al, 2006), only few such L2 studies (Chukharev-Hudilainen et al, 2019;Révész, Kourtali et al, 2017) have looked into pausing behaviors according to textual location. Révész, Kourtali et al (2017) studied the writing behaviors of 73 advanced L2 writers carrying out tasks of differential cognitive complexity.…”

“…Besides theoretical and practical considerations, the enhanced research effort at studying pausing and revision behaviors is probably due to recent technological developments, which allow for obtaining a more fine-grained description of observable pausing and revision phenomena and, hence, for making more valid inferences about corresponding cognitive processes. For many years, verbal protocols were the preferred method in writing process research (e.g., Roca de Larios et al, 2008), but, increasingly, L2 researchers also utilize more novel tools such as keystroke logging (Spelman Miller, 2000;Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glopper, 2006) and eye-tracking to examine pausing and revision behaviors (Chukharev-Hudilainen, Feng, Saricaoglu, & Torrance, 2019;Gánem-Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018;Révész, Michel, & Lee, 2017). A few studies have additionally succeeded in combining multiple techniques to gain a more complete picture of pausing and revision phenomena and underlying cognitive processes (e.g., Chukharev-Hudilainen et al, 2019;Khuder & Harwood, 2015;Révész, Kourtali, & Mazgutova, 2017;Stevenson et al, 2006).…”

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

“…Only a few L2 studies have employed eye-gaze measurements to tap into looking behaviours during writing, with all of them triangulating eye-gaze recordings with other techniques (Chukharev-Hudilainen et al, 2019; Gánem-Gutiérrez and Gilmore, 2018; Révész et al, 2017b, 2019). The quantitative measurement of real-time written production and/or eye-gaze recordings, especially when combined with the qualitative examination of thought processes, should provide a fuller and more specific description of the behaviours and cognitive processes of L2 writers.…”

Introduction

“…The researchers also triangulated the eye-tracking data with recordings of keystroke logs and stimulated recall comments. Similarly, Gánem-Gutiérrez and Gilmore (2018) used eye-tracking methodology together with digital screen capture and stimulated recall protocols to study L2 writing processes. In both studies, the combination of methods allowed for obtaining a more complete picture of the writing process than employing any of the methods alone would have afforded.…”