Inicio
todoELE
  • Inicio
  • Materiales
    • πŸ“‹ Actividades
    • πŸ“ Conjugación
    • πŸ“Š Corpus
    • πŸ“” Diccionarios
    • βœ… Evaluación
    • βš™οΈ Gramática
    • πŸ“— Manuales
    • ✍️ Ortografía
    • πŸ“… Programación
    • πŸ—£οΈ Pronunciación
    • πŸ“ Recursos
    • πŸ”€ Vocabulario
    • πŸ’» Herramientas digitales
  • Formación
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía
    • πŸ‘₯ Congresos
    • πŸŽ“ Cursos
    • 🏫 Centros
    • 🏒 Organizaciones
    • πŸ“° Revistas
    • 🌍 Atlas de ELE
  • Trabajo
    • πŸ’Ό Ofertas de trabajo
    • ℹ️ Trabajo - Recursos
  • En la red
    • 🌐 Sitios ELE
    • πŸ“° Agregador
    • πŸ“§ Formespa
  • IA
    • ✨ Nuevos contenidos
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía IA
    • 🧰 Herramientas IA
    • πŸ’¬ Prompts
    • πŸ§ͺ Experiencias IA
    • 🌐 Sitios web IA
    • πŸ“° Actualidad IA
  • Comunidad
    • πŸ“° Actualidad ELE
    • 😊 Anécdotas ELE
    • πŸ“ Blog
    • πŸ“ŒTablón de anuncios
  • Buscar

Ruta de navegación

  • Inicio
  • Bibliografia
  • L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program?

L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program?

Mohammed Ali Mohsen
2024
Language Teaching Research
28-6
2251-2275
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117…
artículo
estudio empírico
expresión escrita
cognición y procesamiento
estudiantes arabófonos
adquisición de segundas lenguas

Writing in a language different from one’s mother tongue is a daunting task. The same challenge may apply to languages that have diglossic features whose spoken form differs from the written form. This article investigates Arab students’ writing behaviors (fluency, pauses, and revision) in response to an argumentative composition in their L1 (first language: Arabic) and L2 (second language: English), given that understanding their complexities in writing processes would help instructors to rectify language writing-related problems. Guided by Kellogg’s model, this article attempts to investigate the cognitive processes underlying these writing behaviors as aided by a keystroke logging program (Inputlog 7.0). It also examined if writing behaviors would be correlated to the writing quality of their produced final texts. Data were collected from log files of the Inputlog generated upon the students’ writing processes, screened video recordings, and a stimulated recall interview. Results indicated that compared with L2 writing in character production, L1 writing processes were highly significant, less significant in pauses over word boundaries, and highly significant in time on the task factor. Concerning revision behavior, no significant differences were found in time spent on deletion and insertion, whereas a significant difference was found in R-burst for L2 writing. As regards quality of text, many pauses and minimal production of words tend to be negative indicators for writing quality output. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research are highlighted.

  • Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios

Enviar publicación

Contenidos relacionados

  • The Role of Working Memory, Emotional Intelligence, and Task Type in L2 Writing
  • Caracterización psicolingüística de la interlengua de alumnos sordos multilingües / multimodales en su acceso al castellano (L2/3) como lengua escrita
  • The role of modality and working memory capacity in L2 production
  • Are think-alouds reactive? Evidence from an L2 written corrective feedback study
  • Learning academic words through writing sentences and compositions: Any signs of an increase in cognitive load?
  • Task sequencing and L2 writing development: Exploring the SSARC model of pedagogic task sequencing
Sobre Todoele Índice Publica Contacto: [email protected]
Política de privacidad Créditos