Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL

Stevenson, Marie; Schoonen, Rob; Glopper, K. de

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.06.002

Cited by 127 publications

(203 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it was felt that such data gives limited indication of the processes involved. Adapting the revision framework developed by Severinson Eklundh and Kollberg (2003), Stevenson et al (2006) and Barkaoui (2016), all revisions logs were manually coded by the researcher according to four dimensions: location, domain, orientation, and action. Location refers to where a change took place in terms of the production of text.…”

Section: Revisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using keystroke logging to understand writers’ processes on a reading-into-writing test

Chan

2017

Lang Test Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Integrated reading-into-writing tasks are increasingly used in large-scale language proficiency tests. Such tasks are said to possess higher authenticity as they reflect real-life writing conditions better than independent, writing-only tasks. However, to effectively define the reading-into-writing construct, more empirical evidence regarding how writers compose from sources both in real-life and under test conditions is urgently needed. Most previous process studies used think aloud or questionnaire to collect evidence. These methods rely on participants' perceptions of their processes, as well as their ability to report them. Findings: This paper reports on a small-scale experimental study to explore writers' processes on a reading-into-writing test by employing keystroke logging. Two L2 postgraduates completed an argumentative essay on computer. Their text production processes were captured by a keystroke logging programme. Students were also interviewed to provide additional information. Keystroke logging like most computing tools provides a range of measures. The study examined the students' reading-intowriting processes by analysing a selection of the keystroke logging measures in conjunction with students' final texts and interview protocols.

show abstract

Section: Revisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using keystroke logging to understand writers’ processes on a reading-into-writing test

Chan

2017

Lang Test Asia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these highly complicated processes, writers' metacognition plays a key role (e.g., Stevenson Schoonen, & de Glopper, 2006). Metacognition is different from cognition as the former helps an individual understand and regulate how to perform the task, whereas the latter helps a person perform a task (Hacker, 1998;Schraw, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Control of Writing Strategy between High- and Low-performing Chinese EFL Writers

Wang¹,

Han²

2017

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-This study investigated metacognitive knowledge and control of writing strategy in English among 65 Chinese EFL learners in two argumentative writing tasks. Metacognitive knowledge was measured using a questionnaire written in simple present tense. Metacognitive control required writers to respond to a questionnaire written in simple past tense immediately following completion of each writing task according to the actual strategy use in the writing tasks. Students were grouped into high-and low-performing EFL writers using one standard error above or below the Mean scores of the writing tasks. One-way ANOVA was conducted on the four kinds of writing strategies (i.e., planning, cognitive, monitor-control, and evaluating). We found that while there were no differences on any type of the writing strategies for metacognitive knowledge, the two groups differed in the actual writing strategy use on each occasion. For the more familiar and easier writing topic, high-and low-performing students differed only in cognitive writing strategies. For the less familiar and more challenging writing task, high-achievers adopted significantly more planning, cognitive, and evaluating strategies than low-achievers. This research supported for distinction between metacognitive knowledge and control in EFL writing.

show abstract

“…Writing process models show the reasons behind revisions, whereas taxonomies re ect the impact of revision on the written text. e current article presents an overview of writing process revisions according to the writing model and focuses on the revisions made by native Russian-speaking learners of Estonian as a second language (L2) based on a multi-dimensional revision taxonomy (Stevenson et al 2006) as well as the taxonomy of Eva Lindgren and Kirk P. H. Sullivan (2006b). While earlier research has focused on comparison of revisions made in rst and second/foreign language writing, the present study aims to describe revisions made in the writing of native Russian-speaking learners of Estonian as an L2, across A2, B1, B2 and C1 pro ciency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).…”

Section: O L G a P A S T U H H O V A Tallinn Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Eesti keele kui teise keele kirjutamisprotsessi paranduste multidimensionaalne võrdlus keeleoskustasemeti

Pastuhhova¹

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revising in two languages: A multi-dimensional comparison of online writing revisions in L1 and FL

Cited by 127 publications

References 32 publications

Using keystroke logging to understand writers’ processes on a reading-into-writing test

Using keystroke logging to understand writers’ processes on a reading-into-writing test

Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Control of Writing Strategy between High- and Low-performing Chinese EFL Writers

Eesti keele kui teise keele kirjutamisprotsessi paranduste multidimensionaalne võrdlus keeleoskustasemeti

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About