The effect of automated fluency-focused feedback on text production
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.13.02.02Keywords:
writing fluency, fluency interventions, product and process measures of writingAbstract
This article presents a new intervention for improving first-language writing fluency and reports an empirical study investigating the effects of this intervention on process and product measures of writing. The intervention explicitly encourages fluent text production by providing automated real-time feedback to the writer. Participants were twenty native-English-speaking undergraduate students at a large Midwestern university in the United States, all of whom were proficient writers. Each participant composed two texts (one in each of the control and the intervention condition) in an online text editor with embedded keystroke logging capabilities. Quantitative data consisted of product and process measures obtained from texts produced by participants in the control and the intervention condition, and qualitative data included participants' responses to an open-ended questionnaire. Linear mixed-effects regression models were fit to the quantitative data to assess differences between conditions. Findings demonstrated that there were significant differences between the intervention and the control condition in terms of both the product and the process of writing. Specifically, participants wrote more text, expressed more ideas, and produced higher-quality texts in the fluency-focused intervention condition. Qualitative findings from questionnaire responses are also discussed.
References
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.291
Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., Hawkins, J. M., & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.291
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 5-35.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016). The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., & Saricaoglu, A. (2016). Causal discourse analyzer: Improving automated feedback on academic ESL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 494-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.991795
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(3), 583-604. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311900007X
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
Duncheon, J. C., & Tierney, W. G. (2014). Examining college writing readiness. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 210-230). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2014.912712
Feng, H. H., Saricaoglu, A., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2016). Automated Error Detection for Developing Grammar Proficiency of ESL Learners. Calico Journal, 33(1), 49-70.
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i1.26507
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M. A. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act report. L1 Research Archives Online.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77-89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664
Hayes, J. R., & Nash, J. G. (1996). On the nature of planning in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (p. 29–55). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1
Krippendorff, K. (2007). Computing krippendorff's alpha reliability. Departmental Papers (ASC), 43. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecr029
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313491692
Levelt, W. J. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C.M. Brown and P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (p. 83–122).
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198507932.003.0004
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 299-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01464076
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Writing 2011: National assessment of educational progress at grades 8 and 12. Washington, DC: Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out. New York: The College Entrance Examination Board.
Olive, T. (2014). Toward a Parallel and Cascading Model of the Writing System: A Review of Research on Writing Processes Coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 590-601. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp045
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302
Torrance, M., & Galbraith, D. (2006). The processing demands of writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 67–80). New York, NY: Guilford.
Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Reporting Writing Process Feedback in the Classroom Using Keystroke Logging Data to Reflect on Writing Processes. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 109-139. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05
Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement Science, 10(2-3), 165-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9457(91)90003-G
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012
Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Roeser, J., Olive, T., & Grabowski, J. (2021). Measuring and assessing typing skills in writing research. Journal of Writing Research, 13(1), 107-153. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.13.01.04
Wolf-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Emily Dux Speltz, Evgeny Chukharev-Hudilainen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
