This study aims to explore the process of reading during writing. More specifically, it investigates whether a combination of keystroke logging data and eye tracking data yields a better understanding of cognitive processes underlying fluent and nonfluent text production. First, a technical procedure describes how writing process data from the keystroke logging program Inputlog are merged with reading process data from the Tobii TX300 eye tracker. Next, a theoretical schema on reading during writing is presented, which served as a basis for the observation context we created for our experiment. This schema was tested by observing 24 university students in professional communication (skilled writers) who typed short sentences that were manipulated to elicit fluent or nonfluent writing. The experimental sentences were organized into four different conditions, aiming at (a) fluent writing, (b) reflection about correct spelling of homophone verbs, (c) local revision, and (d) global revision. Results showed that it is possible to manipulate degrees of nonfluent writing in terms of time on task and percentage of nonfluent key transitions. However, reading behavior was affected only for the conditions that explicitly required revision. This suggests that nonfluent writing does not always affect the reading behavior, supporting the parallel and cascading processing hypothesis.
AilhaudE.ChenuF.JisaH. (2016). A developmental perspective on the units of written French. In PereraJ.ApariciM.RosadoE.SalasN. (Eds.), Written and spoken language development across the lifespan: Essays in honour of Liliana Tolchinsky (pp. 287-305). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
2.
AlamargotD.ChesnetD.DansacC.RosC. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 38(2), 287-299.
3.
AlamargotD.PlaneS.LambertE.ChesnetD. (2010). Using eye and pen movements to trace the development of writing expertise: Case studies of a 7th, 9th and 12th grader, graduate student, and professional writer. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 853-888. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9191-9
4.
AlvesF.PaganoA.Da SilvaI. (2010). A new window on translator’s cognitive activity: Methodological issues in the combined use of eye tracking, key logging and retrospective protocols. In MeesI.AlvesF.GöpferichS. (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research (Vol. 38, pp. 267-292). Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.
5.
AnsonC. M.SchweglerR. A. (2012). Tracking the mind’s eye: A new technology for researching twenty-first century writing and reading processes. College Composition and Communication, 64(1), 151-171.
6.
BeauvaisC.OliveT.PasseraultJ.-M. (2011). Why are some texts good and others not? Relationship between text quality and management of the writing process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 415-428. doi:10.1037/a0022545
7.
BeersS. F.QuinlanT.HarbaughA. G. (2010). Adolescent students’ reading during writing behaviors and relationships with text quality: An eyetracking study. Reading and Writing, 23, 743-775. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9193-7
8.
BosmanA. M. T. (1989). Verb spelling in Dutch university students. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam.
9.
BourdinB.FayolM. (2000). Is graphic activity costly? A developmental approach. Reading and Writing, 13, 183-196. doi:10.1023/A:1026458102685
10.
BreetveltI.Van den BerghH.RijlaarsdamG. (1996). Rereading and generating and their relation to text quality: An application of multilevel analysis on writing process data. In RijlaarsdamG.Van den BerghH.CouzijnM. (Eds.), Theories, models, and methodology in writing research (pp. 10-20). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
11.
CerniT.VelayJ.-L.AlarioF.-X.VaugoyeauM.LongcampM. (2016). Motor expertise for typing impacts lexical decision performance. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(3), 130-138. doi:10.1016/j.tine.2016.07.007
12.
Chukharev-HudilainenE. (2014). Pauses in spontaneous written communication: A keystroke logging study. Journal of Writing Research, 6(1), 61-84. doi:10.17239/jowr-2014.06.01.3
13.
CliftonC. J.StaubA.RaynerK. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In GompelR. V.FisherM.MurrayW.HillR. L. (Eds.), Eye movement research: A window on mind and brain (pp. 341-372). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
14.
DelattreM.BoninP.BarryC. (2006). Written spelling to dictation: Do irregularity effects persist on writing durations?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1330-1340.
15.
DouhouS.MagnusJ. R. (2009). The reliability of user authentication through keystroke dynamics. Statistica Neerlandica, 63(4), 432-449.
16.
DragstedB.CarlM. (2013). Towards a classification of translation styles based on eye-tracking and keylogging data. Journal of Writing Research, 5(1), 133-158.
FrissonS.SandraD. (2002). Homophonic forms of regularly inflected verbs have their own orthographic representations: A developmental perspective on spelling errors. Brain and Language, 81, 545-554. doi:10.1006/brln.2001.2546
19.
GrabowskiJ.WeinzierlC.SchmittM. (2010). Second and fourth graders’ copying ability: From graphical to linguistic processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 39-53.
