In: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 2Writing process studies. Struggling with complexities
Looking back, moving forward
Published online: 23 October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.02rij
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.02rij
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
References (34)
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. .
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.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency
in writing: Generating text in L1 and
L2. Written
Communication, 18(1), 80–98.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation:
Design & analysis issues for field
settings. Houghton Mifflin.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing
expertise and second-language
proficiency. Language
Learning, 39(1), 81–135.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The
cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical
problem. College Composition and
Communication, 31(1), 21–32.
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.
Galbraith, D., & Baaijen, V. M. (2018). The
work of writing: Raiding the
inarticulate. Educational
Psychologist, 53(4), 238–257.
(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.
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.
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.
Kormos, J. (2012). The
role of individual differences in L2
writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21(4), 390–403.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward
an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory
study. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9(3), 259–291.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge
telling and knowledge transforming in written
composition. Advances in Applied
Psycholinguistics, 2, 142–175.
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.
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.
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.
Van de Kamp, M. T., Admiraal, W. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2016). Becoming
original: Effects of strategy
instruction. Instructional
Science, 44, 543–566.
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.
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 Press
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.
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.
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.
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.