Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T07:39:55.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MAPPING MASTER’S STUDENTS’ USE OF EXTERNAL SOURCES IN SOURCE-BASED WRITING IN L1 AND L2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2019

Mariëlle Leijten Open the ORCID record for Mariëlle Leijten [Opens in a new window] ,
Luuk Van Waes ,
Iris Schrijver ,
Sarah Bernolet  and
Lieve Vangehuchten
Mariëlle Leijten*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Luuk Van Waes
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Iris Schrijver
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Sarah Bernolet
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Lieve Vangehuchten
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mariëlle Leijten, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, SZ 458, BE 2000 Antwerp. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how master’s students consult and process sources in source-based writing tasks in L1 and L2. Two hundred eighty master’s students wrote a text in their L1 (Dutch) and L2 (English) at the beginning and end of the academic year. They wrote these texts based on three sources: a report, a web text, and a newspaper article. Their writing processes were registered using the Inputlog keylogging program. This allowed us to determine how much time the students spent reading the sources, when they did so, which sources they consulted most frequently, and how often they switched between the various (types of) sources. The quality of the texts was assessed holistically using pairwise comparisons (D-pac). Confirmative factor analysis showed three components to be relevant to describe source use in L1 and L2 writing: (a) initial reading time, (b) interaction with sources, and (c) the degree of variance in source use throughout the writing process. Individual text quality remained stable in L1 and L2 throughout the academic year. Structural equation modeling showed that the approach in source use, especially source interaction, is correlated with text quality, but in L1 only.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 41 , Special Issue 3: Methodological Advances in Investigating L2 Writing Processes , July 2019 , pp. 555 - 582
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

First of all, we would like to thank the master’s students in multilingual professional communication at the University of Antwerp for their contribution to the research. Next, we would like to extend warm thanks to the members of the team of teachers who evaluated the texts using D-pac (Mike Beyers, Julie Declerck, Caroline Dothee, Suzy Stals, Jimmy Ureel, Katrien Verreycken). A word of thanks to Sven De Maeyer, who patiently explained the statistical techniques in R. Finally, we owe thanks to Eric Van Horenbeeck, who programmed the source analysis of Inputlog for interval analyses.

