There has been a growing interest in the study of writing from the perspective of its potential contribution to language development. However, scant attention has been paid to key methodological considerations regarding the analysis of the connection between L2 writing processes, reflection on language while writing, and language learning. In an attempt to advance in this domain, and informed by models of L2 writing, and cognitive L2 writing research framed in the problem-solving paradigm, this study provides a comprehensive description of the language reflection individual writers engage in when solving the linguistic problems they face while completing writing tasks in their L2. The think-aloud protocols generated by 21 EFL learners while writing an individual argumentative essay were analyzed on the basis of a reconceptualization of language-related episodes as problem-solving strategy clusters. The result is a comprehensive, theoretically motivated, and empirically based coding system that is offered as a basis for future research in the domain. We discuss the methodological implications of our analytic approach and advance some theoretical implications for future debates on the language learning potential of individual writing tasks.

When responding to a writing task, writers spend a significant amount of their time not writing. These periods of physical inactivity, or pauses, during writing provide observable and measurable cues as to when, where, and how long writers halt to plan and/or revise their texts. Consequently, examining writers’ pausing patterns can provide important insights into the cognitive processes that writers employ when composing and the impact of various individual, task, and contextual factors on those processes. This article discusses theory and research on writers’ pausing behavior; how pause analysis can be used to investigate second language (L2) learners’ writing processes; challenges in researching writers’ pausing behavior (e.g., defining pauses); and some strategies to address these challenges. Next, the article illustrates how L2 writers’ pause data can be collected, analyzed, and interpreted, using keystroke logging data from a research project that aimed to examine the effects of task type, L2 proficiency, and keyboarding skills on L2 learners’ writing processes when writing on the computer. The article concludes with a call for more research on L2 writers’ pausing behavior, particularly how L2 writers’ pausing behavior relates to L2 writing outcomes and development across learners, contexts, and time.

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.

Although fluency is an important subconstruct of language proficiency, it has not received as much attention in L2 writing research as complexity and accuracy have, in part due to the lack of methodological approaches for the analysis of large datasets of writing-process data. This article presents a method of time-aligned keystroke logging and eye-tracking and reports an empirical study investigating L2 writing fluency through this method. Twenty-four undergraduate students at a private university in Turkey performed two writing tasks delivered through a web text editor with embedded keystroke logging and eye-tracking capabilities. Linear mixed-effects models were fit to predict indices of pausing and reading behaviors based on language status (L1 vs. L2) and linguistic context factors. Findings revealed differences between pausing and eye-fixation behavior in L1 and L2 writing processes. The article concludes by discussing the affordances of the proposed method from the theoretical and practical standpoints.

This study investigated the cognitive processes underlying pauses at different textual locations (e.g., within/between words) and various levels of revision (e.g., below word/clause). We used stimulated recall, keystroke logging, and eye-tracking methodology in combination to examine pausing and revision behaviors. Thirty advanced Chinese L2 users of English performed a version of the IELTS Academic Writing Task 2. During the writing task, participants’ key strokes were logged, and their eye movements were recorded. Immediately after the writing task, 12 participants also took part in a stimulated recall interview. The results revealed that, when participants paused at larger textual units, they were more likely to look back in the text and engage in higher-order writing processes. In contrast, during pauses at lower textual units, they tended to view areas closer to the inscription point and engage in lower-order writing processes. Prior to making a revision, participants most frequently had viewed the text that they subsequently revised or their eye gazes had been off-screen. Revisions focused more on language- than content-related issues, but there was a smaller difference in the number of language- and content-focused stimulated recall comments when larger textual units were revised.