Cover not available
Article published In:
Learning and Teaching L2 Writing
Guest-edited by Daphne van Weijen, Elke Van Steendam and Gert Rijlaarsdam
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156] 2008
► pp. 133–151

Development of Fluency and Revision in L1 and L2 Writing in Swedish High School Years Eight and Nine

In this paper we use keystroke logging to examine the development of fluency and revision in high school L1 Swedish and L2 English writing. Each writer wrote one text in English and one in Swedish in each year of the study. Using a combination of statistical and automatic analyses of the keystroke log, we attempted to investigate: i) how the on-line writing process in terms of revising, pausing and fluency in first and second language writing changes over time, ii) whether there are on-line writing process variables which can be identified as contributing to text improvement, and iii) whether there are any aspects of L1 writing which can be identified as contributing to L2 writing and learning processes and which may form part of a teaching programme. Previous studies of L2 writers have attested to changes in fluency, pause and revision behaviour, and amount of text produced, although associations with the quality of the final output are not clearly supported. The within-writer comparison of this study addresses differences in fluency, pause and revision behaviour between L1 and L2 writing. A regression analysis looking at quality and two types of revision (Form, and Conceptual) found that form revision frequency was related to the language of writing and that conceptual revision frequency was dependent on linguistic experience rather than on language. The findings suggest that conceptual revision and writing skills are transferred from the L1 to the L2, and that these skills should be taught accordingly.
Published online: 1 January 2008
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034428
References (40)
References
Allal, L. (2000). Metacognitive regulation of writing in the classroom. In A. Camps & M. Milian (Eds.), Metalinguistic Activity in Learning to Write (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: an exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 205–241.Google Scholar
Chanquoy, L. (2001). How to make it easier for children to revise their writing: A study of text revision from 3rd to 5th grades. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 711, 15–41.Google Scholar
Chanquoy, L., Foulin, J. N., & Fayol, M. (1996). Writing in adults: a real-time approach. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds), Current research in writing: Theories, models and methodology (pp 36–43). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18 (1), 80 - 98.Google Scholar
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 321, 400–414.Google Scholar
Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 221, 365–387.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Berninger, V. W., Abbot, R. D. Abbot, S. P., & Whitaker, D. (1997). Role of mechanics in composing of elementary school children: a new methodological approach. Journal of Educational psychology, 89(1), 170–182.Google Scholar
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.) The Science of Writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jacobs, H.I., Zingraf, S.A., Wormuth, D.R., Hartfiel, V.F. & Hughey, J.B. (1981). Testing ESL Composition: a practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, A. L. (2006). Research methods in translation—Translog. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and K. P. H. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing, Vol. 181, Computer Keystroke Logging-Methods and Applications (pp. 95–105). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Janssen, D., van Waes, L., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.). The Science of Writing (pp. 233–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kollberg, P. (1998). S-notation - A Computer Based Method for Studying and Representing Text Composition. Licentiate thesis, Stockholm: Department of Numerical Analysis and Computing Science, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).Google Scholar
Leijten, M., & van Waes, L. (2006). Inputlog: New perspectives on the logging of on-line writing processes in a Windows environment. In G. Rijlaardam (Series Ed.) and K. P. H. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Studies in Writing, Vol. 181, Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and applications, (pp. 73–93). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E. (2004). The uptake of peer-intervention in the writing classroom. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and G. Rijlaarsdam, van den Bergh, H. & Couzijn, M. (Volume Eds.) Studies in Writing, Volume 141, Effective teaching and learning of writing, (pp. 259–272). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K.P.H. (2003). Stimulated recall as a trigger for increasing noticing and language awareness in the L2 writing classroom: A case study of two young female writers. Language Awareness, 121, 172–186.Google Scholar
(2006). Analysing on-line revision. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and K.P.H. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren, (Volume Eds.), Studies in Writing, Vol. 181, Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and applications (pp. 157–188). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lindgren, E. & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2006). Writing and the analysis of revision: An overview In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and K. P. H. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren. (Vol. Eds.), Studies in Writing, Vol. 181, Computer Keystroke Logging-Methods and Applications, (31–44). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Matsuhashi, A. (1981). Pausing and planning: The tempo of written discourse production. Research in the Teaching of English, 151, 113–134.Google Scholar
(1987). Writing in real time: Modeling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
McCutchen, D. (1996). Acapacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8 (3), 299–325.Google Scholar
(2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
Phinney, M., & Khouri, S. (1993). Computers, revision, and ESL writers: the role of experience. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2131, 257–277.Google Scholar
Rijlaarsdam, G., Couzijn, M., & van den Bergh, H. (2004). The study of revision as a writing process and as a learning-to-write process. Two prospective research agendas. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Volume Eds). Revision: cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 21–38) Dordecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Schilperoord, J. (1996). The distribution of pause time in written text production. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Current research in writing: Theories, models and methodology (pp. 21–35). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., 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 (1), 165–202.Google Scholar
Severinson Eklundh, K., & Kollberg, P. (1996). Computer tools for tracing the writing process: from keystroke records to S-notation. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn, M. (Eds.), Current Research in writing: Theories, models and methodology (pp. 526–541). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Spelman Miller, K., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2006). Keystroke logging: an introduction. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and K. P. H. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren (Volume Eds.). Studies in Writing, Volume 18, Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and applications (pp. 1–9). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Spelman Miller, K., Lindgren, E., Sullivan, K.P.H. (2008). The psycholinguistic dimension in second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer keystroke logging, TESOL QUARTERLY Volume: 42 lssue: 3 Pages: 433–454.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. (2005). Reading and writing in a foreign language: A comparison of conceptual and linguistic processes in Dutch and English. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & De Glopper, K. (2006). Revising in two languages: a multidimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 151, 201–233.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S., & Ahlsén, E. (Eds.) (1999). The Process of Writing: a progress report. (Gothenburg papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 83) Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S. & Karlsson, H. (2002). ScriptLog for Windows - User’s Manual. Technical Report. University of Lund: Department of Linguistics, and University College of Stavanger: Centre for Reading Research.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S., Holmqvist, K., Johansson, V., Karlsson, H., & Wengelin, A. (2006). What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and K. P. H. Sullivan, & E. Lindgren (Volume Eds.). Studies in Writing, Volume 18, Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and applications (45–71). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. P. H., & Lindgren, E. (2002). Self-assessment in autonomous computer-aided L2 writing. ELT Journal, 561, 258–266.Google Scholar
(Eds.) (2006). Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and applications. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sullivan, K.P.H., Lindgren, E., & Mellenius, I.M. (in press 2008/2009). Att studera skrivande med hjälp av loggning [Using logging to study writing]. In R. Domeij (Ed.) Tekniken bakom språket [The technology behind the language], Stockholm, Sweden. Norstedts akademiska förlag.Google Scholar
Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 44 (3), 381–418.Google Scholar
Cited by (15)

