Investigating Saudi EFL University Students Writing Processes Using Computer-Keystroke Logging - Case Study Example

A Proposal on Investigating Saudi EFL University Students’ Writing Processes Using Computer-Keystroke Logging 1. Introduction Many studies focus on writing products more than the processes itself. However, writing processes provides us with more understanding of how students undertake it. It is very important to know how writers compose their texts in order to meet their intended meaning. By investigating what writers go through during the process processes such as, planning, retrieving, reviewing, monitoring, and revising, we can know what serves to distinguish between good and poor writers. We also get a chance to know the challenges that the writers face in composing as well as other stages of their work. This will help us adopt our teaching methods to meet the writers’ needs (Adel Latif.M, 2008). There are various methods used to analyze the writing process data such as think-aloud protocol, retrospective interviews, questionnaires, text analysis, observation, and the real-time computer-helped study, which is an observation-based methodology (Anson & Schwegler, 2012). Abdellatif, 2008, defined the real-time-aided approach as the observing and analysis of the online writing procedure through recording the computer screen activities simultaneously as the writer works. The keyboard press as the cursor moves, scrolling, and the timing of every single movement or pause between the writer’s movements can all be recorded and used for the analysis. There are different computer programs that can used to analyze writing processes such as Inputlog, Scriptlog, Translog, uLog, TraceIT/JEdit, Eyewrite, and Eye & Pen. Input log is the mostly used key loggers. It enables the researchers to analyze the online writing procedure unobtrusively. It records every input triggered that is meant to produce a text, mouse movements, clicks, and speech input using its recognition software (Dragon Naturally Speaking). This program can also provide a timestamp detailed information about the Internet access i.e. if the writers use the online dictionary or tried to access the webpages (Abdellatif, 2008), (Michael, 2006). The Inputlog five modules feature: 1. The record module: This particular module logs (keyboard, speech, and mouse.) data in Microsoft Word with a unique stipulated time stamp. Additionally, in the MS Word this module logs the document length as well, and copies/pastes/and moves actions. 2. The pre-process module: The module assists the researchers in processing the data from the various identified perspectives: that are event based (keyboard, speech, and mouse), time based or depending on the window changes (sources: MS Word and the Internet among others). 3. The analyzing module: This module analyzes the writing processes and its aspects in various ways. It can produce a process graph if need arises. 4. The post-processing module: The module integrates the log files coming from Inputlog or any other observational tools and fastens the merging process of the output files for integrated statistical analysis in various software such as the SPSS. 5. The play module: This is the module that plays back all the recorded session during the analysis process (Leijten, Hoste, Van Waes, Macken & Horenbeeck, 2012). 1.1. Statement of the problem This study aims to investigate the Saudi EFL university student’s writing processes using computer-keystroke logging – specifically Inputlog. It will focus on all composing processes, which include planning, retrieving, reviewing, monitoring, and revising. A second goal is to investigate the issue of the writer’s fluency from a process-based perspective as there are few studies conducted in this area (Weber, 2015). 1.2. Significance of the study The study aims at investigating Saudi EFL university student’s writing abilities. It may develop the writing procedures to be used in future. The study may also explore the student’s writing fluency using the real-time perspective. By understanding the composing processes and the cognitive fluency, this can make the writing product and assessment clear and precise. Therefore, the study may help the students to have better writing experience (Anson & Schwegler, 2012). 3.3. Proposed Research questions The study tries to find answers to the following poised questions: 1. What is the writing strategies used in Saudi EFL university students? 2. How do the Saudi EFL University students in higher levels differ from students found in the lower levels of their writing strategies? 3. How do the Saudi EFL University students with higher levels differ from students with lower levels in the process-based fluency? 2. Review of related literature 2.1. Software Keyloggers Keylogging is often referred to as the keyboard Capturing or Keystroke logging, it is an action of recording and/or monitoring every key stroked on a keyboard (Lopez, 2014). Some of the characteristic features are, • The clipboard logging. Everything that was copied into the clipboard can be recaptured by the designated program. • Screen logging. Screenshots are stored having captured every action taken by even a single mouse click and move. • Some of the passwords may be captured as well, even if they have been concealed behind the asterisks. • The recording from each window/folder/program opened together with the screenshots of all the visited webpages. The keystroke logging has a unique role in characterizing the writing strategies and comprehending the cognitive processes (Leijten & Waes, 2013), (Michael, 2006). 2.2. Composing processes In 1972, Donald M. Murray is the one who started the idea of the writing processes. He said "Teach Writing as a Process Not a Product.” Ten years later, in 1982, Maxine Hairston also argued that the idea of teaching writing was more biased towards its process rather than the writing product as the end results. An effective teaching process of writing requires to be based on how the writers compose their texts. By looking into the writing processes, we should mainly focus more efforts on the steps or the procedures writers go through in composing process. Writing methods provide the information about the strategies used by both poor and good writers. Therefore, this makes teachers to adopt their teaching methods to meet the student’s needs (Latif, 2008), (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001), (Ray, 2012). Second language speakers are less fluent in writing than native speakers, and it creates barriers to them. However, when they write quickly but with many pauses, this is a really good and acceptable especially if they want to write things before they forget (Leijten, Hoste, Van Waes, Macken & Horenbeeck, 2012). Donald Murray says that the process of writing becomes simpler to understand the moment the trainers adopt the fact that the vital thing to capture is the general implications of the teaching process and not necessarily the product. Murray goes further to mention that the writing process can be categorized into three stages: Writing, prewriting, and rewriting. The duration spent on each of the stages is dependent on an individual work habits, maturity, and personality. Donald insists that all the writers must undergo these steps in their endeavor to counter the need for successful writing process (Harl, 2013). Writing is the initial step and it is recorded to be the fastest for both the good and poor students in all universities. This stage requires commitment, and therefore, it is the frightening stage that may keep off the undecided writers. This stage keeps it clear to the trainer and the student of the much or less the trainee knows. The rewriting stage allows the writer to reconsider their main points, form, subject, and the prospective audience. The stage is graced with rethinking, re-searching, rewriting, and redesigning in order to make every word to be right and meaningful (Jones, Bub & Raver, 2013). Murray has also tried to deduce some of the implications of the teaching process. Implication 1. The overall writing course is an avenue for the student’s own writing evaluation against their classmates. It is still a matter of choice for every word the student jots down (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006). Implication 2. The student is allowed to find their own topic of interest instead of laying the responsibility to the trainer. The students shall be allowed to explore their writing process freely in their own language without the over indulgence of the teachers (Weber, 2015). Implication 3. The student should be allowed to use their own language and stop teaching them English as if it was a foreign language meant to exploit the student’s ability. This way the student will be able to realize their own truth and as a result give a positive unbiased research results and proposed in this report (Leijten, Hoste, Van Waes, Macken & Horenbeeck, 2012). Implication 4. Numerous drafts should be allowed for the student to be able to realize their potential and define the right subject. The first draft is always finer compared to the initial one. Murray concludes by highlighting that there is no perfect writing, but writing is purely experimental, and hence the reason why this proposal advocates for the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of analyzing the keystrokes and general information from the conducted interviews (Michael, 2006). 2.3 Process-based Fluency The process-based fluency has the same meaning as cognitive counterpart. There are many definitions of process-based fluency and this is due to fact that it is measured differently. It is measured in terms of composing rate, while others measure it in terms of correct spelling, number of words, length, text quantity, linguistic features, sentence length, text structure, coherence, and cohesion (Latif, 2008), (Leijten & Van Waes, 2013). Latif, 2009, mentioned that in contrary with previous studies, the text quantity and composing rates are not valid indicators of the writer’s fluency. However, text quantity and composing rates are influenced by a projected ending strategy, their familiarity with the topic, and their composing duration. Factors such as the short time experiment, little integration with writing software may negatively affect some student’s performance (Arqueta, 2006), (Ray, 2012). 3.0 Methodology This research attempts to employ qualitative and quantitative approaches to investigate Saudi EFL university students writing processes using computer- keystroke logging. In order to answer the research questions, various data collection tools will be employed as developed below. The study will apply the keystroke capture software (Inputlog). It allows the researchers to simultaneously record whole writing process data, generate different data files, integrate several types of data from several other programs and replay the recordings from the writing sessions (Waes, Leijten, & Weijen, 2009), (Anson & Schwegler, 2012). The study will use this software to monitor student’s process of writing. Inputlog can also record temporal data as deletion and pause. It actually records everything the writers do. Producing text in larger chunks is considered as writing fluency (Latif, 2012). Writing fluency can be assessed by the actual length of the text. What distinguishes this software from others is that it also records speech (Harl, 2013), (Van Waes, Leijten & Van Weijen, 2009). The second method that will be used in this study will be through retrospective interviews. The use of retrospective interviews (i.e. asking subjects to provide reasons for their responses) has been recommended (Wharton, 2010), (Catenaccio, Cotter, De Smedt, Garzone, Jacobs, Macgilchrist, & Van Praet, 2011). This method will be used in this study shortly after writers finish their tasks. Such interviews will provide information for the researcher of the reasons from writers certain actions during their writing processes (Weber, 2015). 3.1. Participants The participants in this study will be around 30 Saudi EFL university students who will be studying general English language skills in a preparatory year in one of Saudi state universities. Student’s levels will be checked by the university as they take a placement test prior admission. The levels will vary from 1 till 4. Procedure and Data Collection The following procedures will be followed to answer the research questions: 1. The participants will be chosen based on their will of participation in this study. 2. The study will be conducted by the researchers in a computer lab at the university. 3. Students’ writing strategies will be analyzed via Inputlog. 4. Students’ writing strategies differences and the reasons for these variation will be explored through Inputlog and retrospective interviews. 5. Students’ cognitive fluency will be measured by the Inputlog. The study will last for 6 weeks duration. Around 30 EFL students will enroll in a general English language skills class. During the six weeks of the study, participants will receive regular classroom instructions. The researcher will give students introduction about the study in the first week. Students will have 1 session weekly. Each session will be followed by retrospective interviews. Students will write 4 essays with process writing software. The writing time will be exactly one hour. 3.3. Data Analysis The analysis will be both qualitative and quantitative. The data of the keystroke capture software; Inputlog will be analyzed quantitatively. Retrospective interviews will be also used to gain in-depth insights from the views of writers after they finish. This analysis will be qualitative. 3.4. Definitions of terms and Abbreviations Inputlog: A Keystroke Capture Software SPSS: A Software Package Used for Statistical Analysis EFL: English as a Foreign Language. 4. References Abdel Latif, M. (2008). A State-of-the-Art Review of the Real-Time Computer-Aided Study of the Writing Process. International Journal of English Studies, 8(1), 29-50. Abdel Latif, M. (2009). Toward a New Process-Based Indicator for Measuring Writing Fluency: Evidence from L2 Writers’ Think-Aloud Protocols. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(4), 531-558. Abdel Latif, M. (2013). What Do We Mean by Writing Fluency and How Can It Be Validly Measured? Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 99-105. doi:10.1093/applin/ams073 Argueta, R. (2006). the effect of process writing software on the quality and length of ESL students' writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University. Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing. Written Communication, 18(1), 80-98. Hairston, M. (1982). The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76. Doi: 10.2307/357846 LOPEZ, W., GUERRAENIO, H., PENA, E., BERERRA, E., & SAYOL, J. (n.d.). ETHICAL HACKING. Retrieved from http://web.eng.fiu.edu/~aperezpo/DHS/Std_Research/Keylogging final edited 2.0 .pdf Leijten, M., & Waes, L. V. (2013). Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize Writing Processes. Written communication, 30(3), 358-392. Doi: 10.1177/0741088313491692 Murray, D. M. (1982). Learning by teaching: Selected articles on writing and teaching. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Weijen, A. (2009). Keystroke logging in writing research Observing writing processes with Inputlog. Gfl, 2(3). Wharton, C. (n.d.). The effectiveness of retrospective interviews in L2 word association research. JALT2009, 730-739. Catenaccio, P., Cotter, C., De Smedt, M., Garzone, G., Jacobs, G., Macgilchrist, F., ... & Van Praet, E. (2011). Towards a linguistics of news production. Journal of pragmatics, 43(7), 1843-1852. Lenox, T., Jesse, G., & Woratschek, C. R. (2012). Factors influencing student’s decisions to major in a computer-related discipline. Information Systems Education Journal, 10(6), 63. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1(1), 3-14. Sins, P. H., van Joolingen, W. R., Savelsbergh, E. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2008). Motivation and performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: Relations between students’ achievement goal orientation, self-efficacy, cognitive processing, and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(1), 58-77. Jones, S. M., Bub, K. L., & Raver, C. C. (2013). Unpacking the Black Box of the CSRP Intervention: The Mediating Roles of Teacher-child Relationship Quality and Self-regulation. Early education and development, 24(7), 1043. 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. Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2005). Inputlog: A logging tool for the research of writing processes. UA. Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., & Van Weijen, D. (2009). Keystroke logging in writing research: Observing writing processes with Inputlog. GFL-German as a foreign language, 2(3), 41-64. Leijten, M., Hoste, V., Van Waes, L., Macken, L., & Van Horenbeeck, E. (2012, April). From character to word level: Enabling the linguistic analyses of Inputlog process data. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Computational Linguistics and Writing (CLW 2012): Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of Document Creation and Document Engineering (pp. 1-8). Association for Computational Linguistics. Anson, C. M., & Schwegler, R. A. (2012). Tracking the mind's eye: A new technology for researching twenty-first-century writing and reading processes. College Composition and Communication, 151-171. Harl, A. L. (2013). A historical and theoretical review of the literature: Reading and writing connections. Reconnecting reading and writing. The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Retrieved from http://wac. colostate. edu/books/reconnecting. Ray, B. (2012). Toward a translingual composition: ancient rhetorics and language difference. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Weber, A. (2015). Towards the skill of writing in a foreign language (Doctoral dissertation, uniwien). Michael, J. (2006). Where's the evidence that active learning works?. Advances in physiology education, 30(4), 159-167. Read More

A second goal is to investigate the issue of the writer’s fluency from a process-based perspective as there are few studies conducted in this area (Weber, 2015). 1.2. Significance of the study The study aims at investigating Saudi EFL university student’s writing abilities. It may develop the writing procedures to be used in future. The study may also explore the student’s writing fluency using the real-time perspective. By understanding the composing processes and the cognitive fluency, this can make the writing product and assessment clear and precise.

Therefore, the study may help the students to have better writing experience (Anson & Schwegler, 2012). 3.3. Proposed Research questions The study tries to find answers to the following poised questions: 1. What is the writing strategies used in Saudi EFL university students? 2. How do the Saudi EFL University students in higher levels differ from students found in the lower levels of their writing strategies? 3. How do the Saudi EFL University students with higher levels differ from students with lower levels in the process-based fluency? 2. Review of related literature 2.1. Software Keyloggers Keylogging is often referred to as the keyboard Capturing or Keystroke logging, it is an action of recording and/or monitoring every key stroked on a keyboard (Lopez, 2014).

Some of the characteristic features are, • The clipboard logging. Everything that was copied into the clipboard can be recaptured by the designated program. • Screen logging. Screenshots are stored having captured every action taken by even a single mouse click and move. • Some of the passwords may be captured as well, even if they have been concealed behind the asterisks. • The recording from each window/folder/program opened together with the screenshots of all the visited webpages.

The keystroke logging has a unique role in characterizing the writing strategies and comprehending the cognitive processes (Leijten & Waes, 2013), (Michael, 2006). 2.2. Composing processes In 1972, Donald M. Murray is the one who started the idea of the writing processes. He said "Teach Writing as a Process Not a Product.” Ten years later, in 1982, Maxine Hairston also argued that the idea of teaching writing was more biased towards its process rather than the writing product as the end results.

An effective teaching process of writing requires to be based on how the writers compose their texts. By looking into the writing processes, we should mainly focus more efforts on the steps or the procedures writers go through in composing process. Writing methods provide the information about the strategies used by both poor and good writers. Therefore, this makes teachers to adopt their teaching methods to meet the student’s needs (Latif, 2008), (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001), (Ray, 2012).

Second language speakers are less fluent in writing than native speakers, and it creates barriers to them. However, when they write quickly but with many pauses, this is a really good and acceptable especially if they want to write things before they forget (Leijten, Hoste, Van Waes, Macken & Horenbeeck, 2012). Donald Murray says that the process of writing becomes simpler to understand the moment the trainers adopt the fact that the vital thing to capture is the general implications of the teaching process and not necessarily the product.

Murray goes further to mention that the writing process can be categorized into three stages: Writing, prewriting, and rewriting. The duration spent on each of the stages is dependent on an individual work habits, maturity, and personality. Donald insists that all the writers must undergo these steps in their endeavor to counter the need for successful writing process (Harl, 2013). Writing is the initial step and it is recorded to be the fastest for both the good and poor students in all universities.

This stage requires commitment, and therefore, it is the frightening stage that may keep off the undecided writers.

Read More