HackerD. J.KeenerM. C.KircherJ. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In HackerD. J.DunloskyJ.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154-172). New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
HackerD. J.KeenerM. C.KircherJ. C. (2017). TRAKTEXT: Investigating writing processes using eye-tracking technology. Methodological Innovations, 10(2), 1-18. doi:10.1177/2059799116689574
23.
HayesJ. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. E. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
HolmqvistK.NyströmM.AnderssonR.DewhurstR.JarodzkaH.VandeWeijerJ. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
InhoffA. W.GordonA. M. (1997). Eye movements and eye-hand coordination during typing. Current Directions of Psychological Science, 6, 153-157.
27.
InhoffA. W.RaynerK. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(6), 431-439. doi:10.3758/BF03208203
28.
JanssenD.Van WaesL.Van den BerghH. (1996). Effects of thinking aloud on writing processes. In LevyC. M. (Ed.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 233-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
JohanssonR.JohanssonV.WengelinÅ.HolmqvistK. (2008). Reading during writing: Four different groups of writers. Working papers in Linguistics, 53, 43-59.
30.
JohanssonR.WengelinÅ.JohanssonV.HolmqvistK. (2010). Looking at the keyboard or the monitor: Relationship with text production processes. Reading and Writing, 23, 835-851. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9189-3
31.
JonesS. (2014). From ideas in the head to words on the page: Young adolescents’ reflections on their own writing processes. Language and Education, 28(1), 52-67.
32.
KelloggR. T. (1988). Attentional overload and writing performance: Effects of rough draft and outline strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14(2), 355-365. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.2.355
33.
KelloggR. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. E. (Eds.), The Science of Writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
KelloggR. T. (2004). Working memory components in written sentence generation. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 341-361. doi.org/10.2307/4149005
35.
KelloggR. T.TurnerC. E.WhitefordA. P.MertensA. (2016). The role of working memory in planning and generating written sentences. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 397-416. doi:10.17239/jowr-2016.07.3.4
36.
KennedyA.PynteJ. (2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects in normal reading. Vision Research, 45(2), 153-168. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2004.07.037
37.
KeuleersE.BrysbaertM.NewB. (2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 643-650. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.3.643
38.
KrugerH. (2016). What’s happening when nothing’s happening? Combining eyetracking and keylogging to explore cognitive processing during pauses in translation production. Across Languages and Cultures, 17(1), 25-52. doi:10.1556/084.2016.17.1.2
39.
LeijtenM.De MaeyerS.Van WaesL. (2011). Coordinating sentence composition with error correction: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Writing Research, 2(3), 331-363.
40.
LeijtenM.Van HorenbeeckE.Van WaesL. (2018). Analyzing keystroke logging data from a linguistic perspective. In SullivanK.LindgrenE. (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing: Methods and applicationsAmsterdam: Brill.(in press)
41.
LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30, 358-392. doi:10.1177/0741088313491692
42.
LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2014). Inputlog 6.0 help. Antwerp, Belgium: University of Antwerp.
MaggioS.LétéB.ChenuF.JisaH.FayolM. (2012). Tracking the mind during writing: Immediacy, delayed, and anticipatory effects on pauses and writing rate. Reading and Writing, 25(9), 2131-2151. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9348-1
45.
MaggioS.ChenuF.Bes De BercG.PesciB.LétéB.JisaH.FayolM. (2015). Producing written noun phrases in French. Written Language & Literacy, 18(1), 1-24. doi:10.1075/wll.18.1.01mag
46.
NottbuschG. (2010). Grammatical planning, execution, and control in written sentence production. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 777-801. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9188-4
47.
O’BrienS. (2010). Eye tracking in translation process research: Methodological challenges and solutions In MeesI.AlvesF.GöpferichS. (Eds.), Methodology, technology and innovation in translation process research (Vol. 38, pp. 251-266). Copenhagen, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur.
48.
OliveT. (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), 173-194. doi:10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4
49.
PruntyM. M.BarnettA. L.WilmutK.PlumbM. S. (2014). An examination of writing pauses in the handwriting of children with developmental coordination disorder. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(11), 2894-2905.
50.
QuenéH.Van den BerghH. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial. Speech Communication, 43(1-2), 103-121.
51.
QuenéH.Van den BerghH. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413-425.
52.
QuinlanT.LonckeM.LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2012). Coordinating the cognitive processes of writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 345-368. doi:10.1177/0741088312451112
53.
RaynerK. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
54.
ReichleE. D.RaynerK.PollatsekA. (2003). The performance of natural (and unnatural) visual tasks. The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavior & Brain Sciences, 26, 445-526. doi:10.1017/S0140525X03000104
55.
SandraD.FrissonS.DaemsF. (1999). Why simple verb forms can be so difficult to spell: The influence of homophone frequency and distance in Dutch. Brain and Language, 68, 277-283. doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2108
56.
SchrijverI.Van VaerenberghL.LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2014). The translator as a writer: Measuring the effect of writing skills on the translation product. In EngbergJ.HeineC.KnorrD. (Eds.), Methods in writing process research [Textproduktion in Medium] (pp. 99-122). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
57.
SimpsonS.TorranceM. (2007). EyeWrite (Version 5.1). Unpublished report, Nottingham Trent University. Osgoode, ON: SR Research.
58.
SitaJ. C.TaylorK. A. (2015). Eye movements during the handwriting of words: Individually and within sentences. Human Movement Science, 43, 229-238. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2015.01.011
59.
StrömqvistS.HolmqvistK.JohanssonV.KarlssonH.WengelinÅ. (2006). What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In SullivanK. P. H.LindgrenE. (Eds.), Computer keystroke logging: Methods and applications (Vol. 18, pp. 45–71). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
60.
SumnerE.ConnellyV.BarnettA. L. (2013). Children with dyslexia are slow writers because they pause more often and not because they are slow at handwriting execution. Reading and Writing, 26(6), 991-1008.
61.
TorranceM.JohanssonR.JohanssonV.WengelinÅ. (2016). Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: An eye-movement study. Psychological Research, 80(5), 729-743. doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0683-8
62.
TorranceM.WengelinÅ. (2010). Writers’ eye movements. In BazermanC.KrutR.LunsfordK.McLeodS.NullS.RogersP.StansellA. (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 394-405). New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
Van DiepenM.BosmanA. M. T. (1999). Hoe spel jij gespelt? Werkwoordspelling door leerlingen van de basisschool en de middelbare school [Dutch verb spelling in students in primary school and in high-school students]. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 38, 176-186.
64.
Van HooijdonkC. M. J.CommandeurE.CozijnR.KrahmenE. J.MarsiE. C. (2007). The online evaluation of speech synthesis using eye movements. Paper presented at the ICSA Speech Synthesis Workshop, Bonn, Germany.
65.
Van WaesL.LeijtenM. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers & Composition, 38, 79-95. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012
66.
Van WaesL.LeijtenMLindgrenEWengelinÅ. (2015). Keystroke logging in writing research: Analyzing online writing processes. In MacArthurC.GrahamA., S.FitzgeraldJ. (Eds.), Handbook of Writing Research, 2, 410-426.New York: Guilford Press.
67.
Van WaesL.LeijtenM.MariënP.EngelborghsS. (2017). Typing competencies in Alzheimer’s disease: An exploration of copy tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 311-319. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.050
68.
Van WaesL.LeijtenM.QuinlanT. (2010). Reading during sentence composing and error correction: A multilevel analysis of the influences of task complexity. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 803-834. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9190-x
69.
Van WaesL.LeijtenM.WengelinÅ.LindgrenE. (2012). Logging tools to study digital writing processes. In BerningerV. W. (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 507-533). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
70.
VerhaertN. (2016). Rules of regularities. The homophone dominance effect in spelling and reading regular Dutch forms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
71.
WallotS.GrabowskiJ. (2013). Typewriting dynamics: What distinguishes simple from complex writing tasks?Ecological Psychology, 25(3), 267-280. doi:10.1080/10407413.2013.810512
72.
WeingartenR.NottbuschG.WillU. (2004). Morphemes, syllables and graphemes in written word production. In PechmannT.HabelC. (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to speech production (pp. 529-572). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi.org/10.1515/9783110894028.529
73.
WengelinÅ. (2006). Examining pauses in writing: Theory, methods and empirical data. In RijlaarsdamG. (Ed.), Computer keystroke logging and writing: Methods and applications (pp. 107-130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
74.
WengelinÅ.JohanssonV.JohanssonR.FridJ. (2014). Writing processes and text characteristics of texts produced in a triple-task situation. Paper presented at the EARLI SIG writing conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
75.
WengelinÅ.LeijtenM.Van WaesL. (2010). Studying reading during writing: New perspectives in research. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 735-742. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9187-5
76.
WengelinÅ.TorranceM.HolmqvistK.SimpsonS.GalbraithD.JohanssonV.JohanssonR. (2009). Combined eyetracking and keystroke-logging methods for studying cognitive processes in text production. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 337-351. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.2.337