Cited by 15 other publications

Haake, Lisa, Sebastian Wallot, Monika Tschense & Joachim Grabowski
2024. Global temporal typing patterns in foreign language writing: exploring language proficiency through recurrence quantification analysis (RQA). Reading and Writing 37:2 ► pp. 385 ff. DOI logo
Johansson, Victoria, Asa Wengelin & Roger Johansson
2023. Chapter 8. Using keystroke logging for studying L2 writing processes. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Foucambert, Denis, Tracy Heranic, Christophe Leblay, Maarit Mutta, Minjing Zhong, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux & B. Hamma
2022. Intégration de la visualisation dans l’analyse de processus complexes : écritures et réécritures dans un corpus multilingue universitaire. SHS Web of Conferences 138 ► pp. 06010 ff. DOI logo
Ivanov, Sergej, Annelie Johansson & Christian Waldmann
2022. Writing Fluency and Digital Source Use in Authentic Academic Writing. HumaNetten :48 ► pp. 262 ff. DOI logo
Révész, Andrea, Marije Michel, Xiaojun Lu, Nektaria Kourtali, Minjin Lee & Laís Borges
2022. The relationship of proficiency to speed fluency, pausing, and eye-gaze behaviours in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 58 ► pp. 100927 ff. DOI logo
Zetterholm, Elisabeth & Eva Lindström
2022. The Writing Process of Bilingual Students with Focus on Revisions and Spelling Errors in Their Final Texts. Languages 7:1 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Choi, Ikkyu & Paul Deane
2021. Evaluating Writing Process Features in an Adult EFL Writing Assessment Context: A Keystroke Logging Study. Language Assessment Quarterly 18:2 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Gärdenfors, Moa
2021. The Writing Process and the Written Product in Bimodal Bilingual Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children. Languages 6:2 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Mohsen, Mohammed Ali
2021. L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program?. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110412 ff. DOI logo
Al-Saadi, Zulaikha & Mohammad Al Heidari-Shahreza
2020. Gender differences in writing: The mediating effect of language proficiency and writing fluency in text quality. Cogent Education 7:1 DOI logo
Bennett, Randy E., Mo Zhang, Paul Deane & Peter W. van Rijn
2020. How Do Proficient and Less Proficient Students Differ in Their Composition Processes?. Educational Assessment 25:3 ► pp. 198 ff. DOI logo
Chukharev-Hudilainen, Evgeny, Aysel Saricaoglu, Mark Torrance & Hui-Hsien Feng
2019. COMBINED DEPLOYABLE KEYSTROKE LOGGING AND EYETRACKING FOR INVESTIGATING L2 WRITING FLUENCY. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41:3 ► pp. 583 ff. DOI logo
Zetterholm, Elisabeth
2019. Texten växer fram. HumaNetten :43 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
de Smet, Milou J.R., Saskia Brand-Gruwel, Mariëlle Leijten & Paul A. Kirschner
2014. Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students' writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education 78 ► pp. 352 ff. DOI logo
Van Steendam, Elke, G. C. W. Rijlaarsdam, H. H. Van den Bergh & L. Sercu
2014. The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing. Instructional Science 42:6 ► pp. 905 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.