Writing Process Feedback Based on Keystroke Logging and Comparison With Exemplars: Effects on the Quality and Process of Synthesis Texts

Nina Vandermeulen; Elke Van Steendam; Sven De Maeyer; Gert Rijlaarsdam

doi:10.1177/07410883221127998

Written Communication Jan 2023 Open Access

Writing Process Feedback Based on Keystroke Logging and Comparison With Exemplars: Effects on the Quality and Process of Synthesis Texts

Nina Vandermeulen Umeå University ; Elke Van Steendam KU Leuven ; Sven De Maeyer ; Gert Rijlaarsdam University of Amsterdam

Abstract

This intervention study aimed to test the effect of writing process feedback. Sixty-five Grade 10 students received a personal report based on keystroke logging data, including information on several writing process aspects. Participants compared their writing process to exemplar processes of equally scoring (position-setting condition) or higher-scoring students (feed-forward condition). The effect of the feedback on writing performance and process was compared to a national baseline study. Results showed that feed-forward process feedback had an effect on text quality comparable to one grade of regular schooling. The feedback had an effect on production, pausing, revision, and source use, which indicates that it supported participants in self-regulating their writing process. Additionally, we explored the students’ perception of the feedback to get an insight into its strengths and weaknesses. This study shows the potential of writing process feedback and discusses pedagogical implications and options for future research.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2023-01-01
DOI: 10.1177/07410883221127998
CompPile
Open Access: OA PDF Hybrid
Topics: writing pedagogy revision
Export: BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (69) · 15 in this index

10.1080/07370008.2018.1456431

↗
Baaijen et al. (2012)

Keystroke Analysis: Reflections on Procedures and Measures

Written Communication
10.1037/a0022545

↗
Eckstein et al. (2018)

Assessment of L2 Student Writing: Does Teacher Disciplinary Background Matter?

Journal of Writing Research
10.1037/edu0000206

↗

Show all 69 →

10.1002/rrq.197

↗
10.1207/s1532690xci1202_2

↗
10.3102/00346543065003245

↗
10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354

↗
10.1080/02602938.2016.1211246

↗
10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687

↗
10.1080/02602938.2019.1666084

↗
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101297

↗
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.10.003

↗
10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00272-5

↗
Speltz et al. (2021)

The effect of automated fluency-focused feedback on text production

Journal of Writing Research
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.004

↗
Graham et al. (2014)

Conducting High Quality Writing Intervention Research: Twelve Recommendations

Journal of Writing Research
Graham et al. (2018)

An Examination of the Design Principles Underlying a Self-Regulated Strategy De…

Journal of Writing Research
10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

↗
10.1080/02602930903201669

↗
10.3102/003465430298487

↗
10.1080/0309877X.2017.1349894

↗
Hayes J. R. (1980)

Cognitive processes in writing
10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807

↗
10.1080/02602930903128904

↗
Hillocks G. (1986)

Research on written composition: New directions for teaching
Koster et al. (2015)

Teaching children to write: A meta-analysis of writing intervention research

Journal of Writing Research
Leijten et al. (2013)

Keystroke Logging in Writing Research: Using Inputlog to Analyze and Visualize …

Written Communication
Leijten M. (2020)

Chinese Journal of Second Language Writing
10.1017/S0272263119000251

↗
10.1080/19388079709558252

↗
10.4018/978-1-59904-895-6.ch011

↗
10.1163/9789004392526

↗
10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9

↗
Martínez et al. (2015)

Learning history by composing synthesis texts: Effects of an instructional prog…

Journal of Writing Research
10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6

↗
Myhill et al. (2007)

More Than Just Error Correction: Students' Perspectives on Their Revision Proce…

Written Communication
10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314

↗
10.1080/03075070600572090

↗
10.1080/02602938.2013.795518

↗
10.1007/s10758-015-9265-5

↗
10.1080/0260293022000001337

↗
Parr et al. (2010)

Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress

Assessing Writing
Ranalli et al. (2018)

Exploring the potential of process-tracing technologies to support assessment f…

Assessing Writing
Rijlaarsdam G. (2018)

Design principles for teaching effective writing. Studies in writing series
10.1080/0305498870130207

↗
10.1007/BF00117714

↗
10.1002/acp.3702

↗
10.1006/ceps.1993.1024

↗
10.1080/08957347.2019.1577245

↗
Solé et al. (2013)

Integrating Information: An Analysis of the Processes Involved and the Products…

Written Communication
Spivey N., King J. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26…

↗
10.1163/9789004248489_003

↗
10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.001

↗
Van der Kaap A., Van Silfhout G. (2018). Formatieve evaluatie: Werken aan groei. SLO (National Institute for …
Vandermeulen N. (2020)

Pedagogische Studiën
Vandermeulen et al. (2020)

Reporting Writing Process Feedback in the Classroom. Using Keystroke Logging Da…

Journal of Writing Research
10.1007/s11145-019-09958-3

↗
Ockenburg et al. (2019)

Learning to write synthesis texts in secondary education: a review of intervent…

Journal of Writing Research
10.1037/edu0000755

↗
Waes et al. (2015)

Fluency in Writing: A Multidimensional Perspective on Writing Fluency Applied t…

Computers and Composition
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.018

↗
Vygotsky L. S. (1986)

Thought and language
Wiliam D. (2011)

Embedded formative assessment
10.1007/s10734-022-00818-8

↗
10.1080/09588221.2019.1632901

↗
10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

↗
10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.660

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 16 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Writing Process Feedback Based on Keystroke Logging and Comparison With Exemplars: Effects on the Quality and Process of Synthesis Texts

Abstract

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

References (69) · 15 in this index

Related Articles