Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-vtfg7 Total loading time: 0.404 Render date: 2022-05-26T15:39:25.883Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }
  • English
Studies in Second Language Acquisition Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Article contents

COMBINED DEPLOYABLE KEYSTROKE LOGGING AND EYETRACKING FOR INVESTIGATING L2 WRITING FLUENCY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2019

Evgeny Chukharev-Hudilainen ,
Aysel Saricaoglu Open the ORCID record for Aysel Saricaoglu[Opens in a new window] ,
Mark Torrance  and
Hui-Hsien Feng
Evgeny Chukharev-Hudilainen*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Iowa State University
Aysel Saricaoglu
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, Social Sciences University of Ankara
Mark Torrance
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University
Hui-Hsien Feng
Affiliation:
Department of English, National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Evgeny Chukharev-Hudilainen, 203 Ross Hall, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. E-mail: evgeny@iastate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although fluency is an important subconstruct of language proficiency, it has not received as much attention in L2 writing research as complexity and accuracy have, in part due to the lack of methodological approaches for the analysis of large datasets of writing-process data. This article presents a method of time-aligned keystroke logging and eye-tracking and reports an empirical study investigating L2 writing fluency through this method. Twenty-four undergraduate students at a private university in Turkey performed two writing tasks delivered through a web text editor with embedded keystroke logging and eye-tracking capabilities. Linear mixed-effects models were fit to predict indices of pausing and reading behaviors based on language status (L1 vs. L2) and linguistic context factors. Findings revealed differences between pausing and eye-fixation behavior in L1 and L2 writing processes. The article concludes by discussing the affordances of the proposed method from the theoretical and practical standpoints.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Special Issue 3: Methodological Advances in Investigating L2 Writing Processes , July 2019 , pp. 583 - 604
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1550122. The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the special issue editors, Dr. Andrea Révész and Dr. Marije Michel, for the valuable feedback on the early versions of this manuscript.

References

Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription, and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading: The Official Journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 19, 374–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2019). What can L2 writers' pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 529–554.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 1–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2014). Pauses in spontaneous written communication: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2019). Empowering automated writing evaluation with keystroke logging. In Lindgren, E. & Sullivan, K. P. H. (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 125–142). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishing.Google Scholar
Connelly, V., Dockrell, J. E., Walter, K., & Critten, S. (2012). Predicting the quality of composition and written language bursts from oral language, spelling, and handwriting skills in children with and without specific language impairment. Written Communication, 29, 278–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Larios, J. R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process research. In Ransdell, S. & Barbier, M.-L. (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11–47). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners’ fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2006). Learning to read in Turkish. Developmental Science, 9, 437–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In Gregg, L. W. & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–50). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Frid, J., Wengelin, Å., Johansson, V., Johansson, R., & Johansson, M. (2012). Testing the temporal accuracy of keystroke logging using the sound card. In 13th International EARLI SIG Writing Conference, Porto, Portugal. Retrieved from http://portal.research.lu.se/portal/files/5892439/3412110.pdf.Google Scholar
Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2017). TRAKTEXT: Investigating writing processes using eye-tracking technology. Methodological Innovations, 10, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Evidence from language bursts, revision, and transcription for translation and its relation to other writing processes. In Fayol, M., Alamargot, D., & Berninger, V. (Eds.), Translation of thought to written text while composing (pp. 15–25). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In Levy, C. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 29–55). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hennessey, C., & Duchowski, A. T. (2010). An open source eye-gaze interface: Expanding the adoption of eye-gaze in everyday applications. Proceedings of the 2010 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research and Applications. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1743686.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Yoon, H. (2014). The use of L1 as a writing strategy in L2 writing tasks. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 14, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research. Written Communication, 30, 358–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In Brown, C. & Hagoort, P. (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83–122). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E., Spelman Miller, K., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2008). Development of fluency and revision in L1 and L2 writing in Swedish high school years eight and nine. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olive, T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6, 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30, 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, J. (2010). Python text processing with NLTK 2.0 Cookbook. Birmingham, UK: Packt Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Ransdell, S., Arecco, M. R., & Levy, C. M. (2001). Bilingual long-term working memory: The effects of working memory loads on writing quality and fluency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Ekiert, M., & Torgersen, E. N. (2016). The effects of complexity, accuracy, and fluency on communicative adequacy in oral task performance. Applied Linguistics, 37, 828–848.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers' pausing and revision behaviors: A mixed-methods study. Studies in Seond Language Acquisition, 41, 605–631.Google Scholar
Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A. V., Glopper, K. D., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S., & Torrance, M. (2007). EyeWrite (Version 5.1).Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelman Miller, K. (2000). Academic writers on-line: Investigating pausing in the production of text. Language Teaching Research, 4, 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, M. (2012). EyeWrite—A tool for recording writers’ eye movements. Learning to Write Effectively: Current Trends in European Research, 25, 355.Google Scholar
Torrance, M. (2015). Understanding planning in text production. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 72–87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Torrance, M., Johansson, R., Johansson, V., & Wengelin, Å. (2016). Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: An eye-movement study. Psychological Research, 80, 729–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrance, M., Rønneberg, V., Johansson, C., & Uppstad, P. H. (2016). Adolescent weak decoders writing in a shallow orthography: Process and product. Scientific Studies of Reading: The Official Journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 20, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uppstad, P. H., & Solheim, O. J. (2007). Aspects of fluency in writing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement Science, 10, 165–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition, 38, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wengelin, A., Torrance, M., Holmqvist, K., Simpson, S., Galbraith, D., Johansson, V., & Johansson, R. (2009). Combined eyetracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 337–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Wolfersberger, M. (2003). L1 to L2 writing process and strategy transfer: A look at lower proficiency writers. TESL-EJ, 7, 1–12.Google Scholar
19
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

COMBINED DEPLOYABLE KEYSTROKE LOGGING AND EYETRACKING FOR INVESTIGATING L2 WRITING FLUENCY
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

COMBINED DEPLOYABLE KEYSTROKE LOGGING AND EYETRACKING FOR INVESTIGATING L2 WRITING FLUENCY
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

COMBINED DEPLOYABLE KEYSTROKE LOGGING AND EYETRACKING FOR INVESTIGATING L2 WRITING FLUENCY
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *