How observing the writing process can lead to better writing
At the start of the academic year, Michelle Czajkowski gives writing advice to new students, based on her many years of experience as a writing instructor and researcher.
What do you do when you write?
Imagine you’re working on a short essay for a university course. Do you plan first, or just start typing? Do you revise as you go, or wait until the end to edit? Do you turn to tools like spell check or Grammarly, or look for synonyms online? More importantly, which behaviors are truly helpful in improving your written text?
Why the writing process matters
In the past decade or so, it has become much easier to investigate how people write. Thanks to tools like screen recording and keystroke logging, we can now watch a writing process unfold: the pauses, the edits, and even the searches online for information. This opens up new possibilities, not just for research, but for improving how writing is taught and supported.
Research shows that the strategies we use while writing can be just as important as our linguistic knowledge. Several studies have shown that observation of the writing process can offer students and their teachers a new and useful perspective on how to improve their writing. This might mean watching a video of the process (Ranalli et al., 2018) or analyzing a graph illustrating their pausing and revision behaviour (Vandermeulen et al., 2020, 2023). Reflecting on the writing process helps students understand why their writing turned out the way it did, and what they can change next time.
The role of writing resources and the internet
One part of the writing process that’s become crucial to understand is how writers use digital tools like spell check or online dictionaries. Some students trust them too much, assuming the tools will catch every mistake. Others ignore helpful suggestions due to past bad experiences. Research shows that both extremes can lead to problems (Guo et al., 2022). Poorly chosen replacements, missed corrections, or awkward phrasing can all result from uncritical tool use.
In my own observations, I have seen students swap out simple words for “academic-sounding” ones found in online thesauruses, only to end up with awkward or confusing sentences. This isn’t just anecdotal; studies have shown that students need better guidance on when to trust these tools and when to lean on their own knowledge (Gilquin & Laporte, 2021).
A glimpse into the writing process of Radboud undergraduates
To add to our understanding of the difficulties that students face when learning academic writing, I conducted a small study with first-year students at Radboud University in which they wrote essays while their screen activity was recorded. I asked a group of experienced writing instructors to review the final texts, identifying issues in the written product, and then watch the screen recordings to understand what caused those issues during the writing process. In this way, instructors could link problems in the text (like awkward word choice or inconsistent structure) to specific behaviours (like skipping the planning stage or misusing online resources). Finally, they offered feedback to the writer. For example, rather than simply commenting “awkward phrasing,” teachers could say, “You chose a word from a thesaurus that doesn’t quite fit. Try checking how it’s used in example sentences next time.” Just as importantly, it helped avoid giving advice that wasn’t relevant: if a student revised constantly but still produced a strong final draft, other more relevant feedback could be offered instead.
In the next phase of the study, students themselves will reflect on their own writing process using a self-assessment guide.
How can you improve your writing process?
Whether you’re a student or an experienced writer, you can benefit from considering your writing process. Here are a few evidence-based tips:
- When planning, go beyond a simple list of vague ideas. Try outlining the structure of your argument as well, mapping your key points, and noting where sources or examples will go.
- Digital tools are helpful, but fallible. Before clicking “Accept Suggestion,” ask yourself: Does this actually improve the sentence? Use trusted dictionaries with example sentences to double-check word usage, and be extra cautious of using suggested words that you aren’t really familiar with.
- Fixing grammar is easy. But real revision involves rethinking your argument, clarifying your logic, and improving the structure. Try doing one revision pass focused on content, and a separate one for sentence-level fixes.
Try recording your screen during a writing session using a free tool like OBS Studio (obsproject.com). Rewatch the video later, considering the points above. You may spot surprising patterns.
Take part in the study
The Centre for Language Studies is currently studying what students see when they watch videos of themselves writing. Are you a first year student at Radboud and interested? Follow the link to find out more information on the study.
References
Gilquin, G., & Laporte, S. (2021). The Use of Online Writing Tools by Learners of English: Evidence From a Process Corpus. International Journal of Lexicography, 34(4), 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecab012
Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2022). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2312–2331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161
Ranalli, J., Feng, H.-H., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2018). Exploring the potential of process-tracing technologies to support assessment for learning of L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.007
Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Reporting Writing Process Feedback in the Classroom. Using Keystroke Logging Data to Reflect on Writing Processes. Journal of Writing Research, 12(vol. 12 issue 1), 109–140. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05
Vandermeulen, N., Van Steendam, E., De Maeyer, S., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2023). Writing Process Feedback Based on Keystroke Logging and Comparison With Exemplars: Effects on the Quality and Process of Synthesis Texts. Written Communication, 40(1), 90–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/07410883221127998
Author: Michelle Czajkowski
Editor: Jitse Amelink
Translator German: Carmen Ramoser
Translator Dutch: Anniek Corporaal
