Abstract

Using eye-tracking and interview methods, this study investigates how business communication students and editing students attend to and evaluate writing. Participants reviewed blog posts embedded with errors and judged publication readiness. While both groups visually fixated longer on errors than non-errors, business communication students were more likely to approve error-containing texts for publication. Qualitative data revealed that business communication students prioritized content while editing students prioritized surface-level issues. These findings suggest that disciplinary background informs evaluative standards, even when error-detection behavior is similar. The results carry implications for instruction in business writing and editing, especially concerning collaborative, cross-disciplinary workplace writing.

Journal
Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
Published
2025-11-29
DOI
10.1177/23294906251388067
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (14)

  1. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  2. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  3. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  4. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly
  5. College Composition and Communication
Show all 14 →
  1. Across the Disciplines
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. Research in the Teaching of English
  4. College Composition and Communication
  5. College Composition and Communication
  6. College Composition and Communication
  7. College Composition and Communication
  8. College English
  9. College Composition and Communication
Also cites 31 works outside this index ↓
  1. Alderson J. Wall D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14(2) 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/a…
  2. Anson C. M. Schwegler R. A. Horn S. R. (2009). The promise of eye-tracking methodology for research on writin…
  3. Atkinson D. Ramanathan V. (1995). Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university wri…
  4. Bremner S. (2010). Collaborative writing: Bridging the gap between the textbook and the workplace. English fo…
  5. Brown J. D. (1991). Do English and ESL faculties rate writing samples differently? TESOL Quarterly 25(4) 587–…
  6. Colen K. Petelin R. (2004). Challenges in collaborative writing in the contemporary corporation. Corporate Co…
  7. Conklin K. Pellicer-Sanchez A. (2016). Using eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language research…
  8. Costino K. A. Hyon S. (2011). Sidestepping our “scare words”: Genre as a possible bridge between L1 and L2 co…
  9. Doan S. (2019). Contradictory comments: Feedback in professional communication service courses. IEEE Transact…
  10. Eckstein G. Casper R. Chan J. Blackwell L. (2018). Assessment of L2 student writing: Does teacher disciplinar…
  11. Elder C. Golombek P. Weigle S. C. Boldt H. Valsecchi M. I. (2003). Effects of task and rater background on th…
  12. Eskenazi M. A. (2024). Best practices for cleaning eye movement data in reading research. Behavior Research 5…
  13. Godfroid A. Spino L. (2015). Reconceptualizing reactivity of think-alouds and eye tracking: Absence of eviden…
  14. Gooch J. C. (2005). The dynamics and challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration: A case study of “cortical…
  15. Gray L. S. Heuser P. (2003). Nonacademic professionals’ perception of usage errors. Journal of Basic Writing …
  16. Just M. A. Carpenter P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Re…
  17. 10.1075/ata.18.11law
  18. Lee C. H. Taft M. (2009). Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL ef…
  19. Lentz P. (2013). MBA students’ workplace writing: Implications for business writing pedagogy and workplace pr…
  20. Leonard D. J. Gilsdorf J. W. (1990). Language in change: Academics’ and executives’ perceptions of usage erro…
  21. Luke S. G. (2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods 49(…
  22. Rayner K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bu…
  23. Rayner K. (2009). Eye movements in reading: Models and data. Journal of Eye Movement Research 2(5) 1–10. http…
  24. Rayner K. White S. J. Johnson R. L. Liversedge S. P. (2006). Raeding wrods with jubmled lettres: There is a c…
  25. Reichle E. D. Pollatsek A. Rayner K. (2006). E-Z Reader: A cognitive-control serial-attention model of eye-mo…
  26. Rifkin B. Roberts F. D. (1995). Error gravity: A critical review of research and design. Language Learning 45…
  27. Roundy N. Thralls C. (1983). Modeling the communication context: A procedure for revision and evaluation in b…
  28. Rubin D. L. Williams-James M. (1997). The impact of writer nationality on mainstream teachers’ judgments of c…
  29. Seshadri S. Theye L. D. (2000). Professionals and professors: Substance or style? Business Communication Quar…
  30. Silva T. Leki I. (2004). Family matters: The influence of applied linguistics and composition studies on seco…
  31. Søby K. F. Ishkhanyan B. Kristensen L. B. (2023). Not all grammar errors are equally noticed: Error detection…
CrossRef global citation count: 0 View in citation network →