Cover not available

Article In: Language Teaching for Young Learners: Online-First Articles

L2 writing processes in upper-primary EFL learners

A keystroke-logging study

ORCiD logo with link | University of Murcia
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Although writing is a regular part of upper-primary EFL instruction, little is known about how young learners distribute effort across planning, formulation, and revision while composing in real time. This study examined the writing processes of 22 Spanish upper-primary EFL learners aged 11–12 during a six-picture narrative task completed in English in a computer lab. Keystroke logs were collected with Inputlog and processed through a VBA-based classification system that segmented behaviour into planning, formulation, and revision, together with finer subprocesses. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric analyses were used to examine overall process distribution, subprocess profiles, and temporal variation across three equal task intervals. The results showed a clear planning-heavy profile: planning occupied the largest share of writing time, followed by formulation and then revision. Within planning, global planning clearly exceeded local planning; within formulation, fluent formulation was more frequent than lexical retrieval and problem-solving formulation. Revision was comparatively limited and was concentrated mainly on subword changes, with little evidence of higher-level reworking. No significant temporal differences were found for the broad processes across intervals. The study adds process-based evidence on young EFL writers in a still under-researched age group and supports the cautious use of theory-informed keystroke classification in child L2 writing research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature Review
    • 2.1Theoretical models of writing development
    • 2.2Empirical studies on writing processes in children
    • 2.3Methodological developments and limitations
    • 2.4The present study
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Context and participants
    • 3.2Task design
    • 3.3Data collection procedure
    • 3.4Classification system (VBA)
      • Event classification
      • Coding principles
      • Output variables
    • 3.5Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Distribution of Time across Planning, Formulation, and Revision
    • 4.2Subprocess Profiles within Each Writing Component
      • Planning
      • Formulation
      • Revision
    • 4.3Temporal Patterns across the Writing Timeline
      • Planning
      • Formulation
      • Revision
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The weight of planning and its developmental implications
    • 5.2Formulation between fluency and problem-solving
    • 5.3A constrained and surface-oriented revision phase
    • 5.4Temporal invariance and recursive tendencies
    • 5.5Methodological contribution
  • 6.Conclusions and pedagogical implications
    • 6.1Pedagogical implications
  • 7.Limitations and future directions
  • Ethics declarations
    • Ethics approval and consent to participant
  • References
References (45)
References
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2012). Keystroke analysis: Reflections on procedures and measures. Written Communication, 29(3), 246–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and when second-language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). What can L2 writers’ pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 529–554. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berninger, V., & Swanson, H. L. (1994). Modifying Hayes and Flower’s model of skilled writing to explain beginning and developing writing. In E. C. Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 57–81). JAI Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20(1), 99–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conijn, R., Dux Speltz, E., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2024). Automated extraction of revision events from keystroke data. Reading and Writing, 37(2), 483–508. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Criado, R., Garcés-Manzanera, A., & Plonsky, L. (2022). Models as written corrective feedback: Effects on young L2 learners’ fluency in digital writing from product and process perspectives. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 697–719. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A., & Gilmore, A. (2018). Tracking the real-time evolution of a writing event: Second language writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcés-Manzanera, A. (2021). An exploratory study of primary school children’s writing processes in digital environments: The use of models as written corrective feedback [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Murcia]. DIGITUM. [URL]
(2023). Young EFL learners’ pausing behavior: exploring pause thresholds in two proficiency levels. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado, 16(32), 64–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Language bursts and text quality in digital writing by young EFL learners. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 13(1), Article 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2026). Digital writing and keystroke logging software: Observing writing behaviors. Nova Science Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García Hernández, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2017). Reformulation as a problem-solving space for young EFL writers: A longitudinal study of language learning strategies. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 193–222). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graham, S., McKeown, D., Kiuhara, S., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Students in the Elementary Grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, S., Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2024). Constructing theoretically informed measures of pause duration in experimentally manipulated writing. Reading and Writing, 37(2), 329–357. Google Scholar logo with link to 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). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kellogg, R. T., Whiteford, A. P., Turner, C. E., Cahill, M., & Mertens, A. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 159–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Written language bursts mediate the relationship between transcription skills and writing performance. Written Communication, 34(3), 306–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (Eds.). (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting. Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luquin, M., & García Mayo, M. del P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98(2021), 102465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing. De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4), 449–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Medimorec, S., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Pauses in written composition: On the importance of where writers pause. Reading and Writing, 30(6), 1267–1285. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N.-E., Lee, M., & Borges, L. (2020). Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research, 36(3), 307–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myhill, D. (2009). Children’s patterns of composition and their reflections on their composing processes. British Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 47–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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(2), 173–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviors: a mixed-methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 605–631. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problem-solving formulation processes. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 100–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spelman Miller, K. (2006). Pausing, productivity and the processing of topic in online writing. In K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 131–156). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Pausing, productivity and the processing of topic in online writing. In K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 131–156). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2006). Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 201–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thorson, H. (2000). Using the computer to compare foreign and native language writing processes: A statistical and case study approach. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 155–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Y., Kim, M., & Crossley, S. (2024). Making sense of L2 written argumentation with keystroke logging. Journal of Writing Research, 15(3), 435–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, W., & Wen, Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wengelin, Å. (2006). Examining pauses in writing: Theory, methods and empirical data. In K. P. H. Sullivan & E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 107–130). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zetterholm, E., & Lindström, E. (2022). The writing process of bilingual students with focus on revisions and spelling errors in their final texts. Languages, 7(1), 61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue