6

L2 WRITING PROCESSES
OF LANGUAGE LEARNERS
IN INDIVIDUAL AND
COLLABORATIVE WRITING
CONDITIONS
Marije Michel, Laura Stiefenhöfer, Marjolijn Verspoor,
and Rosa M. Manchón
Groningen University, Lancaster University,
Groningen University, and University of Murcia

Introduction
Writing processes − those invisible actions behind the production of written language − have been
an important research area in both first (L1) and second language (L2) writing. Framed primarily
in cognitive theories/​models of writing and cognitive accounts of second language acquisition
(SLA) (see details in Chapters 2 and 3, this volume), research on L2 writing processes investigates
both observable L2 writing behaviors, such as typing speed and pausing patterns, and the nature
and temporal distribution of underlying cognitive operations, like planning, linguistic encoding,
and revising. Originally, research into L2 writing processes was not really related to second lan-
guage acquisition (SLA) but focused more on the composition process drawing on L1 writing pro-
cess models (as reviewed in Roca de Larios, Nicolás-​Conesa, & Coyle, 2016).Yet, a recurrent and
conspicuous finding in this body of work has been the attention that L2 writers appear to pay to
language-​related concerns while producing their L2 texts. Thus, an SLA-​oriented strand on writing
L2 processes has emerged and explores how the processing dimension of L2 writing can be helpful
for L2 learning. This is the strand we review in this chapter, dealing with both individual and col-
laborative writing.
We start with a synthetic, historical overview of the writing and SLA perspectives on L2 writing
processes. This will lead to a more focused discussion of critical issues and topics in the SLA-​
oriented strand, and then to a synthesis of the main contributions of extant research on the pro-
cessing dimension of writing (for the processing dimension of feedback see Chapter 7). On the basis
of these analyses, we shall outline some implications for practice and will formulate suggestions for
future work in the domain.

DOI: 10.4324/9780429199691-10 67
 Marije Michel et al.

Historical Perspectives
Research into L2 writing processes goes back to the 1980s (e.g., Cumming, 1989, 1990; Raimes,
1987). Different strands of research have emerged over the years, adopting a more cognitive, or a
more sociocultural perspective (see review in Roca de Larios et al., 2016): writing processes can
be conceived of as those cognitive actions that are behind the production of written language (the
focus of this chapter), or refer to actions responsible for the socially-​situated production of texts in
diverse time-​and space-​distributed, real-​life conditions (see Manchón, 2021, for a recent review).
Cognitively-​oriented research on L2 writing processes has been based on models that describe
L1 writing processes (e.g., Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Flower & Hayes, 1981 Kellogg, 1996;
Galbraith, 2009). We present Kellogg’s (1996) model here, which describes three recursive and
dynamic key phases of writing: (1) formulation, which includes higher-​order processes of planning
(e.g., content and organization of the text) as well as lower-​order processes of lexical retrieval and
linguistic encoding; (2) execution, that is, when the planned text is put on (digital) paper by hand
using a pencil or a keyboard; and (3) a monitoring phase, where written text is being reviewed to
see whether it is in line with the writer’s intentions, and, if necessary, revised. Given such a complex
interplay of different processes, these models stress the demands that writing places on the limited
capacity of working memory.
L2 writing places an additional burden on writers in all three phases, affecting all levels of lin-
guistic processing. Particularly, lexical retrieval and morphosyntactic encoding is considered to
take more time and cognitive control making the lower-​order formulation phases more effortful.
Similarly, crosslinguistic differences between L1 and L2 will impact processing and will increase
demands on attention during the execution phase (see Chapters 8 and 23, this volume). Finally,
also the processes of comparing different linguistic options and deciding on its accuracy and
adequacy, in addition to revising text in the L2, are likely to need more cognitive effort. In sum,
L2 writing places an additional cognitive load on the writers’ working memory (Galbraith, 2009).
Furthermore, the challenges in lower-​order formulation processes could lead to a disruption of
higher-​order processes (cf. Chenoweth & Hayes, 2003), so less attentional capacity may be avail-
able for planning, monitoring, and goal setting.
Based on the postulated different writing phases and the additional cognitive demands that char-
acterize L2 writing, macro-​writing processes of formulation and monitoring have been investigated
especially in terms of their purported problem-​solving nature and the resulting language learning
potential (e.g., for a review see Roca de Larios et al., 2016) and their temporal distribution while
performing time-​compressed writing tasks (e.g., Gánem-​Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018; Roca de
Larios et al., 2008). Others have studied online writing behaviors, especially pausing, revisions,
and fluency (cf. Révész & Michel, 2019a). A further important strand of research has looked into
collaborative writing (e.g., Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, 2012; Kim & McDonough, 2011; Kowal
& Swain, 1994; Leeser, 2004; Storch, 2008), where the joint responsibility for a text and resulting
discussions between writers has provided ample insights on writing processes, in this case taking
a more socio-​cognitive perspective. Collectively, this research has shed light on the recursive and
problem-​solving nature of writing and has provided robust empirical evidence of the intense lin-
guistic processing that characterizes most forms of writing (cf. Cumming, 1990; Manchón, Roca
de Larios, & Murphy, 2009), which Galbraith (2009) argues serves the constitution of new know-
ledge. The common conclusion in studies on the temporal distribution of writing processes − both
in pen-​and-​paper writing without access to external sources (Roca et al, 2008) and in digital writing
with access to sources (Gánem-​Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018) − is that transforming ideas into lan-
guage is the predominant process while composing. Such rich linguistic processing is assumed
to be beneficial in terms of language development because, as Révész and Michel (2019b) note,
“the act of written production may foster cognitive processes, which are assumed to facilitate L2
development” (pp. 491–​492). Accordingly, they suggest, “L2 writing process research may inform

68
 L2 Writing Processes & L2 Learning

L2 instruction and assessment by advancing our understanding of both the learning-​to-​write and
writing-​to-​learn dimensions of L2 writing” (pp. 491–​492). This link between writing processes and
language learning is further elaborated in the following sections.

Critical Issues and Topics

The question of why and how processes of L2 writing and those of SLA might interact builds on the
idea that engaging in text composition positively affects language learning. The highly recursive and
dynamic meaning-​making processes during writing (i.e., planning, linguistic encoding, execution,
and monitoring) have been shown to induce heightened attention to language. These processes tie in
with seminal hypotheses in SLA research such as Swain’s Output Hypothesis (1985) and Schmidt’s
Noticing Hypothesis (2001) and readers are referred to Chapter 2 (this volume) for a fuller elabor-
ation. Similarly, as more fully discussed in Chapter 3 (this volume), in collaborative writing both
cognitive accounts of SLA (especially interactionist approaches, such as Gass & Mackey, 2007)
and sociocultural theories (see Swain, 2006) provide the rationale for the language learning that
may derive from the joint construction of texts and from the negotiation processes while writing
together, especially in terms of heightened attention to language, often operationalized in terms of
language-​related episodes (LREs; i.e., episodes in which learners deliberate about language, and
the very nature of the interaction among peers).
Regarding individual writing, L2 researchers have stressed the positive effect writing may have
on reducing cognitive load during L2 processing. Compared to L2 speech production, writing has
a relatively slow pace and the fact that the written output remains visible on paper or screen is
assumed to reduce cognitive load. This frees memory so that attentional capacity can be dedicated
to the linguistic form of the message (see Chapter 23 this volume). Cumming (1990) adds another
argument: The mere act of writing, where the product (i.e., the text) and the mental processes, that
underlie its production, are separate, allows learners to engage with language form more exten-
sively. Indeed, reviews from different perspectives (see Chapter 1, this volume) highlight how this
disjuncture of cognitive processes and product, leaving additional time and space for language, is
particularly helpful for L2 learning (Harklau, 2002; Manchón, 2020a; Williams, 2012). The inherent
problem-​solving nature of writing is also purported to induce focused language production during
text composition, which may create opportunities for monitoring, restructuring, elaboration, and
refinement of the language used (Byrnes & Manchón, 2014; Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007).
Similarly, collaborative writing shares the opportunities of individual writing and, in addition,
learning opportunities are created through the interaction between writers because interacting with
a peer pushes L2 learners to focus their attention to language form (see Chapter 3, this volume, for
further elaboration). As proposed by Long (1996) and others (Gass & Mackey, 2007), interaction
fosters L2 users to engage during LREs in negotiations of meaning and form, which presumably
leads them to modify their output, formulate and incorporate peer feedback, and adopt a more form-​
focused approach to language (see Loewen & Sato, 2018, for a recent review). In addition, feelings
of joint authorship and responsibility push L2 writers to engage in the articulation of thinking in the
form of collaborative talk, also termed languaging (Swain, 2006) during collaborative writing (see
Chapter 3, this volume).
Yet, as Cumming (2020) has recently pointed out, “despite the many proposed perspectives on
how L2 writing may relate to and prompt L2 learning, causality remains unproven” (p. 40).

Current Contributions
In this section we synthesize the main lines of research that have attempted to advance empirical
knowledge in both individual and collaborative writing processes from the perspective of language
learning.

69
 Marije Michel et al.

Studies of Individual Writing

Writing Processes of Language Learners in Laboratory Conditions
A growing body of research investigates L2 learners under laboratory conditions in an attempt
to increase our understanding of how L2 writing processes are mediated by task design and task
implementation variables. Typically, these studies do not directly research L2 learning, although
implications for language learning are usually formulated. For instance, in a series of studies, Ong
(2013, 2014) investigated processes learners engaged in when given different amounts of time for
pre-​task and online planning. Using post-​task questionnaires, she found that while learners used
pre-​task planning time to generate ideas and organize content, they also spent a substantial amount
of time dealing with linguistic aspects of their texts. As a result, they continued to use the writing
time for higher-​order processes, such as planning and organizing content. However, an extended
writing condition without pre-​task planning time resulted in texts of higher quality, possibly due to
the reduced cognitive load of transcription as compared to planning, hence facilitating the retrieval
of idea units (Ong, 2013). In the context of academic writing, Révész, Kourtali, and Mazgutova
(2017) examined the effects of task complexity on cognitive processes underlying L2 writing
behavior. Their stimulated recall data indicated that a more complex task engaged participants more
in planning activities, leaving fewer resources for translation processes. More recently, Michel
et al. (2020) compared writing processes on integrated and independent task types triangulating
eye-​gaze, keystroke, and stimulated recall data. While the integrated task elicited more source con-
sultation processes (i.e., reading the source text), most of the writing processes were fairly similar
across tasks.
Comparing writing tasks across languages, Leijten et al. (2019) drew on keystroke data to
compare 280 students who did source-​based writing tasks in their L1 Dutch and L2 English. The
authors examined pausing behavior (frequency and duration) at different stages of the writing pro-
cess. Data showed hardly any differences between writing in Dutch or English, with the exception
that participants spent more time on language-​related processes (e.g., lexical synonym search) and
used more sources in their L2. Importantly, high quality texts resulted from substantial source
consultations at the beginning, before writing, which was then characterized by frequent but short
switches to sources during writing. The final stages elicited mainly revision processes.
In laboratory conditions, research into L2 writing processes has made use of think-​aloud or
stimulated recall data to examine LREs as a window into cognitive processes. Two recent SLA-​
oriented L2 writing studies by López-​Serrano, Roca de Larios, and Manchón (2019, 2020) used
EFL writers’ think-​aloud protocols to analyze different processes (i.e., language-​related reflections)
of individuals when writing in their L2. Their data revealed categories of processes focusing on
linguistic aspects (e.g., spelling); resolution (e.g., of an LRE); strategies applied (e.g., translation,
grammar); orientation (i.e., whether the writer searches for compensatory forms); and depth of pro-
cessing. Their theoretically-​informed and empirically driven coding scheme may serve as a tool for
future research aiming to characterize problem-​solving strategies of L2 writers.
In another laboratory setting, microprocesses of pausing and revision behavior in L2 writing
have been investigated with research methods that include eye tracking and keystroke logging.
Thus, Barkaoui (2019) measured L2 writers’ pausing behavior in the data provided by 68 L2
writers of English doing the integrated and independent task of the TOEFL iBT writing test. It was
found that low-​proficiency students generally paused more often than high-​proficiency writers.
Particularly at the beginning, pauses were long, which the author interpreted as the time that
writers needed to globally plan their text. Similarly, the independent task elicited more but shorter
pauses than the integrated task –​which could be related to writers reading the input text. A tailor-​
made tool that allowed combining keystroke logging with eye ​tracking methodology informed
Chukharev-​Hudilainen, Saricaoğlu, Torrance, and Feng’s (2019) study of Turkish native speakers

70
 L2 Writing Processes & L2 Learning

(N=24), who completed one task in their L1 Turkish and one in L2 English. The data confirmed
findings of earlier work, as L2 writers wrote significantly slower in their L2 than their L1. Finally,
Révész, Michel, and Lee (2017, 2019) triangulated keystroke logging with eye-​gaze and stimulated
recall data when exploring L2 pausing and revision behaviors. Based on data by Chinese writers
of English (N=30) who performed the IELTS Academic Writing task 2, the authors confirmed
that pauses at lower textual units (e.g., within a word) were associated with lower-​order writing
processes (e.g., lexical retrieval), while longer pauses were at larger textual units (e.g., sentence
boundary) and were more often associated with higher-​order writing processes (e.g., content
planning) and further look-​backs.
As stated before, these studies focused on L2 processes during writing and did not directly aim at
shedding light on the connection between writing and language learning, an exception being López-​
Serrano et al.’s (2019, 2020) studies. In any case, these studies do shed light on the task-​related
and learner-​related factors that may mediate cognitive activity while writing and, hence, indirectly,
their insights can be taken as empirical evidence of the purported learning processes activated while
writing (see Manchón, 2020b for a fuller discussion).

Writing Processes in Instructed SLA Contexts

In the past two decades, more and more scholars have followed Harklau’s (2002) call for classroom-​
based research into L2 writing. Only a handful have taken a processing perspective.
An innovative approach to studying writing processes in an instructed setting was used by
Séror (2013; see also Hamel, Séror, & Dion, 2015), who examined writing processes of univer-
sity learners (N=36) longitudinally. Screen-​captures complemented by post-​task (cued) interviews
showed the many facets of academic writing in an L2, including effective use of L1 and dictionary
look-​ups. The ethnographic study by Smith et al. (2017) based on ​screen recordings, field-​notes,
and interviews provided detailed insights into students’ multimodal processes and code-​meshing
when they were writing as they drew on text, visuals, and other sources. This study also illustrates
a recent interest in studying writing processes of multimodal composing.
Classroom-​based research on writing processes also includes interventionist studies on strategy
instruction. Illustrative of this trend is the study by DeSilva and Graham (2015), in which effective
writing strategies were taught to a group of L2 writers in the context of a 24-​week academic writing
course. A control group followed the same writing course, for the same duration of time, with the
exception of the strategy instruction. Stimulated recall comments were complemented by video
recordings also of the students’ facial expressions. Results showed that the intervention had pushed
students to use more planning and self-​monitoring strategies and, in general, had enabled them to
employ different strategies in an orchestrated way more effectively.
In sum, while the studies reviewed in this section provide ample insights into individual writing
processes and illustrate the rich repertoire of processes learners engage in while composing a text,
the relationship to L2 learning remains implicit. Work on collaborative writing more explicitly
investigates this link as we discuss in the following section.

Processes of Collaborative L2 Writing

In collaborative writing tasks, students are engaged in joint problem solving and knowledge
building (cf. Chapter 3, this volume). As knowledge building is mediated by language use, referred
to as languaging (Swain, 2000, 2006), collaborative writing is thought to support language learning
because it is likely to enhance focus on form, noticing, and uptake (Schmidt, 2001). Several lines
of research, both in face-​to-​face and in computer-​supported modes, have shed light on the language
learning affordances of these collaborative writing processes.

71
 Marije Michel et al.

Collaborative Writing in Face-​to-​Face Mode

Research on collaborative writing processes has often focused on the amount of languaging,
operationalized in terms of LREs learners engage in when writing a joint text, which is relevant from
a language learning perspective given that the learning affordances of writing are in part premised
on the linguistic processing that takes place while producing a text. This line of work confirms that
language-​focused tasks elicit a larger number of LREs than meaning-​focused tasks (Alegría de la
Colina & García Mayo, 2007) and hence suggests that the former have greater language learning
potential. More recently, McDonough, Crawford, and Vleeschauwer, (2016) compared different
meaning-​focused tasks and revealed that, in comparison with a summary task, a problem-​solution
task elicited more LREs. As these problem-​solving tasks also led to more deliberation of content,
language, and text organization, which also correlated positively with text quality, they seem to
generate processes that potentially support language learning.
Proficiency level also plays a role in the number of LREs occurring in a collaborative writing
task. While some studies have found more LREs for high-​proficiency writers (Storch & Aldosari,
2013), others (e.g., Watanabe & Swain, 2007) suggest that there is no direct relationship, but argue
that interaction patterns, as described in Storch’s (2002) seminal work (e.g., collaborative; expert-​
novice), are more important. In this respect, Kim and McDonough (2008) found that learners
showed more collaborative patterns when working with advanced learners, and collaborative pairs
engaged in more languaging, resulting in more LREs than non-​collaborative pairs.

Computer-​Supported Collaborative Writing (CSCW)

In collaborative writing tasks, students often use technology and web-​based writing tools (e.g.,
shared Google Docs), referred to as computer-​supported collaborative writing (CSCW). Because
CSCW may affect the nature of interaction during activities, it has received growing attention
(Zheng & Warschauer, 2017) in research into collaborative writing processes.
Rouhshad and Storch (2016) compared face-​to-​face with written chat interactions during CSCW
and found that computer-​mediated interaction resulted in fewer collaborative patterns. Some CSCW
research identified additional patterns of interaction to the ones proposed by Storch (2002): passive/​
passive (low) and sequential-​ additive interaction (Abrams, 2016), and facilitator/​ participant,
exhibiting features of both expert/​novice as well as collaborative interaction (Cho, 2017).
For research, web-​tools are useful because they allow for easily retraceable editing of text. Taking
editing as a window into monitoring processes, research has asked two main questions: 1) Whose
text is being edited? and 2) Which kinds of edits are being made? Kessler (2009) found that students
were less inclined to edit their own writing than that of their group partners, while participants in
Arnold, Ducate, and Kost (2012) focused more on their own writing. Generally, students seem
to focus more on meaning than on form (e.g., Kessler, 2009). Form-​focused revisions, however,
appear to be more common in peer-​editing than in self-​editing (Arnold et al., 2012; Kessler, 2009).
In sum, this research shows that the language learning potential of collaborative writing activ-
ities (understood as the promotion of relevant learning processes), be it face-​to-​face or online,
depends to a large extent on pairing and group composition. The findings also highlight that pro-
viding students with relevant training prior to writing activities is likely to promote languaging and
collaborative interaction.

Processes Underlying Digitally-​Mediated Interactive Writing

Interactive writing, that is, quick turn-​taking written exchange via text chat using digitally medi-
ating tools, has gained ground. Such a context − characterized as interaction in slow motion using
the written modality − has led to exciting avenues for research into the language learning potential

72
 L2 Writing Processes & L2 Learning

of writing through digitally-​mediated exchange (see Elola & Oskoz, 2017, and Ziegler, 2016, for
comprehensive reviews). However, few published studies have focused on the processes involved.
Early explorations by O’Rourke (2008, 2012) employed eye tracking to look into written
English-​German telecollaboration exchanges. He identified three behavioral patterns of learners
when reading their own text production (seen as a sign of monitoring): (a) simultaneous monitoring,
that is, reading while drafting; (b) pre-​send monitoring, that is, reading after drafting but before
sending the text message; and (c) post-​send monitoring, that is, reading after sending the message.
In addition, scrolling and scanning patterns through the on-​screen transcript of the conversation
revealed that some writers were “browsing” through the earlier turns while waiting for the contri-
bution of their partner, and others spent time on a specific expression of the already transmitted text.
Recent work by Michel and O’Rourke (2019) furthermore suggests that learners learn language
from their partner when interacting via text chat. Future work into these explorations of reading-​
while-​writing in interactive written dialogue is needed to increase our understanding how this mode
of L2 writing may contribute to language learning.

Main Research Methods

Individual Writing
Most studies investigating cognitive processes underlying L2 writing draw on introspective meth-
odologies, including think-​aloud protocols, retrospective cued interviews, and stimulated recalls.
The result is detailed categorizations for verbalized thought processes (e.g., López Serrano et al.,
2019), which have been linked to theoretical models of writing (e.g., Révész, Michel & Lee, 2019).
However, think-​alouds and stimulated recalls have been criticized for reactivity (think-​alouds)
and memory decay (stimulated recalls) (see further elaboration in Chapter 25. See also Polio &
Freedman, 2017). In contrast, technological tools, such as screen capturing, keystroke logging,
and eye tracking, allow a moment-​by-​moment registration of writing behaviors on a screen, which
facilitate objective measurement of pausing, revision, and reading-​ while-​writing behavior at
milliseconds level. Together with introspective methods, they provide unique insights into writing
processes (see recent reviews by Galbraith & Vedder, 2019; Révész & Michel, 2019a, b; see also
Chapter 25, this volume).
Recent developments demonstrate how fruitful data triangulation approaches are. In particular
combining stimulated recall or interview data with screen recordings, eye-​gaze and/​or keystroke
information, allows for more comprehensive perspectives on writing processes and more valid
interpretations (see contributions to Révész & Michel, 2019a).
Each of the methods comes, however, with challenges for researchers. Analyzing screen
recordings is based on qualitative, manual coding and includes the interpretative step of what
to code for in what ways (e.g., Hamel & Séror, 2015). Similarly, eye ​tracking data on viewing
behavior during writing often requires substantial hand-​coding before one can make meaningful
inferences about writing processes (cf., Gánem-​Gutiérrez & Gilmore, 2018; Révész, Michel, &
Lee, 2019). Large individual differences in eye-​gaze patterns requires person-​centered data as a
baseline for comparisons. The greatest challenge with eye-​tracking writing, however, is that not all
participants are touch typists. Many watch the keyboard during writing with major consequences
for data quality. More general measures of viewing behavior during writing (e.g., Michel et al.
2020) are informative, but do not allow for detailed analyses of cognitive processes at linguistic
levels and, therefore, may limit the conclusions that can be drawn about the connection between the
processing dimension of writing and language learning.
In sum, even though these tools can provide valuable and detailed insights about writing
behaviors, for investigating the relationship between processes and language learning, it seems that
these kinds of data would need to be triangulated with more traditional methods, such as concurrent

73
 Marije Michel et al.

or retrospective think-​aloud protocols, as these are better capable of tapping the cognitive processes
learners engage in (see Manchón & Leow, 2020).

Collaborative Writing

Analysis of Pair Talk

Collaborative writing research builds to a large extent on the analysis of pair talk between learners.
Audio recordings are coded for type and frequency of LREs (e.g., meaning vs. language focus) and
the general focus of student talk (e.g., content, organization, language, task management, off-​task
talk; McDonough et al., 2016; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2007).
In digitally-​mediated contexts (e.g., collaborative writing in Google Docs), students’ written
chat protocols and screen recordings provide information on learners’ behavior (Strobl, 2014). Also
stimulated recall interviews (Cho, 2017), reflection papers (Li & Zhu, 2017a), and questionnaires
(Li & Kim, 2016) have been used to provide information about students’ perception of collaborative
processes and peer interaction.

Version History and Text Mining in Digital Writing

Tools like Google Docs and wikis keep track of the version history of the writing product and after-
wards the locus and content of edits can be analyzed to reveal processes underlying the writers’
contributions (Alghasab & Handley, 2017). Text mining tools can convert the version history of
digital documents into data that provide insights into what writer contributed, how much, at what
point in time, including information on revisions to their own and a collaborator’s text.
As in the case of studies looking at individual processes, more recent work on collaborative writing
has started to combine several methods The triangulation of quantifiable information provided by
text mining tools and fine-​grained qualitative analyses likely promotes our understanding of the
relationship between collaborative writing processes and writing outcomes, helping us to identify
learner behaviors that might prove particularly beneficial for language learning (see Stiefenhöfer
& Michel (2020) for a study in which DocuViz data, eye-​gaze methodology, stimulated recall
interviews, and chat log analyses were triangulated).

Recommendations for Practice

Individual Writing
Pedagogical interventions should aim at fostering writing processes that are conducive to lan-
guage learning. The preceding discussion shows that this can be done in part in terms of task
characteristics and task implementation procedures (see discussion in Manchón, 2020b). Tasks that
engage learners in problem solving and represent a real challenge in ideational and/​or linguistic
terms have more chances of contributing to learning, in terms of either consolidation or expansion
of L2 knowledge (Kormos, 2011; López-​Serrano et al., 2019; Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007;
Révész, Kourtali, & Mazgutova, 2017). Providing pre-​task and online planning time might also be
key considerations in pedagogical decision-​making (Manchón & Roca de Larios, 2007; Manchón
& Vasylets, 2019) and using different task types will also affect what learners presumably focus
their attention on during L2 writing (Michel et al. 2020).

Collaborative Writing
Research on collaborative writing has produced ample evidence for its potential for language
learning (see Storch, Chapter 3 this volume). When planning collaborative writing tasks, teachers

74
 L2 Writing Processes & L2 Learning

need to pay attention to group formation. Some research suggests that students knowing each other
positively influences collaborative behavior (Hassaskhah & Mozaffari, 2015), but teachers might
also choose to have students work with different peers over time using criteria such as shared L1,
L2 proficiency or different personalities (Storch, 2017).
For low-​proficiency students, language-​focused tasks lead to more peer deliberation about lan-
guage, adding to its potential for noticing and focus on form. For more advanced learners, adequate
collaborative writing activities include meaning-​focused and integrated tasks (Alegría de la Colina
& García Mayo, 2007).
Finally, taking into account the influence of attitude towards collaborative writing on its poten-
tial for language learning (Chen & Yu, 2019), it is recommendable to make goals and metacognitive
strategies explicit to students (Chen & Hapgood, 2019).

Interactive Writing
Similar to collaborative writing, research has demonstrated that interactive writing during text-​
chat conversations has the potential to support language learning, for example, via conversational
alignment (Michel & O’Rourke, 2019). The classroom-​based studies by Michel (2018) in a high-​
school context and by Michel and Stiefenhöfer (2019) in university classrooms suggest that writing
activities building on alignment and priming boost the language learning potential of text chat even
more, as learners are inclined to use their partners’ input for their own contributions, thereby enlar-
ging their own language repertoire. Teachers may therefore use carefully designed chat activities in
order to foster both L2 use and L2 writing which supports L2 learning.

Future Directions

Research Interests
Individual Writing
To further our understanding of how writing supports language learning, Manchón, (2020b) and
Manchón and Leow, (2020) (see also Chapter 22 this volume) suggest future work on writing
processes in individual writing conditions should attempt to (a) make digital writing more prom-
inent; (b) go beyond time-​constrained writing conditions and look into the time-​distributed nature of
writing and writing processes in real-​life writing tasks; (c) explore more the effect of task conditions
on writing processes rather than on writing products (the general tendency in extant research. See
Chapters 4 and 5, this volume); and (d) study individual differences in the processing dimension
of writing (as more fully discussed in Chapters 11, 12, and 22, this volume). Such explorations
will further our insights on what specific processes may support language learning under what
conditions.

Collaborative Writing
To increase ecological validity, collaborative writing research should include the study of processes
in their authentic contexts. Accordingly, as most collaborative writing takes place online, more work
is needed on different collaboration types and interaction patterns that emerge in digitally-​mediated
contexts (cf. Cho, 2017). We also need more work that explores collaborative group writing, instead
of pair work. From a pedagogic perspective, also more research looking into the effects of different
task types is needed (e.g., Révész, Kourtali & Mazgutova, 2017) and, for example, tasks with multi-
modal input (Lim & Polio, 2020).
Following the dynamic turn, we need studies that account for the fluctuating nature of
collaborators’ interactions and more advanced statistical approaches to identify varying interaction
75
 Marije Michel et al.

patterns at different stages of the process (Zhang, 2019). Studies focusing on the dynamic changes
of interaction during writing will increase our understanding of how, when, and why collaborative
writing potentially supports language learning. Similarly, the little research that exists on interactive
writing during text chat that has taken a processing perspective will need to be complemented in
order to allow interpretations about how the affordances of this medium support language learning.

Research Methods
Several chapters in this Handbook (especially Chapters 22, 23, and 25) discuss needed methodo-
logical innovations in the study of writing processes. We will only add that, to date, most work
focusing on writing processes in an L2 has relied on laborious transcription and hand-​coding of
the data. Consequently, not that many large-​scale studies exist (but see Michel et al. 2020 for a rare
exception). Without expanding our populations, insights remain local and might be of little value
for practice (see also Chapter 22, this volume). Therefore, future research into individual and col-
laborative writing will benefit from using advanced technological tools, which allow more quantita-
tive approaches to directly measure writing processes and behaviors (Révész & Michel, 2019a). In
particular, software packages that combine several methodologies (e.g., eye tracking and keystroke
logging by Chukharev-​Hudilainen et al., 2019) are likely to substantially expand our knowledge of
writing processes, as well as reading processes in the context of writing.
For digitally-​mediated contexts, we need more studies using text mining techniques (cf. Yim &
Warschauer, 2017) as they will provide deeper insights into how producing and revising one’s own
and someone else’s text interrelate. To enhance our understanding of collaborative processes that
go beyond typing text, more research using eye tracking will be relevant. In particular, instrument
and techniques triangulation − for instance, text mining, eye tracking, and stimulated recall − will
allow a more comprehensive perspective on collaborative writing processes.
Similarly, collaborative writing processes underlying text-​chat interaction (with peers, a tutor, or
a chatbot) deserve academic attention given that it is still an empirical question how interaction in
these environments supports language learning.
Research into L2 writing processes, be it in individual or collaborative contexts, has still many
avenues to explore. Future work will provide further insights into how the cognitive and social pro-
cess of engaging in text production supports language learning.

References
Abrams, Z. (2016). Exploring collaboratively written L2 texts among first-​year learners of German in
Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1259–​1270. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09588
221.2016.1270968
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García-​Mayo, M.P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by
low-​proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M.P. García-​Mayo (Ed.), Second language acquisi-
tion: Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 91–​116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Alghasab, M., & Handley, Z. (2017). Capturing (non-​)collaboration in wiki-​mediated collaborative writing
activities: The need to examine discussion posts and editing acts in tandem. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 30(7), 664–​691. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09588221.2017.1341928
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyzing group dynamics and revi-
sion processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431–​448. https://​doi.org/​10.11139/​cj.29.3.431-​448
Barkaoui, K. (2019). What can L2 writers’pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes? Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 529–​554.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Byrnes, H., & Manchón, R.M. (Eds.). (2014). Task-​based language learning-​Insights from and for L2 writing.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chen, W., & Hapgood, S. (2019). Understanding knowledge, participation and learning in L2 collaborative
writing: A metacognitive theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 36, 136216881983756. https://​
doi.org/​10.1177/​1362168819837560

76
 L2 Writing Processes & L2 Learning

Chen, W., & Yu, S. (2019). A longitudinal case study of changes in students’ attitudes, participation, and
learning in collaborative writing. System, 82, 83–​96. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.system.2019.03.005
Chenoweth, A., & Hayes, J. (2003). The inner voice in writing. Written Communication, 20, 99–​118.
Cho, H. (2017). Synchronous web-​ based collaborative writing: Factors mediating interaction among
second-​language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 37–​51. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jslw.
2017.05.013.
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.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-​language proficiency. Language Learning: A Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 39, 81–​141.
Cumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7, 31–​51.
Cumming, A. (2020). L2 writing and L2 learning: Transfer, self-​regulation, and identities. In R. M. Manchón
(Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 30-​ 48). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of
different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–​59.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies,
genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52–​60.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and
Communication, 32(4), 365−387.
Galbraith, D. (2009). Cognitive models of writing. German as a Foreign Language, 2(3), 7–​22.
Galbraith, D. & Vedder, I. (2019). Methodological advances in investigating L2 writing processes. Challenges
and perspectives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41 (3), 633–​645.
Gánem-​Gutiérrez, A. & Gilmore, A. (2018). Tracking the real-​time evolution of a writing event: Second lan-
guage writers at different proficiency levels. Language Learning, 68(2), 469–​506.
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten
& J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 180–​206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hamel, M.-​J., Séror, J., & Dion, C. (2015). Writers in action: Modelling and scaffolding second-​language
learners’ writing process. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 11, 329–​350.
Hayes, J.R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C.M. Levy & S.
Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–​27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J.R. (2012). Evidence from language bursts, revision, and transcription for translation and its relation to
other writing processes. In M. Fayol, D. Alamargot, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Translation of thought to written
text while composing (pp. 15–​25). New York: Psychology Press.
Hassaskhah, J., & Mozaffari, H. (2015). The impact of group formation method (student-​selected vs. teacher-​
assigned) on group dynamics and group outcome in EFL creative writing. Journal of Language Teaching
and Research, 6(1), 147. https://​doi.org/​10.17507/​jltr.0601.18.
Kellogg, R. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of
writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–​72). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-​initiated attention to form in wiki-​based collaborative writing. Language Learning
& Technology, 13(1), 79–​95.
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in aca-
demic web-​based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–​109.
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue
between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–​234. https://​
doi.org/​10.1177/​1362168807086288
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2011). Using pretask modelling to encourage collaborative learning opportunities.
Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 183–​199. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​1362168810388711
Kormos, J. 2011. Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance.
Journal of Second Language Writing 20(2), 148–​161.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language
awareness. Language Awareness, 3(1), 73–​93.
Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning (pp. 1–​26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

77
 Marije Michel et al.

Leeser, M.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching
Research, 8(1), 55–​81. https://​doi.org/​10.1191/​1362168804lr134oa
Li, M., & Kim, D. (2016). One wiki, two groups: Dynamic interactions across ESL collaborative writing tasks.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 25–​42. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jslw.2016.01.002
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017a). Explaining dynamic interactions in wiki-​based collaborative writing. Language
Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96–​120.
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2017b). Good or bad collaborative wiki writing: Exploring links between group
interactions and writing products. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 38–​53. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​
j.jslw.2017.01.003
Lim, J., & Polio, C. (2020). Multimodal assignments in higher education: Implications for multimodal writing
tasks for L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47.
Leijten, M., Van Waes, L., Schrijver, I., Bernolet, S., & Vangehuchten, L. (2019). Mapping master’s students’
use of external sources in source-​based writing in L1 and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
41(3), 555–​582.
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching,
51(3), 285–​329.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie &
T.K. Bathia (Eds.), Second language acquisition: Vol. 2. Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–​468).
New York: Academic Press.
López-​Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J., & Manchón, R.M. (2019). Language reflection fostered by individual
L2 writing tasks: Developing a theoretically-​motivated and empirically-​based coding system. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 41, 503–​527.
López Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J., & Manchón, R.M. (2020). Reprocessing output during L2 individual
writing tasks: An exploration of depth of processing and the effects of proficiency. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.),
Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 231–​253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school
students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437–​455. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.system.2008.02.004
Manchón, R.M. (2011). Situating the learning-​ to-​write and writing-​to-​
learn dimensions of L2 writing.
In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-​to-​write and writing-​to-​learn in an additional language (pp. 3–​16).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R.M. (Ed.). (2020a). Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Manchón, R.M. (2020b). The language learning potential of L2 writing: Moving forward in theory and
research. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 405–​
426). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R.M. (2021). The contribution of ethnographically-​oriented approaches to the study of L2 writing
and text production processes. In A. Bocanegra & I. Guillén (Eds), Ethnographies of academic writing
research: Theory, methods, and interpretation (pp. 83–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R.M. & Leow, R. (2020). An ISLA perspective on L2 learning through writing: Implications for
future research agendas. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research
agendas (pp. 336–​355). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchón, R.M. & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-​to-​learn in instructed language learning contexts. In
E.A. Soler & M.P.S. Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–​121).
Berlin: Springer.
Manchón, R.M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-​solving nature
of foreign language composing processes: Implications for theory. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in for-
eign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–​129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R.M. & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and
empirical evidence. In J.B. Schwieter, & A. Benati, (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning
(pp. 341–​362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, K., Crawford, W., & Vleeschauwer, J. de (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collabora-
tive writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In M. Sato & S.G. Ballinger (Eds.), Language learning
& language teaching. Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research
agenda (pp. 185–​207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Michel, M. (2018). Practising online with your peers: The role of text chat for second language develop-
ment. In C. Jones (Ed.), Practice in second language learning (pp. 164–​174). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Michel, M., & O’Rourke, B. (2019). What drives alignment during text chat with a peer vs. a tutor? Insights
from cued interviews and eye-​tracking. System, 83, 50–​63. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.system.2019.02.009

78
 L2 Writing Processes & L2 Learning

Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N.E., Lee, M., & Borges, L. (2020). Investigating L2 writing
processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-​methods study. Second Language Research,
36(3), 277–​304. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0267658320915501
Michel, M., & Stiefenhöfer, L. (2019). Priming Spanish subjunctives during synchronous computer-​mediated
communication: German peers’ classroom-​based and homework interactions. In M. Sato & S. Loewen
(Eds.), Evidence-​based second language pedagogy (pp. 191–​218). New York: Routledge.
Ong, J. (2013). Discovery of ideas in second language writing task environment. System 41(3), 529–​542.
Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 23. 17–​30.
O’Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-​based syn-
chronous computer mediated communication and language learning. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 21(3), 227–​251.
O’Rourke, B. (2012). Using eye-​tracking to investigate gaze behaviour in synchronous computer-​mediated
communication for language learning. In M. Dooly & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), Researching online foreign lan-
guage interaction and exchange: Theories, methods and challenges (pp. 305–​341) Bern: Peter Lang
Polio, C., & Friedman, D.A. (2017). Understanding, evaluating, and conducting second language writing
research. New York: Routledge.
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college
student writers. Language Learning, 37, 439–​468.
Révész, A., Kourtali, N., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and
linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–​241.
Révész, A. & Michel, M. (Eds.) (2019a). Methodological advances in investigating L2 writing processes.
Special Issue, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3).
Révesz, A. & Michel, M. (2019b). Introduction. In A. Révész & M. Michel (Eds.), Methodological advances
in investigating L2 writing processes. Special Issue in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3),
491–​501.
Révész, A. Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2017). Investigating IELTS academic Writing Task 2: Relationships
between cognitive writing processes, text quality, and working memory. IELTS Research Reports, 3, 5–​44.
Révész, A., Michel, M., & Lee, M. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviors: A
mixed-​methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 605–​631.
Roca de Larios, J., Manchón, R.M., Murphy, L., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic
behavior in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–​47.
Roca de Larios, J., Nicolás-​Conesa, F., & Coyle, Y. (2016). Focus on writers: Processes and strategies. In
R.M. Manchón & P.K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 267–​286).
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-​to-​face and computer-​
mediated contexts. In M. Sato & S.G. Ballinger (Eds.), Language Learning & Language Teaching. Peer
Interaction and Second Language Learning: Pedagogical Potential and Research Agenda (pp. 267–​289).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–​32).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Séror, J. (2013). Screen capture technology: A digital window into students’ writing processes. Canadian
Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–​16.
Smith, B. E., Pacheco, M. B., & De Almeida, C. R. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’
processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6−22.
Stiefenhöfer, L., & Michel, M. (2020) Investigating the relationship between peer interaction and writing
processes in computer-​supported collaborative L2 writing: A mixed-​methods study. In R.M. Manchón (Ed.),
Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 256–​279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–​158. https://​
doi.org/​10.1111/​1467-​9922.00179
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language devel-
opment. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–​114. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​09658410802146644
Storch, N. (2017). Implementing and assessing collaborative writing activities in EAP classes. In J. Bitchener,
N. Storch, & R. Wette (Eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students: instruc-
tional approaches (pp. 130–​142). New York: Routledge.
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1),
31–​48. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​1362168812457530
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: the effect of collaboration. In M. d. P. García Mayo
(Ed.), Second language acquisition: Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 157–​177).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

79
 Marije Michel et al.

Strobl, C. (2014). Affordances of Web 2.0 technologies for collaborative advanced writing in a foreign lan-
guage. CALICO Journal, 31(1), 1–​18. https://​doi.org/​10.11139/​cj.31.1.1-​18
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp.
235–​253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The Output Hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 158–​164.
Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dia-
logue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (97–​114). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H.
Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–​108).
London: Continuum.
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second
language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research,
11(2), 121–​142. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​136216880607074599.
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 21, 321–​331.
Yim, S., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Web-​based collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Methodological insights
from text mining. Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 146–​165.
Zhang, M. (2019). Towards a quantitative model of understanding the dynamics of collaboration in collabora-
tive writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 16–​30. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jslw.2019.04.001
Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-​mediated com-
munication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61–​67. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jslw.2017.05.014
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-​mediated TBLT, performance, and production.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–​163.

80