References

REFERENCES

Alves, R. A., & Limpo, T. (2015). Progress in written language bursts, pauses, transcription, and written composition across schooling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 374–391. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2015.1059838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, R. A., Castro, S. L., & Olive, T. (2008). Execution and pauses in writing narratives: Processing time, cognitive effort and typing skill. International Journal of Psychology, 43, 969–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2018). Discovery through writing: Relationships with writing processes and text quality. Cognition and Instruction, 36(3), 199–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2014). Effects of writing beliefs and planning on writing performance. Learning and Instruction, 33, 81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.001.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvais, C., Olive, T., & Passerault, J.-M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 415–428. doi: 10.1037/a0022545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Boumans, J. W., & Trilling, D. (2016). Taking stock of the toolkit: An overview of relevant automated content analysis approaches and techniques for digital journalism scholars. Digital Journalism, 4, 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York, NY, and London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R. M. (Eds.), (2014). Text-based language learning—Insights from and for L2 writing. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cerdán, R., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). The effects of tasks on integrating information from multiple documents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, S. (2017). Using keystroke logging to understand writers’ processes on a reading-into-writing test. Language Testing in Asia, 7, 10. doi: 10.1186/s40468-017-0040-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80–98. doi: 10.1177/0741088301018001004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., Saricaoglu, A., Torrance, M., & Feng, H.-H. (2019). Combined deployable keystroke logging and eyetracking for investigating L2 writing fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 583–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cislaru, G. (Ed.), (2015). Writing(s) at the crossroads: The process-product interface. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119–135. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuevas, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., Luna, M., Martín, A., Solari, M, González-Lamas, J., & Martinez, I. (2016). Collaborative writing of an argumentative synthesis from multiple sources: The role of writing beliefs and strategies to deal with controversy. Journal of Writing Research, 8, 205–226. doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.08.02.02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A. (2013). Assessing integrated writing tasks for academic purposes: Promises and perils. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10, 1–8. doi:10.1080/15434303.2011.622016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. (2013). The development of source use by international postgraduate students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 125–135. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, M. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., Leijten, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students' writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers & Education, 78, 352–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, M. J. R., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2018). Exploring the process of reading during writing using eye tracking and keystroke logging. Written Communication, 35, 411–447. doi:10.1177/0741088318788070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doolan, S. M., & Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2016). Facilitating L2 Writers’ Interpretation of Source Texts. TESOL Journal, 7, 716–745. doi:10.1002/tesj.239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & Norris, J. (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 109–130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins and others.Google Scholar
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
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2016). Source-based tasks in academic writing assessment: Lexical diversity, textual borrowing and proficiency. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 78–88. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29, 369–388. doi:10.1177/0741088312451260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written Communication, 23, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In Levy, C. M. & Ransdell, S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 29–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. L. I. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 275–301. doi:10.2307/3588505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.Google Scholar
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R., Wengelin, Å., Johansson, V., & Holmqvist, K. (2010). Looking at the keyboard or the monitor: Relationship with text production processes. Reading and Writing, 23, 835–851. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9189-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 264–282. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1–26. doi:10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Understanding L2 writing development from a multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text construction. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 101–134). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kim, M., & Crossley, S. A. (2018). Modeling second language writing quality: A structural equation investigation of lexical, syntactic, and cohesive features in source-based and independent writing. Assessing Writing, 37, 39–56. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, M., Van Horenbeeck, E., & Van Waes, L. (2015). Analyzing writing process data: A linguistic perspective. In Cislaru, G. (Ed.), Writing(s) at the crossroads: The process-product interface (pp. 277–302). Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, M., Van Horenbeeck, E., & Van Waes, L. (2019). Analyzing keystroke logging data from a linguistic perspective. In Sullivan, K. & Lindgren, E. (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 71–95). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358–392. doi: 10.1177/0741088313491692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schriver, K., & Hayes, J. R. (2014). Writing in the workplace: Constructing documents using multiple digital sources. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 285–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schrijver, I., Bernolet, S., & Vangehuchten, L. (2017). Hoe schrijven masterstudenten syntheseteksten? Het brongebruik van gevorderde schrijvers in kaart gebracht. Pedagogische Studiën, 94, 233–253.Google Scholar
Lenski, S. D., & Johns, J. L. (1997). Patterns of reading‐to‐write. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 15–38. doi:10.1080/19388079709558252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, E., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2011). Adapting to the reader during writing. Written Language and Literacy, 14, 188–223. doi: 10.1075/wll.14.2.02lin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2017). Written language bursts mediate the relationship between transcription skills and writing performance. Written Communication, 34, 306–332. doi:10.1177/0741088317714234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2018). Effects of planning strategies on writing dynamics and final texts. Acta Psychologica, 188, 97–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.06.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, Y.-S., Jiang, J.-Y., & Lee, S.-J. (2014). A similarity measure for text classification and clustering. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 26, 1575–1590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. (Eds.), (2019). Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (Vol. 38). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, G.-Z., Lin, V., Kou, X., & Wang, H.-Y. (2016). Best practices in L2 English source use pedagogy: A thematic review and synthesis of empirical studies. Educational Research Review, 19, 36–57. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, I., Mateos, M., Martín, E., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2015). Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional programme on learning, reading and writing processes, and text quality. Journal of Writing Research, 7, 275–302. doi:10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzec-Stawiarska, M. (2016). The influence of summary writing on the development of reading skills in a foreign language. System, 59, 90–99. doi:10.1016/j.system.2016.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mateos, M., Solé, I., Martín, E., Cuevas, I., Miras, M., & Castells, N. (2014). Writing a synthesis from multiple sources as a learning activity. In Writing as a learning activity (pp. 169–190). Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004265011_009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 226–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medimorec, S., & Risko, E. F. (2016). Effects of disfluency in writing. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 625–650. doi:10.1111/bjop.12177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, H., Leu, S., & McDonough, K. (2019). L2 writers’ use of outside sources and the related challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 106–120. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Q., & Buckingham, L. (2019). Source-use expectations in assignments: The perceptions and practices of Vietnamese master’s students. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 90–103. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2018.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13, 111–129. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2008.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8, 252–266. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2009.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17, 18–34. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 217–230. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollitt, A. (2012). Comparative judgement for assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 157–170. doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9189-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raedts, M. (2008). De invloed van zelfeffectiviteitsverwachtingen, taakkennis en observerend lezen bij een nieuwe en complexe schrijftaak [The influence of self-efficacy, task knowledge, and observational learning on a new and complex writing task] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiteit Antwerpen , Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
Révész, A., Kourtali, N.-E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and Linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–241. doi:10.1111/lang.12205.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriver, K. (2012). What we know about expertise in professional communication. In Berninger, V. W. (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 275–312). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Segev-Miller, R. (2004). Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students’ processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4, 5–33. doi:10.1023/B:ESLL.0000033847.00732.af.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solé, I., Miras, M., Castells, N., Espino, S., & Minguela, M. (2013). Integrating information: An analysis of the processes involved and the products generated in a written synthesis task. Written Communication, 30, 63–90. doi:10.1177/0741088312466532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivey, N. N., & Nelson, N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Daal, T., Lesterhuis, M., Coertjens, L., van de Kamp, M.-T., Donche, V., & De Maeyer, S. (2017). The complexity of assessing student work using comparative judgment: The moderating role of decision accuracy. Frontiers in Education, 2, 1–44 doi:10.3389/feduc.2017.00044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vangehuchten, L., Leijten, M., & Schrijver, I. (2018). Reading-to-write tasks for professional purposes in Spanish as a foreign language. Revista Espanola De Linguistica Aplicabe [Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics ], 31, 638–659. doi.org/10.1075/resla.31.2.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. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Lindgren, E., & Wengelin, A. (2015). Keystroke logging in writing research: Analyzing online writing processes. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 410–427). New York, NY, and London, UK: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Mariën, P., & Engelborghs, S. (2017). Typing competencies in Alzheimer’s disease: An exploration of copy tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 311–319. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, C., & Qi, Y. (2017). Analyzing pauses in computer-assisted EFL writing—A computer keystroke-log perspective. Educational Technology and Society, 20, 24–34.Google Scholar
Ye, W., & Ren, W. (2019). Source use in the story continuation writing task. Assessing Writing, 39, 39–49. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabihi, R. (2018). The role of cognitive and affective factors in measures of L2 writing. Written Communication, 35, 32–57. doi:10.1177/0741088317735836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Leijten et al. supplementary material

Leijten et al. supplementary material 1

Download Leijten et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 700 KB