Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Roeser, J. Olive, T., & Grabowski, J. (2021 – early view). Measuring and assessing typing skills in writing research. Journal of Writing Research, 13(x) | PDF
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Designing keystroke logging research in writing studies. Chinese Journal of Second Language Writing [二语写作], 1(1), 18-39 | PDF | reference corpus can be downloaded here.
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(1), 109-140 https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05 | PDF | video
Bowen, N., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Exploring revisions in academic text: Closing the gap between process and product approaches in digital writing. Written Communication, 37(3), 322-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320916508
Van Waes, L., Leijten, M., Pauwaert, T., & Van Horenbeeck, E. (2019). A multilingual copy task: Measuring typing and motor skills in Writing with Inputlog. Journal of Open Research Software, 7(1:30), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.234
… and have access to the source code and more detailed background information on Github.
In Inputlog 8.0.17 we are happy to introduce the following improvements:
- Versioning: new setting to store timed intermediate document versions
- Writers’ comments: possibility to add meta comments in a pop-up window upon closing a session
- Copy task analysis: Italian added
In June 2020 we were invited by our Chinese colleagues in Jinan to take care of an introductory webinar on Inputlog. We titled it “Using keystroke logging in your research … and in your classroom”.
It was presented at the 2nd Conference on Second Language Teaching and Research 2020, Shandong University (China) | subtitled video
The copy task is available in ten languages, including now also Norwegian.
A heartfelt thank you to Anne Sætersdal Myklestad & Vibeke Ronneberg (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences & University of Stravanger, Norway). They were so kind to design the Norwegian copy task.
Have a look?
In Inputlog 8.0.05 we are happy to introduce the following improvements:
- Pause analysis: the algorithm to define P-bursts has been refined;
- Revision analysis: the identification of ‘normal production bursts’ has been improved;
- Fluency analysis: the time labeling of intervals has been corrected;
- Source analysis: the recoding log file can now also be imported to correct and optimize your recoding frame.
From now on, the copy task is also available in Portuguese.
A heartfelt thank you to Teresa Limpo (University of Porto). She was so kind to design the Portuguese copy task.
In view of the release of Inputlog 8 and of the SIG Writing Conference later this month, we figured the website could do with a makeover.
The new website does not only have a new look that is also fit for mobile devices, it also contains some new content. Have fun exploring! If you discover any hiccups, please let us know.
We are happy to release Inputlog version 8.0. This version is a major update of the program, and guarantees upward compatibility.
Extra features include:
- Inputlog is optimized for Windows 10.
- A standardized copy task has been added and is now available in eight languages. The analysis of this task enables researchers to characterize motoric and low level processes from different perspectives (e.g., with respect to bigram frequency, task complexity, keyboard layout).
Welcome to our Inputlog workshop at
Summer school on process and product methodologies in translation and interpreting studies | July 2017 | Ghent, Belgium
Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS) are rapidly evolving areas of study. More advanced methodologies are being used for the collection and analysis of data, ranging from corpora to experimental data sets. read more…
If you publish or present a paper in which Inputlog has been used, please refer to the following article:
Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze Writing Processes. Written Communication 30(3), 358-392