Cover not available
Part of
Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón and Julio Roca de Larios
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 5] 2023
► pp. 34–59

Chapter 2
Writing process studies. Struggling with complexities

Looking back, moving forward

| *University of Amsterdam | **Norwegian University of Science and Technology
| ***KU Leuven
| *University of Amsterdam
This chapter discusses validity parameters for studies on writing processes in a second or foreign language (L2). To that end, Cook and Campbell’s validity framework, which discerns four types of validity, i.e., statistical, internal, construct and external validity, has been used. The chapter especially hones in on construct validity by combining a case-based approach, based on a selection of frequently cited L2-writing process studies, with a comprehensive causal model often used for analyzing writing process studies (in terms of four components, Process – Task – Learner – Output). We suggest seven functional and directional parameters to discuss the construct of the writing process as intended against the construct as studied, and propose a selective and non-exhaustive list of guidelines for statistical and internal validity. Both parameters and guidelines are provided to inform (the design of) future L2 writing process studies.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Research in L2 writing processes: Selection of exemplar studies and overall framework
  • L2 writing processes: The construct as intended
    • Basic parameter 1. Structure: Activity and time
    • Basic parameter 2. Goal: Understanding and being understood
  • Conclusion: The construct of writing Process-as-Intended in seven parameters
  • Writing processes: The construct as studied
    • Unit of observation
    • Direction and domain
    • Understanding and being understood
  • L2 writing studies: Continuity and change
    • Observation 1: Formulation is key
    • Observation 2: ‘Stable profiles’
    • The ideal study
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.02rij
References (34)
References
Bouwer, R., Béguin, A., Sanders, T., & van den Bergh, H. (2015). Effect of genre on the generalizability of writing scores. Language Testing, 32(1), 83–100. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Breetvelt, I., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Rereading and generating and their relation to text quality, An application of multilevel analysis on writing process data. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.) (1996). Theories, models & methodology in writing research (pp. 10–21). 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text production: Toward a science of composition. Ablex.Google Scholar
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In M. Torrance & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–160). Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The work of writing: Raiding the inarticulate. Educational Psychologist, 53(4), 238–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Aligning keystrokes with cognitive processes in writing. In E. Lindgren & K. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing. Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 306–325). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & L. S. Flower (1980), Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kim, H. (2014). Dynamic interaction between generating and reviewing in the writing process [Paper presentation]. In Program & abstract book research school on writing & conference on writing research SIG Writing (p. 358). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, E. (2004). The uptake of peer-based intervention in the writing classroom. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Effective learning and teaching of writing (pp. 259–274). Kluwer.Google Scholar
(2005). Writing and revising: Didactic and methodological implications of keystroke logging (Doctoral dissertation). Umea University.
López-Serrano, S., de Larios, J. R., & Manchón, R. M. (2019). Language reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks: Developing a theoretically motivated and empirically based coding system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 503–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67(1), 208–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (1996). The dynamics of composing – An agenda for research into an interactive compensatory model of writing: Many questions, some answers. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences & applications (pp. 107–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2002). A critical examination of L2 writing process research. In S. Ransdell & M. L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 11–47). Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.Google Scholar
Schoonen, R. (2012). The validity and generalizability of writing scores: The effect of rater, task and language. In E. Van Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam, & H. van den Bergh (Eds.), Measuring writing: Recent insights into theory, methodology and practice (pp. 1–22). Brill.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tillema, M. (2012). Writing in a first and second language. Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University. Lot Publications.
Uzawa, K. (1996). Second language learners’ processes of L1 writing, L2 writing, and translation from L1 into L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Kamp, M. T., Admiraal, W. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). Becoming original: Effects of strategy instruction. Instructional Science, 44, 543–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G (1999). Generating in Documented Writing. In M. Torrance, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Cognitive perspectives on conceptual processes in text production (pp 99–120). Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Steendam, E. van. (2016). Writing process theory: A functional dynamic approach. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 57–71). The Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
Van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 360–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Steendam, E., Vandermeulen, N., De Maeyer, S., Lesterhuis, M., van den Bergh, H., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2022). How students perform synthesis tasks: An empirical study into dynamic process configurations. Journal of Educational Psychology. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Weijen, D. (2009). Writing processes, text quality, and task effects. Empirical stuies in first and second language writing (Doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University. Lot Publications.
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar