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

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
Open Access: OA PDF Hybrid
Topics: revision

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (5)

Waes et al. (2015)

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

Computers and Composition
Leijten et al. (2013)

Keystroke Logging in Writing Research

Written Communication
Solé et al. (2013)

Integrating Information

Written Communication
Baaijen et al. (2012)

Keystroke Analysis

Written Communication
Myhill et al. (2007)

More Than Just Error Correction

Written Communication

Also cites 56 works outside this index ↓

10.1080/07370008.2018.1456431

↗
10.1037/a0022545

↗
10.17239/jowr-2018.10.01.01

↗
10.1037/edu0000206

↗
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

↗
10.17239/jowr-2021.13.02.02

↗
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.11.004

↗
10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.1

↗
10.17239/jowr-2018.10.02.02

↗
10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445

↗
10.1080/02602930903201669

↗
10.3102/003465430298487

↗
10.1080/0309877X.2017.1349894

↗
10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807

↗
10.1080/02602930903128904

↗
10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.2

↗
10.1017/S0272263119000251

↗
10.1080/19388079709558252

↗
10.4018/978-1-59904-895-6.ch011

↗
10.1163/9789004392526

↗
10.1007/s11251-013-9299-9

↗
10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.03

↗
10.1007/s11145-007-9086-6

↗
10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314

↗
10.1080/03075070600572090

↗
10.1080/02602938.2013.795518

↗
10.1007/s10758-015-9265-5

↗
10.1080/0260293022000001337

↗
10.1016/j.asw.2010.05.004

↗
10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.007

↗
10.1080/0305498870130207

↗
10.1007/BF00117714

↗
10.1002/acp.3702

↗
10.1006/ceps.1993.1024

↗
10.1080/08957347.2019.1577245

↗
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

↗
10.17239/jowr-2020.12.01.05

↗
10.1007/s11145-019-09958-3

↗
10.17239/jowr-2019.10.03.01

↗
10.1037/edu0000755

↗
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.018

↗
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: 15 View in citation network →