当前位置: X-MOL 学术Lang. Teach. Res. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program?
Language Teaching Research ( IF 3.3 ) Pub Date : 2021-09-14 , DOI: 10.1177/13621688211041292
Mohammed Ali Mohsen 1
Affiliation  

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.



中文翻译:

L1 与 L2 写入过程:我们可以从击键记录程序中获得什么见解?

用不同于母语的语言写作是一项艰巨的任务。同样的挑战可能适用于具有双语特征的语言,其口语形式与书面形式不同。本文调查了阿拉伯学生对 L1(第一语言:阿拉伯语)和 L2(第二语言:英语)的议论文的写作行为(流畅、停顿和修改),因为了解他们在写作过程中的复杂性将有助于指导教师纠正语言写作相关问题。在 Kellogg 模型的指导下,本文试图在击键记录程序 (Inputlog 7.0) 的帮助下研究这些书写行为背后的认知过程。它还检查了写作行为是否与他们制作的最终文本的写作质量相关。数据是从 Inputlog 的日志文件中收集的,这些日志文件是在学生的写作过程、筛选的视频记录和受刺激的回忆采访中生成的。结果表明,与 L2 写作相比,L1 写作过程在字符生产中非常显着,在跨词边界的停顿中不太显着,而在任务因素上的时间上非常显着。关于修订行为,在删除和插入上花费的时间没有发现显着差异,而在 L2 写作的 R-burst 中发现显着差异。关于文本质量,许多停顿和最少的单词产生往往是写作质量输出的负面指标。强调了对未来研究的教学意义和建议。筛选视频记录,和刺激回忆采访。结果表明,与 L2 写作相比,L1 写作过程在字符生产中非常显着,在跨词边界的停顿中不太显着,而在任务因素上的时间上非常显着。关于修订行为,在删除和插入上花费的时间没有发现显着差异,而在 L2 写作的 R-burst 中发现显着差异。关于文本质量,许多停顿和最少的单词产生往往是写作质量输出的负面指标。强调了对未来研究的教学意义和建议。筛选视频记录,和刺激回忆采访。结果表明,与 L2 写作相比,L1 写作过程在字符生产中非常显着,在跨词边界的停顿中不太显着,而在任务因素上的时间上非常显着。关于修订行为,在删除和插入上花费的时间没有发现显着差异,而在 L2 写作的 R-burst 中发现显着差异。关于文本质量,许多停顿和最少的单词产生往往是写作质量输出的负面指标。强调了对未来研究的教学意义和建议。在单词边界上的停顿不太重要,而在任务因素的时间上非常重要。关于修订行为,在删除和插入上花费的时间没有发现显着差异,而在 L2 写作的 R-burst 中发现显着差异。关于文本质量,许多停顿和最少的单词产生往往是写作质量输出的负面指标。强调了对未来研究的教学意义和建议。在单词边界上的停顿不太重要,而在任务因素的时间上非常重要。关于修订行为,在删除和插入上花费的时间没有发现显着差异,而在 L2 写作的 R-burst 中发现显着差异。关于文本质量,许多停顿和最少的单词产生往往是写作质量输出的负面指标。强调了对未来研究的教学意义和建议。许多停顿和最少的单词产生往往是写作质量输出的负面指标。强调了对未来研究的教学意义和建议。许多停顿和最少的单词产生往往是写作质量输出的负面指标。强调了对未来研究的教学意义和建议。

更新日期:2021-09-14
down
wechat
bug